The legendary Michael Jenkinson of the-newsroom.com writes...
Scotty...
While I don't have any argument with Savage-Steamboat being a great match, I wouldn't call it perfect for one big reason - the psychology of the match is all screwed up. To wit: Steamboat continually goes for pins and can't pin Savage. Randy, however, gets a big visual pin after a ref bump, which is normally the babyface spot in a big match. And then Steamboat gets a fluke rollup pin after outside interference, which is more of a heel spot.
I've never understood why the psychology was done like that. But nonetheless, it is still a fantastic match to watch.
HERESY! BURN THE WITCH!
Ahem.
Anyway, here's how I see it: The visual pinfall is situational irony. Savage, after months of cheating and taking the shortcuts, finally acts like a man and fights the match of his life against Steamboat, holding off every pinfall attempt that Steamboat gets, but when he finally gets the winning pinfall there's no one to count it. The Steele interference is just good old fashioned revenge, as he treated Steele like dirt for daring to show affection to "his" woman, and Steele gets to out-think him (by pre-empting his use of the ringbell, in yet more irony) and screws him out of the thing he TRULY loves the most -- the title.
The rollup, I grant you, but then Steamboat was lacking in a truly badass finish anyway. On the other hand, it set up the finish of the greatest match in history two years later when Flair used Steamboat's own reversal against him to win the World title, so it has that extra bit of awesomeness associated with it.
Tags: Randy Savage, Ricky Steamboat, Wrestlemania III, WWE
Also, you need to take into account the psychology of a 1987 WWF match versus the psychology of a match from today. Back then, no matter how big the feud or how violent the actions, once you got into ring, the biggest indignity one could suffer was a pinfall loss to their arch-enemy. Both men knew that and tried several pinfall attempts. Back then, there was no such thing as a hardcore match on WWF TV. It’s not like today where if Wrestler X rammed a ringbell into Wrestler Y’s throat, Y would demand a no-DQ or Last Man Standing match and sneak attack X 2 weeks before the PPV and give him 10 chair shots and throw him through a table.
Additonally, if I recall, Steamboat’s character was not the most violent to begin with. The fact that he returned ready to kill Savage speaks volumes about the intensity of their rivalry. It would be like HBK swearing like a sailor on live TV today and smashing someone repeatedly with a bat.
The match itself sucks you in to the point where you forget about the backstory altogether and you just marvel at the athleticism of both men. THAT is the mark of an all-time classic. Bret Hart is my all-time favorite wrestler, but Savage-Steamboat is hands-down my all-time favorite wrestling match.
The pyschology is okay because they were playing it, like Scott said, as more of a face vs. face match. I mean, Ventura is on commentary talking about how people in Detroit love Macho and Gorilla is saying stuff like, you have to give credit to Savage for taking on all comers. In 1987, for the commentators to say good things about the heel is pretty rare to say the least.
I also thought the story of the match was that Savage was the unstoppable wrestling force that was impossible to beat under any circumstance because not only was he the best wrestler in the company…he would cheat like a bastard if he had to. For Steamboat to actually win, in any manner, was all he had to do.
I cannot believe someone actually wrote something negative about that match.
One of my favorite aspects of the match is the commentary by Monsoon and Ventura, as about half way through they start toeing the “Kayfabe Line” with their comments.
You could tell they were both genuinely getting into the match itself, realizing what a special moment was unfolding.
Still, be the great(est) commentary duo that they were, still reacted perfectly to Savage trying to use the bell to kill Steamboat, as well as the George Steele interferance.
I will not apologize for ranking this in my Top 5 of All-Time, I don’t care what I might see in the future. I think a lot of the overwhelming love for this match comes from my/our generation (30-somethings) that started watching wrestlng in the mid-late 80’s. I was still a mark in ‘87, and remember this match as one that really out me over-the-top as a super-fan.
This match holds a special place in a lot of fan’s hearts because of that.
I have always been puzzled by the legendary status this match has attained. While a good match overall, there are far too many “ugh” bits here and there to make it a MOTYC. There’s also the thing about being TOO overrehearsed where it looks more like some athletics display than a match where two guys want to defeat the other.
On a personal note I was a young mark who believed the work completely, until in the mid-80’s I saw a Steamboat match. There was just something about the way he wrestled that made me go “That’s not real!” Who knows how much longer I would have been a mark had I not seen him in action. But whenever I think of Steamboat I think of the way he shattered a little kid’s’ illusions.
That might make a good topic for another thread…who/what/when/why smartened you up?
I agree with you. It’s a good match, but I don’t even think it’s the best match at WM III. I absolutely LOVE the Cam-Am Connection vs. the Muracco/Orton match that opens the show. I even think it’s the best opening to a Wrestlemania ever (Yes, even better than Bret/Owen, another match that I think is overrated).
Am I the only one bothered by the absolute murder of the word “psychology” by the IWC as of late? That word, at the very least, implies a mental connection of thoughts and feelings (usually with THE CROWD). It does not mean “the story of the match” or “the booking” or even just “what happened in the match” in any way, shape, or form.
