|
Post by seanwalsh on Jan 16, 2007 13:12:25 GMT -5
Back when I was in middle school, I watched this a few times. I remember it fondly and I still think it was the best Rumble ever. I only wish they could come up with something that would at least equal it. Dream on, I guess... 2000 and 2004 are damn fine matches. But '92 remains the best - probably because I was still young and innocent, and knew not what a "smark" was and what wrestling politics were all about.
|
|
|
Post by skskillz on Jan 16, 2007 13:19:44 GMT -5
It was a great Rumble, don't get me wrong, but if anyone other than Flairs win it, I'm sure people would have looked at it differently. Why does this matter? "If" scenarios just don't work. Because that "if" scenario changed people's perception of the entire event. A very good or great Rumble turns into "the greatest event in the history of mankind" just because Flair wins it. Let's look at 1990 for example. It had more stars, a better lineup, more unpredictability, but is rarely mentioned in the best Rumble category. Now, what happens if the event is booked EXACTLY the same, but Curt Hennig wins instead of Hogan? Probably something like: "OH MY GOD, THAT WAS THE GREATEST RUMBLE OF ALL-TIME!!!!!!!" Again, not taking anything away from 1992, it was a great event, but some of the responses to the event make "I slammed 700 pound Andre in front of 7 million people" sound reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by skskillz on Jan 16, 2007 13:24:10 GMT -5
Which is why the video editing worked, I assume. I always just assumed people were lying/hating on Hogan when they said he was booed in the match because when I rented the tape back in 92 or so he got the typical face pop as always LOL I have the Coliseum Video version at home, and it was the same as the PPV version as far as I could tell. The only time the video was altered was when they showed the build-up to Hogan/Sid on an episode of SNME in 1992. On that SNME, they canned Hogan chants, crowd noise, and made Gorilla/Heenan change their commentating to make Hogan the face. But that never took place in any of the video releases for the event. The only time Hogan got a negative reaction was after pulling Sid out. The crowd did pop when Hogan was eliminated and when Flair won.
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Jan 16, 2007 13:28:14 GMT -5
Slaughter's elimination was rediculous.
He ran full bore at the turnbuckle, jumped OVER it, landed on the ring post and dumped to the outside.
|
|
|
Post by paragon on Jan 16, 2007 13:29:41 GMT -5
Because that "if" scenario changed people's perception of the entire event. A very good or great Rumble turns into "the greatest event in the history of mankind" just because Flair wins it. Let's look at 1990 for example. It had more stars, a better lineup, more unpredictability, but is rarely mentioned in the best Rumble category. Now, what happens if the event is booked EXACTLY the same, but Curt Hennig wins instead of Hogan? Probably something like: "OH MY GOD, THAT WAS THE GREATEST RUMBLE OF ALL-TIME!!!!!!!" Again, not taking anything away from 1992, it was a great event, but some of the responses to the event make "I slammed 700 pound Andre in front of 7 million people" sound reasonable. The problem is you could say that about everything. If this person had(n't) won, if this had(n't) happened, if Heenan hadn't been commentator, if Flair had come in later, if the fans didn't turn on Hogan, if Piper hadn't helped Flair than turned on him, etc. Hindsight is 20/20.
|
|
Johnny Danger (Godz)
Wade Wilson
loves him some cavity searches
Lord Xeen's going to kill you.
Posts: 27,736
|
Post by Johnny Danger (Godz) on Jan 16, 2007 13:30:47 GMT -5
Why does this matter? "If" scenarios just don't work. Because that "if" scenario changed people's perception of the entire event. A very good or great Rumble turns into "the greatest event in the history of mankind" just because Flair wins it. Let's look at 1990 for example. It had more stars, a better lineup, more unpredictability, but is rarely mentioned in the best Rumble category. Now, what happens if the event is booked EXACTLY the same, but Curt Hennig wins instead of Hogan? Probably something like: "OH MY GOD, THAT WAS THE GREATEST RUMBLE OF ALL-TIME!!!!!!!" Again, not taking anything away from 1992, it was a great event, but some of the responses to the event make "I slammed 700 pound Andre in front of 7 million people" sound reasonable. I dont know, to me the 1992 Rumble match had every single WWF star who mattered in the late 80's-early 90's besides Andre the Giant, LOD, Earthquake and Mr. Perfect. It's impossible to beat Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Undertaker, Roddy Piper, Sgt Slaughter, Jake Roberts, Big Bossman, Shawn Michaels, etc all in the same match. And I'd have been fine with Piper, Hogan, Jake or Savage winning instead (Not that Piper or Jake actually would've) but the commentary made it so Flair HAD to win.
