Wrestling Spam Zone Heated Debate (Currently serving up WWE Hall of Fame)

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

I missed it I guess. I will say Meltzer probably knows over ten times more about wrestling than I ever will, but that's just plain ******ed. It might not have been a technical masterpiece, but being what it was should have more than made up for that.

 

[X]

In my opinion there are several things that make up a match. Not just the in ring action. Angle, hype, drama, anticipation, significance, and action all contribute to a match. For example if two unkowns in a high school gym put on the same match hold for hold as Savage and Steamboat did at WM3 I wouldn't give a damn. Beacuse it was Savage vs. Steamboat in a great dramatic emotional feud in front of 93,000 people at WrestleMania the match was awesome.

I understand this and completely agree. I understand how to recognize a great match from a sports entertainment style of wrestling.

But tell me this: if Savage and Steamboat's Wrestlemania match was 10 minutes long and consisted of a bear hug for 9 of those minutes, would you call that a good match? Fuck no, the big heated feud wasn't blown off at all, we barely got to see them even begin to do battle.

 

[The Doctor]

In rating a match, I consider more than just the in-ring action. I think I gave Hart/McMahon at WM26 a C because of the whole story behind it and in it, but it wasn't as good as it should have been. Everyone else called it a dud because they were going by in-ring action alone.

I wasn't around for the Hogan/Andre so I can't realistically rate it because I've been given the tasty Youtube version but I'd probably give it a good grade because of the story going in and the whole moment that defined Wrestlemania and all that.

I suppose if you grade by in-ring action alone and no other factors, a low rating of Hogan/Andre (or Hart/McMahon, or any other match that was good on story but low on in-ring-wrestling-ness) makes sense. Not saying I agree with it though.

 

[The Brain]

I understand this and completely agree. I understand how to recognize a great match from a sports entertainment style of wrestling.

But tell me this: if Savage and Steamboat's Wrestlemania match was 10 minutes long and consisted of a bear hug for 9 of those minutes, would you call that a good match? Fuck no, the big heated feud wasn't blown off at all, we barely got to see them even begin to do battle.

I understand your point. The unfortunate fact is Andre was about two years too late for this match. He was obviously very limited as we all know. I just think all the other factors were enough to make up for the limited in ring action. It certainly wasn't a masterpiece of a match, but to give it negative four stars is a bit absurd.

 

[The Crock]

And this is you NOT wanting me to think you're stupid?


Again you haven't given me ONE indication that shows that Meltzer's opinion on wrestling, and specifically Danielson, should carry any weight in any discussion.

Ok, based on his (Meltzer's) opinion, the newsletter, Bill Watts would change matches... Not like anybody gives a rats ass about him. The ratings system originated with Cornette, so it is not Meltzers system.

 

[klunderbunker]

Ok, based on his opinion, the newsletter, Bill Watts would change matches... Not like anybody gives a rats ass about him. The ratings system originated with Cornette, so it is not Meltzers system.

Damn it stop keeping me from going on my walk!

 

[X]

Actually that Hogan formula wasn't standard back when Hogan was matched up with Andre. It was starting to show itself, but to say it was used a thousand times is a gross exaggeration. Has it been used thousands of times since? Absolutely, but at the time you can't really say it was.

It definitely was, Hogan had been champion for over 3 years at that point and considering the non-stop touring the WWF did in those days with all of the house shows, yes indeed the Hogan formula had long since been established and utilized many, many, many times before this. The Hogan formula isn't even that bad, it's fine when it fits into the context of the story, it's just the fact that in the match we got nothing to make us really believe that Hogan was in danger. Size is great, but we'd seen Hogan defeat the likes of the One Man Gang, Big John Studd, and other monster character. Yeah Andre was the biggest but I mean the match itself is just flat out boring, uninspired and didn't deliver on the massive expectations in my opinion.

I'm not going to sit here and argue the match was the most entertaining ever. But to say it's a negative 4 star match is just about as stupid as anything can ever be.

Oh I'm not arguing that at all, that's just silly is right. At most I'd have the match at **, maybe if I was being very generous **3/4. It's just...not....entertaining. The only part that is is the bodyslam and the pop for the 3 count.

There was no bigger threat than Andre, either figuratively or literally. Andre was the largest wrestler around, and was undefeated (or was at least billed that way). There was no bigger threat to Hulkamania.

I agree, which is why we should have seen that in the match. Andre should have thrown Hogan around like a rag doll to start out, and then work towards the Hogan hulk-up finish, but instead we just go straight to a rest hold, a few punches, a bodyslam and a legdrop and we're done. It sucks because if this match had taken place even just 5 years earlier when Andre was still good in the ring the match could have lived up to expectations, but in my eyes it just offered nothing to the fan to really blow off that feud.

 

[Slyfox696]

Ok, based on his (Meltzer's) opinion, the newsletter, Bill Watts would change matches... Not like anybody gives a rats ass about him. The ratings system originated with Cornette, so it is not Meltzers system.

