Recent WWE vs WWF in the 80's

[Guest fanofcoils]

It isn't proven fans get excited during a great match. For instance Dean Malenko vs Chris Benoit at Hog Wild 96. They could get excited during a great match for other reasons. Gimmick matches are to shake things up.

[Guest Loss]

You're relying on one overplayed example to make a global point. Look at all the best matches in wrestling history. Have any of them had problems getting heat? No.

[Guest fanofcoils]

HBK-Bret Hart at WM XII had problems getting heat before the end.

[Guest Loss]

Then, it wasn't a great match.

[Guest fanofcoils]

Your opinion, many people think otherwise (it has been voted on deathvalleydriver.com as one of the top 10 I believe matches in WWE in the 1990s). So some people do think it is great but the match didn't get heat during the technical stuff in the beginning and middle.

[Guest Loss]

Your opinion, many people think otherwise.

Obviously, the fans in attendance didn't. I don't think it is because they laid on the mat without doing anything to add any zest or energy to the matwork. The last 30 minutes was great. They were also hampered by the fact that they were in an atmosphere that expected frequent pinfalls, and they delivered none. The match would have come across better had they just happened to wrestle 60 minutes. If someone wants to call it a great match, have at it, but obviously, the fans in the arena that night agreed with me.

[Guest fanofcoils]

The HHH-Benoit ironman match failed to deliver good ratings until the end of it.

[Guest Loss]

That's because it wasn't a great match. It didn't get any heat either. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Long doesn't mean good anyway. There have been better 5-10 minutes matches on RAW this year than HHH/Benoit was.

[justcoz 0]

No you don't know for sure. People can cheer Hogan for his effort for example, is that workrate? You no sold the argument that you can have no ability and try and have no workrate. Benoit had workrate in that match and he had effort. But effort does not equal workrate.

 

But in Benoit's case, and that's who we were speaking of, he does have workrate and the people gave the standing O because they were appreciative of the efforts he and Kurt displayed. Of course the majority of the audience would say that they were applauding the "efforts" of both men because only a portion of that audience actually speaks in smark/insider terms like "workrate" but it's a smarter audience today who know the difference between the athleticism of those guys vs. the athleticism of Heidenreich. Heidenreich may very well put forth effort each and every night, I would hope everyone on the roster does for the purpose of entertaining the fans. But it's highly doubtful that you'll ever see Heidenreich get a standing O out of sheer respect like Benoit and Angle.

 

Hogan was cheered because he entertained people, was full of charisma and brought a genuine excitement when he appeared in an arena. He's a rare breed. There are less than a handful of people that have rivaled Hogan. There would be a different energy level say... if it was Billy Jack Haynes vs. King Kong Bundy... even though the matches themselves would probably be layed out and worked similarly. If you put two ROH guys in the Rumble 2003 match and had them wrestle the same match as Kurt and Benoit, they'd be met with indifference at first but would probably have people standing on their feet as well by the end of the match. Because of workrate.

[Guest fanofcoils]

Was the Royal Rumble 2003 standing ovation for Benoit really that big? I know they gave him respect but I don't remember it being huge.

[Guest Loss]

Goodbye.

[Guest Coffey]

I always thought Benoit got the standing ovation because he came close but fell short or winning the title. It seemed like a "thanks for trying" applause to me.

[Guest Loss]

Which means they bought into the story because they were watching a great match. That's the whole argument.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Workrate? I've been in the business for 30 years and I've never heard that term used in the lockerroom. Go ask Johnny Valentine what his workrate is and he'll swat you out of the sky like a fly.

 

- Crudosm mask

[Guest Loss]

So long from Smarkansas, and Rudo, you've got to learn to pick your spots.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Go ask Johnny Valentine what his workrate is and he'll swat you out of the sky like a fly.

 

- Crudosm mask

That would be one hell of a trick if JV pulled that off.

[Guest Coffey]

Which means they bought into the story because they were watching a great match. That's the whole argument.

Which I agree with. I wouldn't have suspended him for having a different opinion though.

[Guest Loss]

That's not why he was suspended. He was suspended because instead of keeping his argument going in a positive direction, he started pulling examples out of his ass.

 

"Oh yeah, well there's Bret/Shawn at Wrestlemania XII?"

"Then, that wasn't a great match."

"Um, well, Benoit/HHH didn't draw ratings until the end this year."

"That wasn't a great match either. Great and long are two different things."

"Um, well, Benoit's ovation at the Rumble wasn't even that big."

 

I'm unsuspending him this afternoon, but this thread needed time to chill.

[strummer 0]

so is Hogan/Andre from WM 3 a great match?, it had great heat, and the fans appreciated it.

[Guest Coffey]

Appreciated Andre finally losing, Hogan keeping the belt and Hogan slamming Andre maybe.

