| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AndarielHalo
Total Nonstop AndarielHalo
South Sandwich Islands
1096 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2008 : 12:16:46
|
I'm sorry to have to ask and insult some maybe old people who watched Ric Flair go wooo and chop people in the 80s and such.
But I've watched a few matches from the WWF and WCW in the 80s and early 90s, and aside from being hoss-tacular shitfests or otherwise shitfests full of fake punching and stomping and clotheslines, I was never impressed.
Then I'm watching Jake "The Snake" Roberts "Pick Your Poison" DVD and aside from hearing about how great of a wrestler he is, and hearing how he's the master of psychology, I hear how great a wrestler he is.
I'm sorry if I insult Roberts fans but... the DVD completely failed to show me how he was so great with in-ring psychology. His best moments came from him telling stories and telling the story of his life. Maybe they meant that? And the promos shown on the DVD ranged the gamut from terrible to okay.
Then I'm watching what's considered to be a good match of Jake Roberts vs Rick Rude, and it was the most boring match I've seen in the WWF 80s. There was literally only stomping, punching, clotheslines, and restholds (CHINLOCKS YAY~!) before Roberts randomly hits a DDT out of nowhere and wins.
So I ask... did ALL wrestling in America (North America, minus Mexico) suck before the likes of ECW and WCW bringing real big-time technicians to America? Or is it just the WWF and WCW that sucked? And lots of minor promotions that relied on the same hosstastic pseudo-fights or 'wrasslin'?
And don't jump on me and beat me with the whole "stunt" wrestling thing and spotfests like in TNA or ROH sometimes. I mean the kind of wrestling from the likes of Dean Malenko, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, Bret Hart even, and even Rob Van Dam and Sabu with their EXTREEEMEness?
Was their style, pretty much basic technical wrestling perfected, truly so revolutionary in their day and had never been done before or was it traditional stuff seen outside of WWF and WCW in the 80s and such?
I don't consider myself an expert on judging wrestling quality, but my gut does know the difference between Eddie Guerrero vs Dean Malenko in ECW 1995 and Ultimate Warrior vs Hulk Hogan in Wrestlemania.
And my gut does NOT know the difference between Ultimate Warrior vs Hulk Hogan in Wrestlemania and Warrior vs Hollywood Hogan in Halloween Havoc. I did not see the Wrestlemania match as "better"---I saw them as identical in almost every way, except for the botched fire gag and Hogan winning at Halloween Havoc. EDIT: Even the crowd reaction was pretty much the same!
So what gives? Am I the only one who can't sit through 15 minutes of "classic" Rude and Roberts but will be on the edge of my seat for 30 minutes of classic Benoit and Angle? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills (that counter-act my already existing crazy pills)!
|
My thoughts exactly. |
Edited by - AndarielHalo on 08/22/2008 12:20:00 |
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
KING OF INTERNETS
Canada
269 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 14:18:18
|
The difference is that you have absolutely no emotional investment in these characters from the 80's. That's the factor that makes what is a boring match to one person seem great to others. Fundamentally, Hogan vs. Rock was probably the worst wrestled marquee match in Wrestlemania history, but people were so rabid for Hogan that it seemed exciting and was exciting. The Hogan vs. Warrior WM 6 match was great unlike the Halloween Havoc one, because people believed in both men as invincible at the time, and one had to lose. That was the story. By the time the rematch happened, Hogan--as a heel-- was so overexposed and Warrior was, well, Warrior, and it was ass. No one cared about Warrior in 1998, because Goldberg was doing his schtick minus the cartoony horse-shit.
The reactions make the matches. I liked that Rude vs. Roberts match because I cared about the feud at the time, and the story was Roberts finally hitting that DDT. That's the psychology people talk about. Jake was never fancy, but in his matches he had your biting for the DDT the whole time, and it'd build and build and build, then wham, you got what you wanted. The thing is, if you don't care about a character or a wrestler or a feud, the moves mean nothing (unless you're just into high spots). But if you do, it doesn't really matter what moves you use, as long as you time the payoff (the finish) perfectly. |
quote:
Originally posted by AndarielHalo:
By the transitive fallacy totally legit and real truth, that would mean that if Sean Carless defeated Vince McMahon, and Vince McMahon defeated the United States Federal Government... then Sean Carless defeated the United States Federal Government.
|
 |
|
|
AndarielHalo
Total Nonstop AndarielHalo
South Sandwich Islands
1096 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 18:12:03
|
What about the wrestling style? Clearly WWF had a more gimmick (not TNA-style gimmicky, but as in strong characters) centered wrestling, but were the sort of things like moonsaults and German Suplexes and all those technical/high flying things simply nonexistent before 1993 or were they all just invented in Japan and Mexico before being brought to mainstream wrestling as the territorial system was destroyed by McMahon and Turner?