Do you even know who Bill Watts is? Or are you just doing research on Wikipedia and quoting what you read?

Oh, and please tell me how changing matches that are supposed to be kept secret gives Meltzer an authority as understanding wrestling.

 

[The Crock]

Yeah I know who Watts is, WWE hall of famer... Shouldn't that mean something to you? A man of his importane actually tried to listen to Meltzer's criticism.

 

[Slyfox696]

It definitely was, Hogan had been champion for over 3 years at that point and considering the non-stop touring the WWF did in those days with all of the house shows, yes indeed the Hogan formula had long since been established and utilized many, many, many times before this. The Hogan formula isn't even that bad, it's fine when it fits into the context of the story, it's just the fact that in the match we got nothing to make us really believe that Hogan was in danger. Size is great, but we'd seen Hogan defeat the likes of the One Man Gang, Big John Studd, and other monster character. Yeah Andre was the biggest but I mean the match itself is just flat out boring, uninspired and didn't deliver on the massive expectations in my opinion.

I'm watching the match right now, and granted it's an abridged version (and I'm too lazy to pull out my DVD), but I don't see what you're talking about with the lack of storytelling and workrate. From what I've seen there's plenty of both.

The storyline going in was about Hogan slamming Andre...he couldn't and hurt his back. Andre worked the back and dominated the match until Hogan got his second wind and was finally able to bodyslam Andre.

And as far as the Hogan routine goes, he doesn't even use it in this match. Again I'm using an abridged version, but from what I can tell, Hogan gets dominated, but clotheslines Andre. Hogan then Hulks Up with Andre not even around, stands up and slams Andre and drops the leg. That's not a Hogan routine, it's not any routine.

I'd have to pull the DVD out, but I think you're wrong on this.

Oh I'm not arguing that at all, that's just silly is right. At most I'd have the match at **, maybe if I was being very generous **3/4. It's just...not....entertaining. The only part that is is the bodyslam and the pop for the 3 count.

Fair enough.

I agree, which is why we should have seen that in the match. Andre should have thrown Hogan around like a rag doll to start out, and then work towards the Hogan hulk-up finish

But Andre did throw Hogan around like a rag doll at the beginning and it all did work up to Hogan's comeback.

, but instead we just go straight to a rest hold, a few punches, a bodyslam and a legdrop and we're done. It sucks because if this match had taken place even just 5 years earlier when Andre was still good in the ring the match could have lived up to expectations, but in my eyes it just offered nothing to the fan to really blow off that feud.

You have to remember, wrestling was far different then than it is now in the WWE. Most matches were just a few minutes long, and even the main-event rarely went past 15 minutes.

Again, I agree it doesn't compare to a Hogan vs. Warrior match a few years later, but it's not a negative 4 star match, which we both agree on.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yeah I know who Watts is, WWE hall of famer... Shouldn't that mean something to you? A man of his importane actually tried to listen to Meltzer's criticism.

Yes, because when I think of Bill Watts, the first thing that comes to my mind is WWE Hall of Fame.


So what you're saying is that you really don't know who Bill Watts is. Which really isn't that bad, because in the grand scheme of things Watts really holds little importance today, but don't start tossing names around that you don't know.

And since you like your Wikipedia so much, feel free to research Bill Watts on there. I just did a little reading so I could plan on what you'd say...notice the part where Watts changed his card with Jake Roberts because of the local newspaper. Then get back to me about how Meltzer matters.

 

[The Crock]

I've used Wikipedia before, but not right now. Look, Watts was a wrestler turned booker, who Easy E doesn't like (I read his book), and he booked in WCW and the WWF. Good enough?

 

[The Doctor]

He was also racist.

 

[Slyfox696]

I've used Wikipedia before, but not right now. Look, Watts was a wrestler turned booker, who Easy E doesn't like (I read his book), and he booked in WCW and the WWF. Good enough?

Almost word for word from Wikipedia, even the part about Bischoff mentioning him in his book. Well done.

 

[The Crock]

He was also racist.

Mmhhm.

 

[The Crock]

Almost word for word from Wikipedia, even the part about Bischoff mentioning him in his book. Well done.

No it's not! I had heard about Watts a lot but I never really cared enough to learn about him until his HOF induction. The only times I heard of him before was during the 90s and in Easy E's book.

 

[Thriller Ant]

A couple things I want to comment on from the thread:

1.

No, the world's greatest technical wrestler would be Kurt Angle. The thing is, and I have explained this oh about 10,238 times now, the amount of moves you know or how good on a mat you are means nothing. If it did, William Regal vs. Dean Malenko would have headlined about 9 Wrestlemanias in a row. What matters is entertainment, which is why guys like Austin, Hogan and Cena, all of whom have incredibly limited movesets, are some of the biggest stars of all time and have made far more money for themselves and their companies than guys like Bret and Shawn.

Who is to say technical wrestling isn't entertainment? Maybe we'll just throw him in a leather vest, have him cuss a lot, and put on some simple matches, then he'll be entertaining.