|
|
|
Post by skskillz on Jan 16, 2007 13:45:46 GMT -5
The problem is you could say that about everything. If this person had(n't) won, if this had(n't) happened, if Heenan hadn't been commentator, if Flair had come in later, if the fans didn't turn on Hogan, if Piper hadn't helped Flair than turned on him, etc. Hindsight is 20/20. That's not really the issue. There is a favortism towards Flair on this forum (maybe not today's version, but certainly of the past). He won the event. Because of that, everything else is overhyped in hindsight. Again, keep the event EXACTLY the same. Don't change anything.....except, let Hogan win it instead of Flair. What happens to the perception of the event? What happens to the "this PPV was more exciting than the birth of my first child" hyperboles? It has nothing to do with the quality of the event. Like I said, the Rumble was great that year, and I was never a Flair fan. But this specific Rumble takes a life of its own because Flair, an NWA golden child, won over the WWF's top stars (Hogan in particular). I'll say the same for 1989 and 1990. If Dibiase and Hennig won instead of Studd and Hogan, the revisionist history for those events would be on par with 1992. You can't really say that about anything else. If Rock wins instead of Austin at WM X-7, nothing changes. Still a great match. If Savage beats Steamboat at WM III, again, nothing changes. But pencil Hogan or Sid to win the 1992 Rumble, and the entire event drops substantially in terms of recognition from the same people hailing its greatness today. At least that's the way I see. There's no way we'd know for sure, of course. Different strokes, I guess.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Jan 16, 2007 13:45:49 GMT -5
My biggest complaint about the match is that for all the time Hogan and Savage are in the ring together, they literally have ZERO interaction. They never touch, look at each other, or even fight the same guy together. I was hoping they'd either team up or fight at some point. And, and I never saw the original PPV broadcast, only edited versions so I've never heard the fabled booing of Hogan at the end. The crowd was cheering when Sid eliminated him, and even pointed out a "Hulk Who?" sign in the post-Rumble fracas. I noticed that also there was no interaction with Hogan/Savage, hell even Hogan/Piper went at it at certain times. They must've hated each other badly at that point it seems.
|
|
|
Post by seanwalsh on Jan 16, 2007 13:52:12 GMT -5
Slaughter's elimination was rediculous. He ran full bore at the turnbuckle, jumped OVER it, landed on the ring post and dumped to the outside. Oh come on, that was great! He had Sid in the opposite corner and threw him across, but Sid reversed it and sent him in full force. It looks strange and maybe a bit much, but given that he was propelled into the corner it looks pretty natural. Plus there's this sickening thud when he hits the corner. I have no idea where it came from - maybe part of the turnbuckles hitting the post...
|
|
|
Post by skskillz on Jan 16, 2007 13:52:30 GMT -5
I dont know, to me the 1992 Rumble match had every single WWF star who mattered in the late 80's-early 90's besides Andre the Giant, LOD, Earthquake and Mr. Perfect. It's impossible to beat Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Undertaker, Roddy Piper, Sgt Slaughter, Jake Roberts, Big Bossman, Shawn Michaels, etc all in the same match. And I'd have been fine with Piper, Hogan, Jake or Savage winning instead (Not that Piper or Jake actually would've) but the commentary made it so Flair HAD to win. The rosters for the 1989 and 1990 Rumbles were damn goodfrom top to bottom, at least from name recognition. Look at 1990 for example: Hogan, Savage, Warrior, Piper, Andre, Dibiase, Hennig, Rude, Roberts, Demolition, Rockers (Shawn), Hart Foundation (Bret), Santana, Martel, Dusty, Snuka, Earthquake......that's a lot of talent as well. To me that's more of a tribute to the '80's than 1992 was, but I can understand Flair's involvement meaning more since he was the NWA's biggest star of the '80's. I agree about the commentary. In hindsight, I'm surprised Flair didn't turn face after it (though it was never going to happen in the WWF at the time).
|
|
|
Post by paragon on Jan 16, 2007 13:53:20 GMT -5
The problem is you could say that about everything. If this person had(n't) won, if this had(n't) happened, if Heenan hadn't been commentator, if Flair had come in later, if the fans didn't turn on Hogan, if Piper hadn't helped Flair than turned on him, etc. Hindsight is 20/20. That's not really the issue. There is a favortism towards Flair on this forum (maybe not today's version, but certainly of the past). He won the event. Because of that, everything else is overhyped in hindsight. Again, keep the event EXACTLY the same. Don't change anything.....except, let Hogan win it instead of Flair. What happens to the perception of the event? What happens to the "this PPV was more exciting than the birth of my first child" hyperboles? It has nothing to do with the quality of the event. Like I said, the Rumble was great that year, and I was never a Flair fan. But this specific Rumble takes a life of its own because Flair, an NWA golden child, won over the WWF's top stars (Hogan in particular). I'll say the same for 1989 and 1990. If Dibiase and Hennig won instead of Studd and Hogan, the revisionist history for those events would be on par with 1992. You can't really say that about anything else. If Rock wins instead of Austin at WM X-7, nothing changes. Still a great match. If Savage beats Steamboat at WM III, again, nothing changes. But pencil Hogan or Sid to win the 1992 Rumble, and the entire event drops substantially in terms of recognition from the same people hailing its greatness today. At least that's the way I see. There's no way we'd know for sure, of course. Different strokes, I guess. Hogan winning after coming in during the 20s immediately changes things because it's not impressive that he won. Flair was in the ring for an hour. There's more to what people liked about it than simply "Flair won." I thought it was really entertaining. It had nothing to do with Flair being from the NWA (I never watched it then). It was just overall more entertaining. Let's look at 1997, which is usually my choice for second favorite. Would I like that as much if Bret Hart had won? No. Austin came in at number 5, eliminated a whole bunch of people, played to the crowd, came back in after being eliminated, and still won. But this has nothing to do with Bret Hart, it has to do with what Austin went through and did to get the win. edit: misread part of skillz' post.
