Snow never said he was a main point of any promotion. He's a man who accepted his place at the bottom of the card and did what bottom card guys are supposed to do by putting people over. Snow came from that last class of the dying territories, back when it was all about making money and the marks where outside the ring.
I think Al snow is one of those wrestlers that never really got a big push or anything but man he understands the business in such a unique way. U can disagree with what he says but I think his knowledge reflects a real grasp about what the wrestling business is really about which is something not spoken about publicly often.
I think both matches served their own important role. One was the technical masterpiece that the pure wrestling fans can admire, the other was the larger than life confrontation that the general masses can get into. Every huge event needs both those things.
People didnt pay to see Wrestlemania 3 to see Savage and Steamboat, yes it was a wonderful treat and a wonderful match, but nobody was thinking "That Savage Steamboat is the match i paid to see" because the match that everyone wanted to see was Andre and Hulk. He's not saying they didnt have a great match, he's saying Hogan and Andre were the match being paid for to see
Jesus if you think really hard in that head of yours that believes that you just as dumb as al snow PEOPLE WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW SAVAGE VS STEAMBOAT WAS GREAT AND IT WAS THE BEST MATCH!!! If you also believe it drew " 93,000 " clearly it tells me what type of fan you are
People did NOT keep coming back for Savage Steamboat actually their rematches drew poorly in the spring of 1987 facts folks and Hogan and Andre rematches ala Survivor Series 87 and Main Event on NBC drew record PPV numbers and ratings facts
chris seddon right and others are equally incorrect when they say Savage and Steamboat was "best match" because they could do a bunch of spots in no way could they overshadow Hogan or Andre in terms telling a story, capturing people imaginations, and mainstream attention. People loved seeing the giants
Dave meltzer is reason a lot of great workers get buried he has a huge fan base who idolize him you can check them out on raw trying to make the show all about themselves
@@johnnysins4158 By this logic, Nitro, January 4th 1999 was Hollywood Hogan vs Kevin Nash. It drew the most fans and was *the* main event. The match went just over a minute and involved a wrestler taking a flat back bump from a finger poke and then being pinned. That was it. You and Al Snow are going to sit here and say that was *the best wrestling match* on that card? Are you nuts? there was no wrestling involved?
@@Pillmanizedthat wasnt a match. I think you need to also deliver in the match. Not technically but have it emotionally be satisfying. Nash hogan wasnt that. Rock hohan was. Mcmahon hogan was.
Al Snow is talking about it from a BUSINESS perspective. The ones who don't agree with Al have poor listening comprehension. Al is right. So far, mostly everyone here is trying to combat Al with illogical arguments.
No, the problem is that Al is saying outright that the Hogan/Andre match was the best match just because it was the marquis match. He is mixing up 'best' in terms of actual quality with 'most important, most lucrative and most well advertised'. I'm not sure why he's doing that and why he is deliberately refusing to see any other way. He is right about the importance of the Hogan/Andre match, of course he is, but to say it was the best match when 'best' is always judged on quality is questionable at best. He is talking of business issues, you are right, but he's not using business terminology, he's using terms which are used when judging quality, not profitability.
@@Grumftheld The reason you feel that way is because you're still looking at it from a fan's viewpoint. Al is talking about the business viewpoint of someone who works in the business. You'll never agree on what constitutes a great match cause you have different definitions of what a great match is.
if that wwere the case wwf wwe woulda never hired him.. sure he never made hogan money persy.. but still its a name that people know, and a name usually = capitol of some extent... i can gurantee you he lives in a far better house than you or drives a nice car than you as well
Finally someone at least attempts to expose Dave Meltzer as it pertains to him being the be all end all in wrestling opinions. Hulk Hogan and Andre had the most significant match of that show and possibly all time. Does that make it the best match on that show??? It depends in that moment absolutely not because clearly Savage and Steamboat outworked them. But when you look back at the significance of the two matches and which one sold the show and which one allowed wrestling to reach new heights then you could make the argument that Hogan and Andre had the better match because it has withstood the tests of time. I guess it depends on how far you are willing to take the word best match out of context and how many avenues you are looking at when deciding what it means to have been the best.
