|
|
Post by Ricky Jackson on May 12, 2024 13:25:17 GMT -5
Could also be from a match vs Savage, circa 1986
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 12, 2024 15:18:14 GMT -5
Apparently it's from a houseshow match against the Honky Tonk Man.
WWF @ East Rutherford, NJ - Meadowlands - February 18, 1988 (16,000)
Hulk Hogan defeated WWF IC Champion the Honkytonk Man via disqualification when Jimmy Hart interfered; after the bout, Hogan threw both men out of the ring
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on May 12, 2024 15:21:37 GMT -5
Apparently it's from a houseshow match against the Honky Tonk Man. WWF @ East Rutherford, NJ - Meadowlands - February 18, 1988 (16,000) Hulk Hogan defeated WWF IC Champion the Honkytonk Man via disqualification when Jimmy Hart interfered; after the bout, Hogan threw both men out of the ring Thanks for finding out! |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on May 12, 2024 17:06:52 GMT -5
Incidentally, there was a photo of Roddy Piper holding aloft the WWF World and Intercontinental belts outside a steel cage. I don’t have the photo to hand.
I believe it was a cage match he has against Ric Flair at some point between the 1992 Royal Rumble and WM VIII. Clearly, Piper didn’t ever win the WWF Championship, so I always wondered about the pic. Did Piper win the bout and ‘win’ the world title but the decision was reversed? Or was it simply a case of another babyface snatching someone else’s belt for a moment of fun?
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on May 12, 2024 17:41:15 GMT -5
I’m not here to bash Dave Meltzer because his ratings are his opinion, and he has never forced anyone to believe the same as he does. It is bizarre that he’s broken the scale (will we see a 10-star match one day?), and it’s bizarre that WWE has had fewer 5-star matches in its entire existence than AEW has had in 4+ years, but I respect him having his own opinion.
That said, I’d be interested in views on 2 questions.
1.) Dave gave Hogan vs. Rock at WM X-8 three stars. Do you believe it deserved at least 4 stars?
2.) Kurt Angle never had a 5-star match. Didn’t Angle vs. Undertaker at No Way Out 2006 deserve five stars?
If I was using Dave’s scale (which I know didn’t originate with him), Hogan vs. Rock deserved at least 4 stars, Taker vs. Angle deserved 5 stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on May 12, 2024 18:24:17 GMT -5
I’m not here to bash Dave Meltzer because his ratings are his opinion, and he has never forced anyone to believe the same as he does. It is bizarre that he’s broken the scale (will we see a 10-star match one day?), and it’s bizarre that WWE has had fewer 5-star matches in its entire existence than AEW has had in 4+ years, but I respect him having his own opinion. That said, I’d be interested in views on 2 questions. 1.) Dave gave Hogan vs. Rock at WM X-8 three stars. Do you believe it deserved at least 4 stars? 2.) Kurt Angle never had a 5-star match. Didn’t Angle vs. Undertaker at No Way Out 2006 deserve five stars? If I was using Dave’s scale (which I know didn’t originate with him), Hogan vs. Rock deserved at least 4 stars, Taker vs. Angle deserved 5 stars. Angle vs Benoit at Unforgiven 2002 was amazing any way you slice it and should have been a 5-Star match. Lest we forget Angle vs Shane at King Of The Ring 2001 was also an unforgettable match |
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Jackson on May 12, 2024 18:31:52 GMT -5
The rating for Hogan v Rock is even more ridiculous considering he rates almost every random, forgettable undercard match higher than that these days
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on May 12, 2024 18:42:44 GMT -5
The rating for Hogan v Rock is even more ridiculous considering he rates almost every forgettable undercard match these days higher than that One of his explanations seemed to be, “If two others did the same match, move for move, without the atmosphere, it wouldn’t have been a five-star match.” As far as I’m concerned, that is missing the point on so many levels. Fact is, it was Hogan and Rock doing the moves in an atmospheric match in front of an enthusiastic crowd. All those facets matter. That would feel like a movie critic, while discussing a well-loved and well-respected film, saying, “I couldn’t rate it highly, if two other actors had delivered the words, with the same script, it wouldn’t have been the same.” That would sound bizarre. A critic using a similar scale would hopefully judge it on Kenneth Branagh or Richard Burton delivering the words, not on how the film would have been had two other actors delivered the words. Couldn’t one reverse that logic in a silly way? Perhaps I could say, “Kenny Omega and Will Ospreay had a great 6-star match in 2023, but if you put 80s Hogan charisma and 80s worker Ricky Steamboat in that bout, and they did it move for move, it’d be worthy of 7 or 8 stars.” |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 12, 2024 19:33:54 GMT -5
Ratings systems for subjective experiences are pointless. What is the difference between 4 and 5 stars or even 3 and 4? Dave has always arbitrarily applied it and the best justification he can give is "it's a gut feeling." That's exactly why it is pointless, except as a gimmick. I put more stock into "I like it because......," "I disliked it because......" or "I liked this part, but didn't care for this......." It can't be quantified, so why does assigning a number of stars have any meaning?
I think Dave just does it to draw attention to people he likes and he arbitrarily assigns a number, based on the impact he thinks it will have with his audience, and that criteria has vastly changed in an era where the experience of the performers, on average, isn't nearly at the same level as in previous eras, just due to opportunities to work in front of an audience. You can pretty much consider it a sliding scale and it has slid deeply, over the years.
