HWM Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Like everything it's a matter of perception and all that stuff. The only way Hogan vs Andre was objectively the best match at mania three is from a purely business standpoint. After that it's all a matter of opinion. Â Well said sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted December 6, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) It's fair enough if you view it objectively but remember that a lot of people watch it subjectively and don't really care who makes what money (probably mainly, like I mentioned before, because they aren't making any money off it anyway). We're fans. Yes. And the fans paid to see Hogan and Andre more times over the next two years than Steamboat and Savage. In fact Savage was used in the Hogan and Andre feud to be elevated. So again, the fans wanted to see more of Hogan and Andre following WrestleMania III. Â If business is up due to a match being popular, that means fans liked the thing. Edited December 6, 2012 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HWM Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 It's fair enough if you view it objectively but remember that a lot of people watch it subjectively and don't really care who makes what money (probably mainly, like I mentioned before, because they aren't making any money off it anyway). We're fans. Yes. And the fans paid to see Hogan and Andre more times over the next two years than Steamboat and Savage. In fact Savage was used in the Hogan and Andre feud to be elevated. So again, the fans wanted to see more of Hogan and Andre following WrestleMania III. Â Yeah but some fans will have preferred Steamboat and Savage, even if they weren't in the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted December 6, 2012 Moderators Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) The only way Hogan vs Andre was objectively the best match at mania three is from a purely business standpoint. Â I'd disagree with that. It inspired a reaction, the biggest reactions, had the standout iconic moments, and got the repeat business required in order to make it a truly great match. Wrestling is about inspiring reactions and emotions and making them come back next time for more of the same, and that match delivered that way in spades. Edited December 6, 2012 by PowerButchi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) I imagine if it was Edge who claimed the phrase "moveset" was bollocks we'd be hearing how great he is and why he knows what he's talking about. Likewise, had Al Snow used "moveset" in one of his shoots, I can almost hear him being described as a "never made any money, never drew and money, chinless, shit-jacket-having perma-jobber". Â If Edge had said that, I wouldn't have known. I've always found Edge overrated and dull along with the other jaundiced blonde Canadians (except for 1998 in WCW), and so would never have known his opinion on the matter. I only know he doesn't like it because Air Raid knows of my distaste for the faux term and my distaste for Edge and knew he'd get a fun rise out of me. Â Â It just seemed funny to me hearing you sing the praises of 90s workrate fapper-pervert hero Al Snow because he agreed with you that a word is stupid. Couldn't you find an example from Ole Anderson or someone like that? Edited December 6, 2012 by Dirty Eddie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shovanist Pig Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Al Snow also had a cracking match with himself. Seriously though, his best match at WrestleMania III theory is tremendously flawed.  How so? Pro wrestling is a con. It's about making money.  Not necessarily. I don't make any money off it. Therefore I appreciate the art form more and would rather watch Steamboat-Savage over Hogan-Andre.  You're the minority though mate. It's about selling the most tickets to the masses. The people paid to see Hulk and Andre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted December 6, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) Yeah but some fans will have preferred Steamboat and Savage, even if they weren't in the majority. Some fans preferred Junkyard Dog against Harley as well, just because of who were in it. What you like is what you like. More people liked Andre vs Hogan, though, so its not a stupid suggestion to call it the best match on the card. Edited December 6, 2012 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted December 6, 2012 Moderators Share Posted December 6, 2012 I don't Uncle Ole's even heard the term. He'd just shout "Holy Balls" and continue hilariously showing up Feinstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members gmoney Posted December 6, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted December 6, 2012 Like everything it's a matter of perception and all that stuff. The only way Hogan vs Andre was objectively the best match at mania three is from a purely business standpoint. After that it's all a matter of opinion. Â Â Well, and crowd reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HWM Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Butch: Hogan-Andre may have made more money and been the more popular match at the time but I wouldn't agree that it is, in itself, a better 'match' than Steamboat and Savage which still holds up today. More money doesn't mean a better match for everyone watching. Â Subjectivity no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Red Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Al Snow also had a cracking match with himself. Seriously though, his best match at WrestleMania III theory is tremendously flawed.  How so? Pro wrestling is a con. It's about making money.  Not necessarily. I don't make any money off it. Therefore I appreciate the art form more and would rather watch Steamboat-Savage over Hogan-Andre.  You're the minority though mate. It's about selling the most tickets to the masses. The people paid to see Hulk and Andre.  This. If wrestling catered soley to 'purists' like HWM it would have died a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Butternut Squash Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Like everything it's a matter of perception and all that stuff. The only way Hogan vs Andre was objectively the best match at mania three is from a purely business standpoint. After that it's all a matter of opinion. Â I'd disagree with that. It inspired a reaction, the biggest reactions, and had the standout iconic moments required in order to make it a truly great match. Wrestling is about inspiring reactions and emotions and making them come back next time for more of the same, and that match delivered that way in spades. Â It certainly did at the time and I agree that its all about inspiring emotions and that. But to say on this cold day in 2012 that it's objectively the best match on the card? Sure it helped business for several years but I'm guessing that as many people would want to watch Steamboat/Savage as the ME if they revisited this PPV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ShortOrderCook Posted December 6, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted December 6, 2012 It's fair enough if you view it objectively but remember that a lot of people watch it subjectively and don't really care who makes what money (probably mainly, like I mentioned before, because they aren't making any money off it anyway). We're fans. Yes. And the fans paid to see Hogan and Andre more times over the next two years than Steamboat and Savage. In fact Savage was used in the Hogan and Andre feud to be elevated. So again, the fans wanted to see more of Hogan and Andre following WrestleMania III. Â If business is up due to a match being popular, that means fans liked the thing. Â It's a flawed narrow-minded concept. Savage was also elevated off the back of that, seeing the value he had. Building the next two WrestleManias around him and Hogan following his WrestleMania III performance could be used as evidence to qualify it as the best if you want. His performance demanded he become main event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted December 6, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) Butch: Hogan-Andre may have made more money and been the more popular match at the time but I wouldn't agree that it is, in itself, a better 'match' than Steamboat and Savage which still holds up today. More money doesn't mean a better match for everyone watching. Do you not understand where the money is coming from? Its the fans who pay the money. Therefor the fans pain to see Hogan and Andre and over the next two years continued to pay to see it. If the event and subsequent PPVs and house shows bombed that's fair enough. But it didn't. They drew a massive buyrate for SummerSlam when a lot of the country didn't even have PPV, they did the same with Survivor Series, WrestleMania IV was built around a rematch and 33 Million people watched it on NBC. Fans liked the match. Â His performance demanded he become main event. That is flawed logic. Hogan liked him. That's the reason he became a main eventer. And his performances in the ring meant nothing to what made a main eventer in 1987. He'd have turned face and teamed with Hogan whether he stunk up the building with George Steele again. Plans weren't written on the day like now. Savage was always primed for that spot long before the Steamboat match. Edited December 6, 2012 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Nah, Ole's actually a "Raw v Smackdown 2005" man, he uses the term "moveset" as often as he calls someone a "dumb bastard". Â On the Wrestlemania II argument, surely it's down to who exactly it's "best" for. Hogan/Andre was the best for the company as it made them the most money, but from anyone not directly affected by the WWF's profits it isn't that clear-cut. Â Is Titanic or Avatar (or whatever film holds the box office record) the "best" film ever because it made the most money? For the production company, yeah, but for people in general, I doubt it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts