|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 4:20:56 GMT -5
Any views on ECW?
I first saw ECW around 1995 when I got a tape of The Night The Line Was Crossed, which did impress me, and made a change from what I was watching at the time.
ECW had this reputation, half-deserved I think, of being a hardcore promotion. But when I did watch some ECW tapes, back before there was an official licensee in the UK, I did enjoy some of the technical and high-flying encounters. It definitely had a different flavour, and thinking about it now, it was great to have that variety of promotions back then.
So, in 1995, I was watching WWF, WCW and ECW. WWF was still in its cartoon era, what with hog farmers, garbage collectors, clowns, etc. WCW was offering a more wrestling-oriented promotion with imports from Japan and Mexico. ECW was offering a gritty product that featured hardcore, technical wrestling, very colourful and believable characters, etc. It was good to have that choice.
You could feel the passion with ECW. I was never a fan of hardcore wrestling (for me, it was hardbore). But the likes of Raven and others did hardcore with psychology, so that worked for me. I cared about the likes of Sandman and Shane Douglas, their passion and believability was infectious.
In retrospect, one can say that maybe it was inevitable that ECW was not going to last forever. I know they were on TNN for a while, but long-term, they'd have probably been requested to tone it down or become marketable on a national scale. And would that have been the same? I certainly respect Paul Heyman's enthusiasm and passion, though. I never forgot a comment he made on 2004's The Rise and Fall of ECW DVD, about how you've got to be prepared to fail when you try something. That's so true! I've had that mindset in my life, including with the taxi knowledge tests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 5:35:44 GMT -5
ECW to me at the time back in 1993, two years before you started watching it ... I watched ECW from 1993 to 1998 religiously and I watched most (about 80% of the programming) and the rest of it ... taped off from my DVR machine that my Cable Provider gave to me.  He held that belt from April 4th 1998 to March 4th, 2000. 700 days! It was crazy, unbelievable, I was introduced to Rob Van Dam, it's long-reigning ECW Television Champion and he was the face of ECW along with Sandman, Taz, Justin Credible and the Impact Players, Dawn Marie, and dozens of stars that were quite effective as good and steady entertainment. I liked Paul Heyman in ECW more than him in WCW with the Dangerous Alliance headed by Rick Rude and Company. It had a steady stream of good and solid PPV and my favorite one is December to Remember, something like that and along with Anarchy Rules and so forth. The music was rocking and rolling and has a nice roster too and I loved Sabu, Shane Douglas, Dudley Boyz, Mick Foley, Tommy Dreamer, Balls Mahoney (died in 2016), Raven, Steve Corino, Rhyno, 2 Cold Scorpio, Super Crazy (he was nuts), and dozens others too that truly entertained me. One hour of ECW back then is better than 75 percent of the crap that WWE does these days (that's 3 hours long) ... I really missed the old ECW and it was mind-blowing entertainment. I miss it dearly. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 10:33:16 GMT -5
Last night, I did watch Rey Misterio Jr. versus Psichosis (interesting how the spellings of their name changed over time). The bout took place on ECW Hardcore TV (17th October, 1995). It was a 2-out-of-3 falls match.
The first fall saw Misterio practically dominate Psichosis for the win. The second fall saw a more competitive battle, with Psichosis getting the win. And after the high-flying exploits of the first two falls, the third fall was more hardcore (tables were destroyed) as Psichosis brutalised Misterio.
I like the structure of this bout. I like how it became competitive as time went on - and told a story that made both guys look good.
Thinking about this one match, they should have used the same competitive structure for the WWF VS WCW 'feud' in 2001. Both WWF and the former WCW guys should have looked good!
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 30, 2019 11:21:19 GMT -5
You gotta to be kidding me that Jim Cornette was teaching those clowns how to be fake Razor Ramon and fake Diesel! This is the nuttiest thing that I've ever read in this thread. Well, this particular situation was a dumb idea, from the start, but, no one could convince Vince otherwise. However, there is a certain logic to it. The main reason that most performers in the WWE are given new names and gimmicks is so that the WWE can trademark them and own them. If a performer leaves, he can't use the gimmick name, which is important, in advertising. In this case, Hall had a certain name, from wrestling under his own name in the AWA; but, no one knew from Kevin nash. He had been one of the Master Blasters, OZ, Vinnie Vegas, then Diesel. The NWO angle was trying to convince the audience that the WWF was invading them and deliberately alluded to "Connecticut" and "up North." McMahon was countering by saying Razor Ramon & Diesel are here, those are just two wrestlers, not WWF Superstars. It didn't work, because the internet made it clear who they were and the WWF audiences crapped all over the Fake Razor and Diesel, even calling them that. The only people who use their real names in the WWE are those who have established themselves at a high level, before coming to the WWE and can block them from trying to change it. Even Steven Regal had to be changed to William Regal (though he didn't really care, as he was happy to be working in a big company again, clean and sober). Actually, given that Steve Regal (Mr Electricity, in the AWA) was still active in Windy City Wrestling, when Lord Steven Regal came to WCW, I'm surprised WCW didn't want to change it. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 30, 2019 11:28:33 GMT -5
Re: ECW-the good stuff was Benoit, Guerrero, Malenko and the luchadors, which all ended up in WCW. Most of the rest was garbage matches. Heyman was an expert at hiding weaknesses (especially size, as most of his guys were smaller than at the other two, or just average size).