2. Matches don't need to be foreign or indy to be awesome. They just need to not follow the same formula that 85% of WWE matches follow. Are they entertaining? Yeah, for the most part. Are they great matches? A lot of the time, no.

3. Whoever used Meltzer as an argument is ******ed. He's just another guy, like us, with an opinion. His is more widely read and probably has more experience with wrestling, but still just a guy with an opinion.

4. Sly, you have to be fucking kidding me by calling Meltzer a narcissist or whatever you said, then use Eric Bischoff and Hulk Hogan in your argument. Those two killed WCW and are trying to kill TNA because they think they are perfection incarnate.

5. If you rate the Hogan/Andre match solely based on the in-ring work, it is an awful match. That's what it was rated on. It's only when you add in the outside stuff with the angle going on that it become great. There are 2 separate ways to rate that match.

I think that's it. Have a lovely evening.

 

[The Doctor]

No it's not! I had heard about Watts a lot but I never really cared enough to learn about him until his HOF induction. The only times I heard of him before was during the 90s and in Easy E's book.

You should read Tenta's thread about him and WCW.

 

[The Crock]

A couple things I want to comment on from the thread:

1.

Who is to say technical wrestling isn't entertainment? Maybe we'll just throw him in a leather vest, have him cuss a lot, and put on some simple matches, then he'll be entertaining.

2. Matches don't need to be foreign or indy to be awesome. They just need to not follow the same formula that 85% of WWE matches follow. Are they entertaining? Yeah, for the most part. Are they great matches? A lot of the time, no.

3. Whoever used Meltzer as an argument is ******ed. He's just another guy, like us, with an opinion. His is more widely read and probably has more experience with wrestling, but still just a guy with an opinion.

4. Sly, you have to be fucking kidding me by calling Meltzer a narcissist or whatever you said, then use Eric Bischoff and Hulk Hogan in your argument. Those two killed WCW and are trying to kill TNA because they think they are perfection incarnate.

5. If you rate the Hogan/Andre match solely based on the in-ring work, it is an awful match. That's what it was rated on. It's only when you add in the outside stuff with the angle going on that it become great. There are 2 separate ways to rate that match.

I think that's it. Have a lovely evening.

I used Meltzer... I honesty didn't think it would turn into all these pages of me getting my ass kicked though.

 

[Slyfox696]

A couple things I want to comment on from the thread:

1.

Who is to say technical wrestling isn't entertainment? Maybe we'll just throw him in a leather vest, have him cuss a lot, and put on some simple matches, then he'll be entertaining.

Technical wrestling can be entertaining, no one said it couldn't. But just because you're a technical wrestler, doesn't automatically make you good.

4. Sly, you have to be fucking kidding me by calling Meltzer a narcissist or whatever you said, then use Eric Bischoff and Hulk Hogan in your argument. Those two killed WCW and are trying to kill TNA because they think they are perfection incarnate.

And you have to be fucking kidding me to act offended when YOU take my argument ENTIRELY out of the context in which it was offered. Go back and read it again, then apologize.

5. If you rate the Hogan/Andre match solely based on the in-ring work, it is an awful match.

No it wasn't. Watch it again, only watch it in the mind frame that more action doesn't necessarily mean better wrestling.

 

[The Crock]

Sly, shouldn't every match be judged on the same criteria? You can't say that Hogan - Andre has to be watched with a different mindset then every other match.

 

[The Doctor]

Yes you can.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sly, shouldn't every match be judged on the same criteria? You can't say that Hogan - Andre has to be watched with a different mindset then every other match.

Every match CAN be judged on the same criteria. But too many fans today don't understand that how that criteria was met was different 30 years ago than it is today.

Matches today are much faster paced, and rely much more heavily upon flashy moves than they did 20 or 30 years ago. Too many fans erroneously believe that big moves and fast pacing make great wrestling and that's just not true.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Technical wrestling can be entertaining, no one said it couldn't. But just because you're a technical wrestler, doesn't automatically make you good.

That I can agree with. I personally find technical wrestling more entertaining. I'd take the worst Danielson/Malenko match over just about any Stone Cold match.

And you have to be fucking kidding me to act offended when YOU take my argument ENTIRELY out of the context in which it was offered. Go back and read it again, then apologize.

You said that Hogan and Bischoff think that Meltzer is shit, and their opinion is valid because they were in the business. Meltzer gives his opinion on matches. That's it. Hogan and Bischoff did revolutionize business by helping to show the pinnacle of incompetency in running a wrestling company. I'll take a guy simply giving his opinions and thinking they are right over 2 guys who run 2 companies into the ground by thinking they're right any day.

No it wasn't. Watch it again, only watch it in the mind frame that more action doesn't necessarily mean better wrestling.

If I wanted to see long ass bear hugs and failed attempts at slams, I'd just go buy some ******ed kid a concrete teddy bear.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

So what does everyone think about HBK/Angle at WM 21?

My opinion: 3rd best match that night.