Dave's entitled to his opinion; but, it is just Dave's opinion. Whether that opinion carries any weight with you is for you to determine. I used to pay attention more to Roger Eberts reviews more than Gene Siskel's, as I felt Siskel was overly snobbish about film, in general. I paid attention to what Ebert said about comedies, as he was usually pretty square with my tastes. When it came to sci-fi, I ignored them completely (and Leonard Maltin) as they had a demonstrated bias against sci-fi, especially if it required you to exercise your brain a little bit. Maltin sucked up to Disney and Warner, for cartoons) and had genre biases, too. Most film critics watched movies with different criteria than the average audience anyway. My main concerns are does it sound entertaining, is it worth the ticket price, does it feature someone whose work I love, is it an interesting concept? I don't care if they use Dutch Angles, or is the camera is stationery, or if they follow Chekov's principles, or if they followed Sid Field's screenplay template, or what the character's underlying theme is. If I am noticing all of that then the story isn't likely to be very engaging. I'm in it for story and characters, first, and visual excitement second. I am not studying it for a graduate thesis.
Same applies to Dave. When I subscribed to the Observer, I liked his historical pieces, I liked how examined issues within the industry, occasionally liked his business analysis (not often, though); but, match ratings were mostly meaningless and the Hall of Fame stuff didn't interest me. I didn't enjoy the constant run-on sentences and paragraphs that diverged more often than a child with ADHD in a toy store. I felt Dave badly needed an editor (some think the same about me, here, I am sure), but his deadline didn't allow for that (plus he was self-published).
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on May 12, 2024 19:55:34 GMT -5
I used to buy Halliwell’s Film Guide here, or Leonard Maltin’s books. Really, though, numbers are arbitrary. I mean, the 4 stars I might give 2022’s Death on the Nile is gonna be meaningless to the 4 stars I might give Deadpool 2. Two very different films, two very different expectations, and that 2 is meaningless if compared. I might rate Death on the Nile 4 stars, and that might be meaningful to a friend intrigued by seeing Kenneth Branagh’s portrayal of Hercule Poirot. But if that same friend has zero interest in superheroes, that same 4 stars I might give Deadpool 2 will be meaningless to him. Vice versa if my friend was a huge superhero fan, but had zero interest in Poirot. I feel the same about numbers in wrestling. I enjoy reading the PPV reviews of dbutler69 as he talks about what he likes/dislikes about the matches. If he just did a “laundry list” of the matches, with a number next to them, it’d be meaningless to me. And, like films, numbers/star ratings in wrestling are apples to oranges comparisons. I absolutely loved the Razor Ramon/Vader match at In Your House VII (I feel it’s an underrated match), and I don’t feel I could have asked either man for more. It delivered for me. So I guess it’d be a 5 if I gave out stars. I’d also give 5 stars, if I was inclined, to the first Hell in a Cell match between Shawn and Undertaker. But is that first Hell in a Cell match anything like Ramon/Vader? We’re talking two different matches, two different storylines, two different motivations for the characters, etc, etc. So, if I was gonna discuss those, a detailed review would be preferable to star ratings. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 13, 2024 3:33:31 GMT -5
Incidentally, there was a photo of Roddy Piper holding aloft the WWF World and Intercontinental belts outside a steel cage. I don’t have the photo to hand. I believe it was a cage match he has against Ric Flair at some point between the 1992 Royal Rumble and WM VIII. Clearly, Piper didn’t ever win the WWF Championship, so I always wondered about the pic. Did Piper win the bout and ‘win’ the world title but the decision was reversed? Or was it simply a case of another babyface snatching someone else’s belt for a moment of fun? WWF @ Glens Falls, NY – Civic Center – March 24, 1992 Tatanka defeated Col. Mustafa (sub. for Skinner) Rick Martel defeated JW Storm The Warlord defeated Jim Brunzell Shawn Michaels defeated Tito Santana IRS defeated Virgil Bret Hart & the Bushwhackers defeated the Mountie & the Nasty Boys WWF IC Champion Roddy Piper defeated WWF World Champion Ric Flair in a steel cage match It was a pretty common thing at house show matches. Apparently, a photo appeared in the WWF magazine and it was later claimed to be a non-title match. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on May 13, 2024 4:36:55 GMT -5
Thanks once again!
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on May 13, 2024 6:43:13 GMT -5
Forty years ago today, Rick Martel defeated Jumbo Tsuruta to win the AWA World Heavyweight Championship at a show in the St Paul Civic Center, Saint Paul, Minnesota. Sadly for me, it’s not a match I’ve seen.  I liked Rick. The WWF should have done more with him, by 1993/94 it seemed like they were booking him as glorified enhancement talent. Had the brand split been around during his era, I wonder, would he have been given a world title run? Or was McMahon’s perception of him as a person who was mid-card? With some exceptions, it did seem Vince didn’t want to give world championship runs to *some* who had been world champions elsewhere. I mean, I still can’t believe that Vader won world titles in Europe, Japan and the US, but never on WWF soil. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on May 13, 2024 6:47:39 GMT -5
Happy 60th birthday to Glacier, born Raymond Lloyd:  I quite liked Glacier. True, WCW and the WWF (to name two) did often jump on bandwagons, and we all know what inspired this gimmick, but for me, wrestling had to be akin to a variety show, with different styles, gimmicks, etc. Not everything works (I didn’t like the WWF gimmicks such as T. L. Hopper and The Goon), but I enjoyed Glacier, and I did like his feud with Mortis. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 13, 2024 7:25:11 GMT -5
The Tsuruta/Martel match is on YouTube.
Personally, I think Vince should have made Martel IC champion in the early 80s instead of going back to Morales. That's purely based on what I've seen of the Martel/Garera tag team. I liked the Model stuff, but like most folks I was disappointed that there wasn't a proper blowoff against Santana. In '94, he could still work decent matches against talented workers, but his ceiling was probably an IC run.
|
|