ECW had a few guys who worked great psychology; but, there was way too much spt monkey stuff, from guys like Van Dam, Jerry Lynn, and the Eliminators. Lance Storm was great in the ring but just couldn't deliver a promo. I never got the whole Sandman thing. Drunk idiot stumbles to the ring, whacks people with a shinai, falls on his ass a lot, gets beat up, hits people with chairs. Lou Thesz would snapped their legs just for insulting the business.
Guys like Terry Funk and Mick Foley really elevated it and people like Shane Douglas grew there; but, there was just as much that should have never happened. Then, you had guys like Taz, who never had the same mystique if Paul E wasn't booking them.
Very mixed bag; some great, some good, some vile. Way better than what passes for wrestling today, not nearly as edgy as it wanted to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 12:18:26 GMT -5
What I found odd, as I delve deeper and deeper into the WWE Network, is that I found a 1995 Ladder Match (Sandman VS Mikey Whipwreck) where victories were by pinfall or submission (Whipwreck pinned Sandman).
It was bizarre seeing a "Ladder Match" that didn't involve climbing a ladder to retrieve something. It was a solid match - and believable. Quite a few modern wrestlers have not adopted the "less is more" approach, so we see wrestlers being put through 3 tables, having 2 sledgehammers bashed into their heads, etc, etc. And they carry on. This was a brutal match, but once Whipwreck assaulted Sandman with the ladder, it was over. So there was at least that believability.
I have very low mileage as far as hardcore is concerned. I live by the adage less is more. Wrestling is no exception. There was never any joy in me seeing a match which was hardcore throughout. I want to see some wrestling in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 12:20:27 GMT -5
Regarding Fake Razor Ramon and Fake Diesel, WHY?!!!!!
It was never going to work. Whatever point WWF *thought* it was making, it failed.
I was disappointed that the original Razor Ramon never got to wrestle in the 30-Man Royal Rumble. He appeared at the 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 events, but only on the undercard. Finally, we got to see Razor Ramon in the 30-Man Royal Rumble (1997), but it was Rick Bognar. That said, rest in peace to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 15:34:40 GMT -5
Regarding Fake Razor Ramon and Fake Diesel, WHY?!!!!! It was never going to work. Whatever point WWF *thought* it was making, it failed. I was disappointed that the original Razor Ramon never got to wrestle in the 30-Man Royal Rumble. He appeared at the 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 events, but only on the undercard. Finally, we got to see Razor Ramon in the 30-Man Royal Rumble (1997), but it was Rick Bognar. That said, rest in peace to him. I understand your feelings about Razor not appearing in the Rumble. I'm puzzled too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 15:44:01 GMT -5
At the 1995 Royal Rumble, Razor Ramon lost the I-C Title to Jeff Jarrett. It would have been great if he'd entered the Rumble. Imagine the commentary:
"Razor Ramon has lost the Intercontinental Title but he now has the opportunity to win this match and go on to challenge for the WWF Title at WrestleMania."
After all, Roddy Piper won the I-C Title at the 1992 Royal Rumble, but still wrestled in the 30-Man Rumble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 15:44:59 GMT -5
P.S. I'm also irked that Jacques Rougeau, both as a member of the Fabulous Rougeaus and as the Mountie, never wrestled in the 30-Man Rumble, either! Always on the undercard!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 15:57:55 GMT -5
P.S. I'm also irked that Jacques Rougeau, both as a member of the Fabulous Rougeaus and as the Mountie, never wrestled in the 30-Man Rumble, either! Always on the undercard! I really have a hard time dealing with Mountie because he doesn't do me any good at all. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2019 11:22:13 GMT -5
Interesting:
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 1, 2019 22:42:18 GMT -5
Yeah, Al's still wrong on this one, as are his criticisms of Dave meltzer, in the same video, this on refers to. He basically said that Meltzer had no credible voice, since he was not in the business, which is horse-hockey. meltzer is a trained and experienced journalist who has covered wrestling since about 1986 and he learned from wrestlers and promoters about the inner workings of the business. he is an astute observer and makes many valid and great points, which the boys don't often like to hear. They always bad mouthed the Wrestling Observer, in public, while passing it around, in the locker room. Guys like Cornette and many workers in the business have great respect for Dave's opinions. As to what was the best match, Al's version is the match that drew the house is the best. That's ridiculous. The anticipation is what drew the house, not the actual match. the anticipation for Hogan vs Andre was off the charts, because you had a whole generation of fans who were clueless that they had wrestled several times and Andre had done jobs for select opponents (Ronnie Garvin, El Canek and at least one in Japan). So, the anticipation of the match drew the house; But, near-universal consensus from those who watched the main events and semi-main and any other match on the card said that Steamboat vs Savage stole the show and was the best match on the show. Why? because it was more exciting, it had far more drama, it had a variety of spots, it had a great backstory, and it had two great workers (one of them, Steamboat, was probably the greatest babyface worker, ever), at the top of their game. Hogan vs Andre saw an extremely limited Andre, a Hogan who hadn't taken substantial bumps in about 4 years (or more) and a short match, where very little happened, except a lot of stalling and selling of rather weak looking offense. The anticipation drew it; but, the disappointment with the actual match was huge. If it had been 1983 New Japan Hogan vs 1975 Andre, that would have been a helluva match. For the most part, I like and respect Al Snow; but, I can't agree with his reasoning and the idea that no one but the boys has a right to criticize a match is ridiculous. Fans vote with their dollars. if the match sucked, they won't show up again. The boys may have a better view of the technical side; but, the audience have the final say as to what was the best match. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 4:52:31 GMT -5
Al Snow is a great talker - and that YouShoot interview is golden - but I agree with you.