And where would New Jack fit in to the wrestling scene pre-ECW? |
My thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
Gothekain
The Flamer
United Kingdom
106 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 18:14:52
|
I agree with Sean, simply because DVDs cannot have complete feuds that lead to a match, or a video package for every feud on it. Even then, the video package won't encompass the whole storyline correctly. A great storyline can last for weeks, months, even years, and unless you've sat through all of it from start to finish you'll never truely appreciate a storyline- enriched match. For years to come we'll hear about how great a story was, but since we know the story or know the outcome, unless we sat through it we'll never enjoy it the same.
An example - Ric Flair's final match at WM24. Whilst you could appreciate that Flair, at his age, pulled out all of his classic moves and spots to entertain the fans for 20mins (something he hasn't done for years), you really wouldn't know or care much for the match had you not known much about Flair beforehand, or knew of the storyline leading up to it. Even with the video package, it only gives some of the story. That story itself wold mean a helluva lot more to those who were there at the start of Flair's career 35 odd years ago. |
/sarcasm |
|
|
|
AndarielHalo
Total Nonstop AndarielHalo
South Sandwich Islands
1096 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 19:25:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gothekain
I agree with Sean, simply because DVDs cannot have complete feuds that lead to a match, or a video package for every feud on it. Even then, the video package won't encompass the whole storyline correctly.
Ohhh wut?
|
My thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
moopert
Mooper Scooper
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 20:52:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by AndarielHalo
What about the wrestling style? Clearly WWF had a more gimmick (not TNA-style gimmicky, but as in strong characters) centered wrestling, but were the sort of things like moonsaults and German Suplexes and all those technical/high flying things simply nonexistent before 1993 or were they all just invented in Japan and Mexico before being brought to mainstream wrestling as the territorial system was destroyed by McMahon and Turner?
And where would New Jack fit in to the wrestling scene pre-ECW?
I think those kinds of high flying moves and technical moves were brought in by WCW and ECW. I'm no huge historian, but the reason WCW kicked WWF's ass in the early-mid 90s was that the action was so much better and newer. |
Wait, I was promised a bowl of gravy. Where is it? |
|
|
|
AndarielHalo
Total Nonstop AndarielHalo
South Sandwich Islands
1096 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 09:24:44
|
My question still remains, really... with regards to wrestling in America.
But I surrender on the Jake Roberts issue. Watching some of the interviews on disc 2, I am hypnotized. |
My thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
jesustheclown
FCW Bathroom Attendant
187 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 19:51:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by moopert
quote:
Originally posted by AndarielHalo
What about the wrestling style? Clearly WWF had a more gimmick (not TNA-style gimmicky, but as in strong characters) centered wrestling, but were the sort of things like moonsaults and German Suplexes and all those technical/high flying things simply nonexistent before 1993 or were they all just invented in Japan and Mexico before being brought to mainstream wrestling as the territorial system was destroyed by McMahon and Turner?
And where would New Jack fit in to the wrestling scene pre-ECW?
I think those kinds of high flying moves and technical moves were brought in by WCW and ECW. I'm no huge historian, but the reason WCW kicked WWF's ass in the early-mid 90s was that the action was so much better and newer.
WCW was always second rate... They won in the ratings because of the nWo storyline and a TON of established high priced talent. WWF was always a better quality product hands down. ECW does deserve a lot of credit for what they did, but WCW?... No thank you, they always sucked. Still to this day it mystifies me that people actually prefered Nitro to Raw at ANY point in time. |
 |
|
|
|
kidego
WCW Historian
New Zealand
136 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 16:30:10
|
quote:
WCW was always second rate... They won in the ratings because of the nWo storyline and a TON of established high priced talent. WWF was always a better quality product hands down. ECW does deserve a lot of credit for what they did, but WCW?... No thank you, they always sucked. Still to this day it mystifies me that people actually prefered Nitro to Raw at ANY point in time.
WCW had lesser production, but the actual wrestling quality was always better (until the last year or so of its existence). And especially in 1995/96; you can't tell me that watching Diesel vs Sid or even Bret Hart vs Jerry Lawler was better than watching Pillman vs Liger or Benoit vs Guerrero
I think it has been said, but until ECW (and then WCW following them) started showcasing guys that had worked in Mexico and Japan, that style was very rarely seen. I still remember when the Blue Blazer debuted and thinking he was the most amazing wrestler I had ever seen! In the 80's, a lot of the smaller and actual 'technical' wrestlers tended to be put in tag teams to make them exciting and not have them show up the main eventers like Hogan and Warrior.
And Andy, I agree with you; to this day I can not believe people consider Ultimate Warrior vs Hulk Hogan at WMVI to be a 4 star classic. I remember watching it live as a kid and falling asleep because it was so damn boring. |
Lacey can do magic tricks. She's good; she's like that Curt Hennig! |
|
|
|
jesustheclown
FCW Bathroom Attendant
187 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 19:34:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by kidego
quote:
WCW was always second rate... They won in the ratings because of the nWo storyline and a TON of established high priced talent. WWF was always a better quality product hands down. ECW does deserve a lot of credit for what they did, but WCW?... No thank you, they always sucked. Still to this day it mystifies me that people actually prefered Nitro to Raw at ANY point in time.
