Steamboat vs Savage ...

['Foretold' Joker]

Wrestlemania 3: The intercontinental title .... and I um wait ...

I just watched this the other day again, and I have to say that it really doesn't strike me as the greatest match of all time, which it is often called.

Half the time Steamboat is on the outside, getting counted out, and the actual moves in the ring seem somewhat average. (Armdrags, Savages 2nd rope axe handle, a few bodyslams, Steamboats martial arts (punches and chops) etc ... ) Now I know someone is going to jump on this and say ring psychology or it's not all about 360 degree spin splashes. But I have to admit I have seen better wrestling matches from Benoit, Jericho, Angle, C.Daniels, bret hart, the rock and many more ...

While the finish is nice with lots of near falls (all from Steamboat I might add), it then falls back on the typical ref bump to the floor and then some sort of Randy Savage hijinks with the ringbell. Leaving us with Steamboat as champion.

Sure the crowd is really into it and both guys are great for there time. But I really don't think it has dated that well ... maybe it had a really great build leading up to it, that helped it at that time. But you don't get that historical memory jog as they don't do much of a recap.

I'm not saying it is a bad match, it is clearly very good, but to put it as best of all time I think is stretching it. Especially today after nearly 20 years since the event.

thoughts on this? Has it dated as much as I think it has?

[MGH]

Ah, I think you're the 2nd or 3rd person I've seen who look at this match the same way I do. I've watched this match a few times, and I see absolutely nothing special. And before I get jumped on, that doesn't mean I think it's bad. The match is very good, and I'd take a match like that on TV every week. But it gets praised as this all time 5-star classic, and it just doesn't strike me as such. I've seen many matches in WWE that I feel are better and have enjoyed more.

[KLRA]

It's one of those matches, in my opinion, that just hasn't stood the test of time. Yeah, if you look at in during it's era it was a phenominall match. However, you have guys on a monthly basis outdo this match.

It's still a classic and a benchmark in wrestling in my opinion.

[invaderdave]

It's an interesting match, and fairly good, but yes, it doesn't exactly stand the test of time. If you look at it from a pure technician standpoint, it's very good, but then time passes, and you realize that there are a lot better matches out there.

[HMARK Center]

You need to look at it from a historical perspective.

For one thing, I have no issues with the moves mostly being "basic"; you have to remember that this is late 80's American-style wrestling, and the pervasive puro and lucha influences that made it into the US in the 90's hadn't really arrived in full force yet.

Given that, you also need to look at it in terms of the card and company on which it was presented. To this day, the WWF isn't exactly reknown for presenting the best actual wrestling in the world, despite the efforts of guys in the past like Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Curt Hennig, etc. etc. But think about it in 1987; you had a very new audience of Hulkamaniacs that hadn't had a ton of wrestling exposure with anything before about 1984, and many of them didn't really know what good, sound, technical, psychological wrestling was.

And look at the WM3 card itself; not a lot of in-ring barnburners on there, to say the least, though it's an incredibly fun, nostalgic card.

With those facts in mind, Savage/Steamboat really stood out in it's time. It was something people weren't used to seeing; in many ways, it was kind of Steamboat bringing some of the NWA style up north, another thing most WWF fans of the time weren't used to.

Add in that the storyline for that feud was white-hot, and people will remember the match very fondly.

['Foretold' Joker]

hitmanmark said:

You need to look at it from a historical perspective.

For one thing, I have no issues with the moves mostly being "basic"; you have to remember that this is late 80's American-style wrestling, and the pervasive puro and lucha influences that made it into the US in the 90's hadn't really arrived in full force yet.

Sure I agree with that, back in the day it was a fast, fluid match.

Add in that the storyline for that feud was white-hot, and people will remember the match very fondly.

I think this is something wwe or any other fed might need to look at when re-releasing classic ppvs from the past such as this (in fact many ppvs new and old) The old time fan may remember why the two guys are fighting, but people new to the match have to just pick nuggets from what Monsson and Jesse are talking about. Sure Hogan v Andre gets a nice flashback, but this match didn't get much if any. Which is a pity.


My key thing was sure it's remembered fondly, but as wrestling gets better thanks to new styles etc ... this match surely would fall down a list of greatest matches ever, not because it is bad, but because it is an older style that doesn't stand up well to the test of time.

[s2k]

hitmanmark said:

You need to look at it from a historical perspective.

For one thing, I have no issues with the moves mostly being "basic"; you have to remember that this is late 80's American-style wrestling, and the pervasive puro and lucha influences that made it into the US in the 90's hadn't really arrived in full force yet.

Given that, you also need to look at it in terms of the card and company on which it was presented. To this day, the WWF isn't exactly reknown for presenting the best actual wrestling in the world, despite the efforts of guys in the past like Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Curt Hennig, etc. etc. But think about it in 1987; you had a very new audience of Hulkamaniacs that hadn't had a ton of wrestling exposure with anything before about 1984, and many of them didn't really know what good, sound, technical, psychological wrestling was.