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Jan 16, 2007 14:19:20 GMT -5
First match I ever saw, and fourteen years later, I'm still watching. There's an idea of how much I love this match.
|
|
Johnny Danger (Godz)
Wade Wilson
loves him some cavity searches
Lord Xeen's going to kill you.
Posts: 27,736
|
Post by Johnny Danger (Godz) on Jan 16, 2007 14:42:10 GMT -5
Austin "winning" in 1997 was great, even though at the time i just wanted Vader to win so damn bad.
|
|
|
Post by Red 'n' Black Reggie on Jan 16, 2007 15:14:52 GMT -5
the royal ruble is always great. each one has a different quality to it. aoart from a few years ago, cant remember which one, but one of them sucked. anyway, the only problem is that you can tell three of the people who will be in the final four, most years.
1. kane, undertaker, big show, andre, khali or another giant who will most likely be the runner up.
2. the underdog. (usually number one, but not always, nearly akways the face)
3. number 30 (usually a heel)
|
|
cantona7
Trap-Jaw
When the seagulls follow the trawler it's because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea
Posts: 401
|
Post by cantona7 on Jan 16, 2007 17:42:18 GMT -5
My fave moment from that Rumble is at the end when Flair is being interviewed and Mean Gene yells "put that cigarrette out". What is that all about.
|
|
|
Post by The Boss on Jan 16, 2007 17:58:55 GMT -5
The reason why that Rumble is so good also is that it is for the title! So that ups the ante a lot with knowing that a handfull of people can walk out of the areana the champ. come That only had a part to do with it. It was also do to the fact that it featured more main event talent than any other Rumble. HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN Ric Flair Roddy Piper Kerry Von Eric Sgt Slaughter The Iron Shiek Jimmy Snuka Davy Boy Smith Sid Vicious Shawn Michaels Tito Santana Jake Roberts Undertaker Randy Savage Nicholai Volkolf Ted DeBiasie Greg Valentine Mike Rotundo (Irwin R. Schyster) Rick Martel Big Bossman ...among others. There were very few wrestlers that you just flat out couldn't see winning. That was very important because it ment that almost anyone could win it. That couldn't happen today. Hell the fact that todays Rumbles are for a WrestleMania title shot totaly minimizes who could possibly win. Every year there are only three or 4 possible winners which makes the rest of the Rumble a drag. Perhaps if they got rid of the WrestleMania match and instead made the Rumble for a World title match on TV -- and therefore anyone could win it -- it would become exciting again.
|
|
|
Post by legendary616 on Jan 16, 2007 18:17:27 GMT -5
Tito Santana, Mike Rotundo, Big Bossman Nicholai, would have never won
|
|
|
Post by The Boss on Jan 16, 2007 18:18:47 GMT -5
Flair makes that Rumble. But there's a second thing that makes it: The crowd. Now, I'm not just saying this cuz I go to the events in Albany, but it is great to watch the progression of the crowd. When Flair enters, he's totally over as a heel. By about 3/4 the way through the match, you can see the crowd changing. When Flair wins, he actually gets a nice face pop. That's because back then no one had ever lasted that long and go on to win it. That was quite a feet and I believe is why the fans cheered HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN'S elimination. Not because they turned on HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN but because they had a chance to see someone go the distance. Unfortunately now it's become common for someone to go the distance which has ruined the Royal Rumble for me. It used to always have two winners, the last man in the ring and the man who lasted the longest. Plus it was exciting to see who was comming out next because the higher you number the greater you chances. But that two has been ruined by so many people going the distance.
|
|
|
Post by The Boss on Jan 16, 2007 18:22:40 GMT -5
Tito Santana, Mike Rotundo, Big Bossman Nicholai, would have never won Tito Santana was a former 2x Intercontinental and 2x Tag Team champion who was a WWF mainstay having faced the top compitition for years. It would not have been to hard to see him winning it. Nicholai Volkolf, aside from being a former tag team champion, was at one time one of the top challengers to Bruno Sammartino's WWWF World title. So that would not have been so hard to see. Big Bossman didn't have the credentials of others, but he was really over with the crowd at the time. So seeing him win may not have been preferable, at the time would not have been so hard to believe.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jan 16, 2007 18:23:40 GMT -5
The Royal Rumble is still good and all
But it's so damn predicatble now
|
|