WCW had lesser production, but the actual wrestling quality was always better (until the last year or so of its existence). And especially in 1995/96; you can't tell me that watching Diesel vs Sid or even Bret Hart vs Jerry Lawler was better than watching Pillman vs Liger or Benoit vs Guerrero
I think it has been said, but until ECW (and then WCW following them) started showcasing guys that had worked in Mexico and Japan, that style was very rarely seen. I still remember when the Blue Blazer debuted and thinking he was the most amazing wrestler I had ever seen! In the 80's, a lot of the smaller and actual 'technical' wrestlers tended to be put in tag teams to make them exciting and not have them show up the main eventers like Hogan and Warrior.
And Andy, I agree with you; to this day I can not believe people consider Ultimate Warrior vs Hulk Hogan at WMVI to be a 4 star classic. I remember watching it live as a kid and falling asleep because it was so damn boring.
Lets see 1995/96 WCW crap talent:
Paul Roma, Buckhouse Buck, Jim Duggan, Kevin Sullivan, Dave Sullivan, aging Nasty Boys, Avalanche, Big Boss Man (Bubba Rogers), aging Savage, Blacktop Bully, Meng, Hogan, Johnny B. Badd, The Cobra, Dick Slater, Lex Lugar, Dungeon of Doom, Zodiac, One Man Gang, Col. Robert Parker, Booty Man, Disco Inferno, Sgt. Craig Pittman, Hugh Morris, Barbarian, Scott Norton, Ice Train, John Tenta, Mongo Mcmichael and many more...
Dont get me wrong Im sure seeing Regal vs. Finlay and some of those jappy and mexican guys was a nice change. All I'm saying is that there was more CRAP than could make up for any of the good that WCW displayed.
|
|
Edited by - jesustheclown on 08/24/2008 19:35:18 |
|
|
|
kidego
WCW Historian
New Zealand
136 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 20:09:55
|
Oh so you wanna play that game do you? I am sorry I forgot about the amazing WWF pay-per-views featuring such esteemed talent as:
Diesel, Bob Holly, Tatanka, Jeff Jarrett, Lawrence Taylor, Lex Luger, Eli & Jacob Blu, King Kong Bundy, Bob Backlund, Smoking Gunns, Mabel, Adam Bomb, Jerry Lawler, Sid, Kama, The Roadie, The Godwinns, Isaac Yankem, The Kid, Jean-Pierre Lafitte, Ahmed Johnson, Duke Droese, Marc Mero, Justin Bradshaw, Mark Henry, Crush, Leif Cassidy
And I don't want to even get into the average jobbers they paraded around on Raw and Shotgun (like you did for your list of crap talent)
|
Lacey can do magic tricks. She's good; she's like that Curt Hennig! |
|
|
|
AndarielHalo
Total Nonstop AndarielHalo
South Sandwich Islands
1096 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 20:19:13
|
wat about JHON CENA?!?!~!!@`11111111111111111112131312121!!!!1111111eleventyone12231211111twotythree112222
EDIT: This is a lot like the Family Guy sketch with the Gyllenhaals arguing who's more offputting. So I'mma be that guy and conclude this
Kids, kid(ego)s... you're both just awful. |
My thoughts exactly. |
Edited by - AndarielHalo on 08/24/2008 20:25:19 |
|
|
|
kidego
WCW Historian
New Zealand
136 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 20:31:03
|
I'm awful?
Fair enough
But do you feel your question has been answered? |
Lacey can do magic tricks. She's good; she's like that Curt Hennig! |
|
|
|
AndarielHalo
Total Nonstop AndarielHalo
South Sandwich Islands
1096 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 21:42:05
|
| Maybe. Depending on what's true and what's speculation in the posts already posted |
My thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
jesustheclown
FCW Bathroom Attendant
187 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 22:47:44
|
| It was just a shit time in wrestling in general. I was always faithful to Vince's product even during those awful times. Funny how we both listed Lex Lugar and Mark Mero... Backlund wasnt crap though, he ruled! |
|
|
|
|
kidego
WCW Historian
New Zealand
136 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 22:59:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by jesustheclown
It was just a shit time in wrestling in general. I was always faithful to Vince's product even during those awful times. Funny how we both listed Lex Lugar and Mark Mero... Backlund wasnt crap though, he ruled!
Yup - both changed companies and STILL sucked. In fact, I would dare say Mero was worse in WWF, and Luger annoyed me even more in WCW. Watching him beat Macho Man again and again and again was painful.
I tried to stay loyal to Vince - I grew up watching WWF. But it was the 'cruiserweight' matches that originally made me switch sides. That and the Clique annoying me too much. WWF did get a whole lot better the end of 1996, and 97 was tops.
You should have mentioned Loch Ness and The Yeti in the crap 'talent' in WCW. 1995 was probably the lowest time for pro-wrestling |
Lacey can do magic tricks. She's good; she's like that Curt Hennig! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Did all wrestling suck before the 1990s?