And look at the WM3 card itself; not a lot of in-ring barnburners on there, to say the least, though it's an incredibly fun, nostalgic card.

With those facts in mind, Savage/Steamboat really stood out in it's time. It was something people weren't used to seeing; in many ways, it was kind of Steamboat bringing some of the NWA style up north, another thing most WWF fans of the time weren't used to.

Add in that the storyline for that feud was white-hot, and people will remember the match very fondly.

Well said.

Historical perspective has to be taken into account for everything, IMO. Everything evolves after a certain period of time. It doesn't mean it gets worse with age, it just means it changes. Savage/Steamboat had great build-up and was a style of match that the WWF didn't feature too much back then. It might seem tame in 2006, considering what we've been able to see from 1987-2006, but again, it's a matter of time difference.

I still love the match, and I was never much of a workrate freak. I have all the SNME's on tape that lead up to WM III, so it's still fresh in my mind.

In 20 years, we might look back on Angle vs. Benoit (for example) and think it is tame compared to something we've seen since. It's always like that.

[Dynamic Dee]

I was a kid when this match happened and seeing it back then it seemed really special and stood out from the other matches that i was used to watching. The feud was also very hot and it was good to see it blown off that way.

I wouldnt say that this was the greatest match of all time or even Savage's or Steamboat's best match. This match was however very good and still very entertaining. There wasn't really a slow point at all and they went out there and showed what great athletes they both were. That and the way the feud was done is why its remembered so fondly.

[willywonka666]

one of the things that really stands out to me about the match is all the near falls, that really generates some excitemenet in a match IMO, even if most of them were never really close

[tommyvercetti]

I watched this match at the time it took place with my wrestling hating sister n law.

She was marking like a madlady..

THATS the mark of a great match.

[CaptainFall]

The match is fantastic. When I watched Wrestlemania III again after a number of years I thought it was going to be overrated and hyped up too much but I loved it. Totally agree with what's been said on historical perspective and what else was on the card. I think it will stand the test of time but as it's talked about so much maybe people are expecting more than the moves of the era.

[01010010 01101001 01100011]

It was a good match but, had a cheap ending. I have never understood all the love as the greatest match of all time (or greatest WM match of all time) but, will admit its place a one of greats of WM.

[ellisdee]

It was just great for its time. In an era of Hogan/Andre power guys with 2 moves it was fantastic. Nowadays with Benoit,Angle ect ect it doesn't look so good.

[Voldemar H. "Brak" Guerta]

Shut-a up-a you-a face-a!


Seriously though, there is no way you can successfuly slander the match, it's a 5-star classic that's stood the test of time. It's exciting, there's a ton of psychology invovled, and it was for a title, to boot!

[destrucity]

Hey, HMark here, commandeering this post.

Don't write this stuff again; no flame-baiting, and it has nothing to do with the original post.

[MGH]

destrucity said:

Those Flair/Steamboat matches in 89 were awful also. I mean there were no thumbtacks or barbed wire used. Obviously that match I saw in some local gym last week in front of 87 people where the guy could do a double backflip was much better because some people on the Internet said so.

Oh yes, because that was completely the point of this post and everything...

['Foretold' Joker]

Just keeping this simple, but I did enjoy the match as I have it on tape and seen it before. Just thought that over time it hasn't stood up so well.

Which therefore I feel, doubts it as the greatest match ever in some polls.

I do realise it is a classic, and find it an entertaining match, which is the main thing.

[HMARK Center]

I think another big thing, like I said before, is that this was kind of Steamboat bringing up, and Savage working well within, a 1980's NWA style match.

Fans of the NWA from that period might not view Savage/Steamboat with the same kind of awe they view Steamboat/Flair or what have you (although I'm sure they'd get behind it thanks to the feud's storyline), but, again, to WWF fans of the time, if you hadn't seen any NWA, you would never have expected this kind of match.

[whothoughtofthis]

I think that there are few matches that can stand the test of time. just take a random match from a ppv in the mid nineties. or even to some of today's matches that are scripted out punch punch punch highspot. there is very little psychology vs that match where the did work a lot of psychology.
without the build up that one remembers before any ppv match you aren't that into it. i remember alot of the build up, savage using the ic title placard to damage steamboats wind pipe, the stretcher, steamboat being unable to talk.
next you have to remember, Vince told those two not to over shadow the main event. they were not even allowed to go all out.
I will say that the over the top WWF style did not help the match.

[x]

It has a build up video, with the windpipe breaking. Then it has the doctor talking. Then Monsoon says Steamboat had a lot of heart. But Jesse says he has a lot of throat.