[strummer 0]

but was it a great match?, Meltzer gave it -****. But was it a great match because it had great heat and fans were in the palms of their hands? Was Andre still a good worker then?

 

What about Piper/Adonis on the same show, great heat, was it a great match?

 

Hogan/Rock?

 

Bam Bam/LT?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Dammit Loss, you had to one-up me by suspending him in mid-argument. If this thread gets deleted...!

[Guest Loss]

This thread won't be deleted. It was only temporary anyway. He's back now, and I think things will be fine.

[Guest Loss]

This is going to seem like it contradicts what I said before, and maybe it does, but I thought it deserved clarification.

 

As far as I'm concerned, a great match will always have heat. Otherwise, it isn't a great match. Benoit/Malenko from Hog Wild '96 is about the only exception to that rule I can recall. What has heat isn't always a great match though.

[strummer 0]

This is going to seem like it contradicts what I said before, and maybe it does, but I thought it deserved clarification.

 

As far as I'm concerned, a great match will always have heat. Otherwise, it isn't a great match. Benoit/Malenko from Hog Wild '96 is about the only exception to that rule I can recall. What has heat isn't always a great match though.

Loss, can you explain further, I'm not sure I understand the point. If a match is great, it has heat, but if a match has heat, it's not necessarily good?

[Guest Loss]

What I'm saying is that a bad match can have all the heat in the world and it's still a bad match. A great match has to have heat to be good. It's one of the necessary qualities.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

There are surrounding factors which influence heat that may not be related to the content in the match. The crowd can be "into" a bad match if the two wrestlers are popular enough, the build was good enough, or if they just hadn't seen wrestling in a long time.

 

The objective of a wrestling match is to work the fans - to connect with them, to motivate them, to get them to cheer and boo, to make them feel like their money was well spent. If a technically great match fails to do it, then there was a disconnect. The wrestlers were too focused on went on in the ring than what was going on in the stands. It's a common problem with some indy matches where its just spot after spot after spot and guys looking to do something crazy where they assume the fans will react.

 

A big part of wrestling is "playing off the crowd" and it's something that was taught in the 80's that tends not to be taught now; and it certainly is something that is learned through experience. However, with that said, a form of it _is_ taught now, but it's typically cheap heat. Guys are taught high spots, how to work a formula, certain heat spots, how to insult the local sports team, but they don't know how to lead the fans along and get them to care. They don't know how to get a crowd that doesn't give a shit to take an interest. Sadly, in todays WWrEstling climate, there's a reason for that.

 

Hogan/Andre was a great match, btw. Fuck Meltzer.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Hogan/Andre was an awful match, but the wrestlers are more important than the match.

 

The Raiders/Titans game on Sunday was a good game, but who cares? There was nothing at stake and both teams suck. A potential Steelers/Eagles Super Bowl may end in a blow out, but it is a bigger game for a reason.

 

Hogan/Andre was the two biggest WWF stars of their era taking place at the top of the card of the biggest WWF show in history. That's what makes it great. And that is what is important to the WWF and to the fans. Nobody around here complains that it was the worst Wrestlemania Main Event ever, even though on a technical level it was. I call Hogan/Rock from Wrestlemania X-8 a bad match, not because it literally was, but because by that point Hogan had nothing left and I didn't want to see him anymore. To others it was a dream match. I love Wrestlemania IV, and there is only one good match on the entire card.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Hogan/Andre was a great match. Hogans selling and facial expressions were off-the-charts. The story was fantastic, where Hogan had to work and struggle and go through hell to keep his title. He couldn't win it right off the bat with a powerslam, he couldn't just hulk-up and get it over quickly, he had to tire the Giant down. This was incredibly difficult because Andre was playing the smart game - he maximized the smallest of moves to its full potential, but he also used a variety of moves to keep it from getting boring and repetitive (Hogans selling of each move was fantastic, he walked the line of over-the-top at times, but there is a lot of subtle selling that made the beating seem real). The key spot in this match was Andre backdropping Hogan onto the floor on the outside, and in doing so expended the most amount of energy (what he was trying to avoid for the whole match). Quickly after that Hogan was able to get Andre down and from there it was over.

 

The pacing was unique for a WWE main event, and didn't run the regular formula that we now see. 95% of it was dominated by the heel (Andre was particularly good at elliciting a crowd reaction, in setting the tone) and the end came very quickly. It was a short match, 10 minutes at most, which was just right for the capabilities of the two men. Then there was the atmosphere, which was probably the best for any match I've seen in the WWE, and the commentating, which was well done.

[Slayer 0]

As I've said rather often, a big reason (IMO) for diminished heat over the last couple years was the moving of the audience behind the "fourth wall"