I’m blaming Arnold Furious for all of these fuck-ups, as in his recaps he has essentially equated the word psychology with “selling a body part,” which is not psychology at all. It’s SELLING A BODY PART. Like I said, maybe it’s just me, but when I hear the word psychology I think of the mental and emotional connection between the wrestler, his opponent, and the crowd. And that’s all I think of.
Well you need to read Herb Kunze’s excellent explanation of wrestling psychology.
Here’s the link
Pscyhology to me just meant that what you were doing in the ring was believable. Good psychology in a match or with a character means that the crowd is allowed to suspend disbelief. Selling is only a small part of it though it can be crucial.
Good psychology = crowd is buying it, like the crowd here at the Silverdome going apeshit when Steamboat finally won. They believed that match. Bad psychology = crowd isn’t buying it.
It’s actually something i’ve noticed it from watch a lot of 80s wrestling, especially the jobber matches. The stars are still following psychology in their squashes. For examples, Hercules squashes a guy by pounding on his back & neck to set up his finishing move. Its something that is sorely missing from todays wrestling because a lot of times, its just guys hitting moves back and forth until someone wins. That was my main complaint about that Batista/Cena match from SummerSlam…there was no psychology, just hit guy hitting their moves until Batista won. It sucked.
See I don’t follow that at all. I know I’m really splitting hairs here and getting off the subject, but to me the whole “working a body part until you finish them” thing is scientific, technical wrestling. It goes to the physical aspects of a match. It is not psychology.
Psychology can best be explained by one performer: Jake the Snake Roberts. Nobody in the business could do all the little, often nonverbal things to connect with his opponent and the audience like Jake could without even lifting a finger. And it didn’t matter if he was a heel or face, he used psychology to get over and tell a story rather than using the physical aspects of a match. And it’s funny because nowadays I hear from a lot of ‘Net critics who say they don’t understand why PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE BUSINESS consider Jake Roberts to be such a great psychologist because he never pays attention to working a body part. It’s because you’re thinking with the wrong terminology.
I think. I don’t know. I mean, I agree that believability is part of it, but at the same time I consider guys like Jake, Hogan, Piper, etc. who never worked a believable match in their lives to be great psychologists because of that connection to the audience.
You are bang on, sir. Psychology has become a catch-all word to communicate a number of things, some of which really shouldn’t be under that heading. And yes, it drives me nuts too. Your definition of psychology is a good one.
I suggest the use of the word tactic (tactics, tactical). Going after a body part, such as the knee, is a way to try and beat one’s opponent. When one tries to win, they try to figure out a way to do it, and it can be through a variety of tactics (which could involve using mindgames among many other things). It’s something used in everything from chess to football to warfare. It’s far more specific than psychology, which is a more general word (I’m an English major, get over it).
And I wouldn’t lay it all on Furious. It’s been misused by most reviewers (including the upstanding writer of a most entertaining blog, no names required). I really wish it would change.
And I think that match is kick-ass.
I’m guessing a “visual pin” is when the ref is out and one wrestler has the other wrestler covered for at least a three-count, but there’s no ref to make the count?
I remember reading in an old Apter magazine years ago, one of the writers commented on such situations and said if the wrestler getting pinned knows the ref can’t make the count, why waste the energy trying to kick out?
While we all know the Apter mags were kayfabed, they often made valid points when it came to psychology.
“I remember reading in an old Apter magazine years ago, one of the writers commented on such situations and said if the wrestler getting pinned knows the ref can’t make the count, why waste the energy trying to kick out?”
This reminds me of guys not attempting to kick out when their foot is on the ropes. Why waste the energy if you’re near the ropes? Of course, it backfires sometimes. I remember a DiBiase vs Muraco match from SNME where DiBiase gets the pin after a bodyslam, and Muraco was livid since his foot was on the ropes, and it was obvious he was counting on the ref to notice rather than kicking out easily. It can become a neat way to screw over a face.
Eh. I think it was the greatest match in WWF history UP TO THAT POINT. But I think there have been many matches that have topped it since then.
I wouldn’t call it a ***** match. Hell, there were many better matches in the NWA around that time.
I’d probably give it ****1/2. A great match. Not perfect. Not even close to best ever.
I still find this match to be one of the best WWE matches ever. The story itself had intrinsic interest (with Savage/Liz, Steamboat/Savage, Steele/Liz and Steele/Savage all having their own stories); the setup was great (Steamboat’s throat injury); the hype for both wrestlers was great, with Savage looking very strong going into the match; the execution and pace of the match was great; the largest crowd in North American wrestling history bought every bit of it; and the right guy won.
Of course, any match loses something with enough repeated viewings.
I will go to my grave saying that the WrestleWar match between Flair & Steamboat was not even the best of the series, let alone of all-time. I always enjoy the Chi-Town Rumble match much more. It had a much better crowd, and the fans were solidly behind Steamboat before his goody two shoes act had run its course.
For the record I think it’s a brilliant match but I believe as the DVDVR guys did that the Slaughter/Shiek bootcamp match was slightly better and probably the best match in WWE history.