I don't get the wrestler mindset that says, "If you haven't been in the ring, you can't criticise it, Dave Meltzer."
I am sure Leonard Maltin has no desire or aptitude for making movies, but he sure as hell has the right to be a critic. Just as any of us can be. I had issues with the previous season of Line of Duty (BBC, check it out!). There was an arc I didn't necessarily approve of, some plot holes, etc. I couldn't produce a six-episode of the show every 1 or 2 years, but I have an opinion.
Imagine that logic elsewhere:
"Sorry, Mr White House Reporter, but you've never been president. You've not even been a senator or congressman. So you have no legitimacy. Until you've ran for president, and became president, your view is not warranted."
Does a health correspondent for, say, the Wall Street Journal need to have worked in a hospital? Does an education correspondent need to have worked in a school? Can you be a crime reporter without having been a cop? It's ludicrous. I believe Kevin Nash has said similar things to Al Snow.
It's funny because I have come across tweets from wrestlers complaining about airports, luggage, etc. My sarcastic response to them would be as follows:
"Hey, you've never worked in an airport! You've never had to manage the logistics of transporting luggage off a plane and to the passengers. You haven't had a job, in any capacity, in an airport. Until you've worked in an airport, your view carries no weight."
Or in a restaurant: "I'm the chef. You've never cooked a meal in a restaurant and had to serve customers. Your view is meaningless."
It could get silly. And yet people like Russo, Nash and Snow have criticised. I like Snow a lot, but that comparison with the medical industry was not valid (for those who haven't seen the video, he talks about how doctors do 7 years of medical school, then gain experience, so why should they listen to a person who has read medical journals and has a view). Not valid at all. No-one would try and tell a doctor what to do, but it's perfectly valid for a health correspondent at a newspaper to have a view on the medical industry. Here in the UK, there's a lot that the NHS does which is wrong. I'm not a doctor, but I am entitled to say if I think a hospital or GP surgery has bad policies or isn't providing a proper service.
And that is where the comparison falls down. Meltzer most likely does not have a desire to book a show or wrestle. And never has. But he's a journalist. He's entitled to be one. And just like health, crime, education and the White House, wrestling can and should be covered by journalists.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 2, 2019 10:45:29 GMT -5
See, here's the forest that the wrestlers can't see: storytelling. The whole point of a pro wrestling match is to tell a story. Snow is correct that a layperson is not an expert in taking bumps or executing a hurricanrana. That requires technical expertise from training and experience. That's where the comparison with the medical field works. However, the layperson is the judge of whether the story came across well or not. Storytelling is a subjective thing; it is communication, so it relies both on the teller and the audience. If there is a disconnect, then the story is bad or the relationship between teller and receiver is bad.
Al and other wrestlers are mistaking the technical side of wrestling with storytelling. For an author, there is sentence structure, point of view, plot structure, dialogue, world building, characterization, etc... Those are the technical tools for crafting a story. That doesn't mean that just because you mastered those tools that the story is great. Amateurs can tell better stories, with no knowledge, in some cases. You can have the best bumper in the world; but, if the moves aren't used at the right time, the audience gets confused and the story fails. Meltzer is an experienced journalist, having worked for The National, a nationally distributed sports publication, at least one other newspaper and over 30 years producing the Wrestling Observer, which is considered the premiere reporting source for wrestling-related news, history and opinions. Dave has been consulted by promoters, wrestlers, journalists and others for his knowledge and expertise. He has been tapped to be a judge at MMA events, because of his experience in that realm and coverage of MMA evolution. Same with pro wrestling. If anyone is qualified to comment on wrestling angles, promotion and quality of matches, it is Dave. he's done the research, written the histories, interviewed everyone involved, and articulated reasoning behind matches and the significance of them. He has long term relationships with industry insiders, up to and including Vince McMahon. He was considered instrumental in helping put Mick Foley's name out there, which helped land gigs at WCW and WWF. His work is plagiarized and falsified by every other site out there, either parroting it and acting like it is their scoop or printing rumor, than slapping Dave's name on it, to give it some sort of credibility.
Ironically, Dave has been a supporter of Al Snow in Smokey Mountain and the WWF.
|
|