@@lancethefilmguy9392 he's 100% wrong, there are people like meltzer in every form of entertainement the dude is just doing his job and he never claimed to have infused knowledge. Al Snow is a bum everyone knows it, just ask the fcw students
Here is a rebuttle, I am not a chef, yet I can cook meals and I too can taste the difference between the two. Being able to cook and develop even a rudimentary pallete doesn't take years of training. It requires moderate motor skills and taste buds. Meltzer is a conman.
Because Sid vs Undertaker and Jericho vs Triple H will remain in out hearts as the best and biggest matches on the show. The impact they've had since has been incomparable!
You are aware that those matches weren't what sold the tickets right? WrestleMania 13 was about Austin vs. Hart & WrestleMania X8 was about The Rock vs. Hollywood Hogan.
I think that we have here a failure to communicate. Snow and everybody else must distinguish between “greatest” and “best”. Now the IC Title match can be the best, as long as the WWF Title match is recognized as the greatest.
If the people left before Hogan/Andre then it wasn't the best match on the card. However people did stay and the match lived up to the buildup. Savage/Steamboat was proably the standout match on the card but it was a giant spotfest. WMIII was built around Hogan/Andre. Everything else were the undercard which was put together to build for the main event.
Selling tickets determines success, because the money you make determines success in a business. The match that they came to see, that they paid for, that they bought a ticket specifically for, is the best match of the night when we’re talking about business. Dave claims to be the ultimate insider and his ratings are so highly respected, yet at the end of the day it’s an old smark who people pay to read is biased-for-the-time opinions.
Al's not using the same definition of "best" as the rest of the world. Of course Hogan/Andre was the reason WM3 existed and the reason WWF had continued success afterwards. It put asses in seats and created a lot of new fans. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the most enjoyable match to watch. And that match was Savage/Steamboat.
Brett Mann The fact is that when someone says "best match" they are almost never talking about which match sold the most tickets. Frankly it's a dumb way to define it. Hogan and Andre could have pulled down their pants and took a shit in the ring and rolled around in it, and it still would have been the match that sold the most tickets. The tickets weren't sold after the match happened because people heard it was so exciting to watch that they had to pay their money to go and see it.... they were sold purely on marketing hype, promotion, and the excitement and anticipation that Vince/Hogan/Andre were able to create for the main event. It had nothing to do with how good anyone's performance was in the ring that night. By Al Snow's logic, the best movies of 2014 were Transformers and Mockingjay, and anyone who thinks 12 Years A Slave or Dallas Buyers Club or The Wolf of Wall Street are better is just flat wrong, because movie making is part of the entertainment business, where the goal is to make money. He's saying that money is the only goal and the only thing that defines quality. (And that's not even addressing the fact that seeing exciting, action-packed matches like Savage/Steamboat or Harts/Bulldogs is what improves the overall experience of the show and gets people to buy another ticket next time they're in town.)
That's true. But most people aren't Hollywood movie producers. That's why it doesn't make sense for Al Snow to insist that everyone else is wrong to use the standard of "most entertaining match" or "best performance".
To use a footballing analogy, and I mean real football, not the American kind, its like trying to argue who is the best player ever, is it the guy who won the most trophies, scored the most goals, or played the best, all are valid methods to justify who was the best. same goes for Al
What did that person that said "Steamboat and Savage" off camera do to warrant being called a "dumb shit" by al snow? Especially when that answer is common.
Damnit I see you all calling him dumb for saying this but ur not getting what he saying. He knows that savage and steamboat had the best quality match there man. ur missing whats hes saying. today its so cool to chant "u can't wrestle" at a guy that is a "power move guy" but if u look back on what everyone talked about and what everyone raved about in the 80's, Hogan, Road Warriors, Andre....people wanted to see a fight. in the 80's at any wwe house show im sure the best "quality match" would be something like the rockers vs the hart foundation, however the people that bought tickets wanted to see hogan and andre go at it. the wanted to see the Road warriors or the ultimate warrior press slam someone, the wanted to jake roberts throw a snake on some one! Look back at the 90's and what everyone was into then. It was the raw emotion, the story telling. We wanted to see Stone Cold drink beer, flip the bird and give people the stunner, we wanted the rock to lay the smack down on the mic, we wanted to see what funny ass shit DX was going to do, we wanted to see hall and nash, run into a WCW arena with ball bats in street clothes and start taking out wcw wrestlers just because they were wcw wrestlers so that guys that wrestled for wcw that didn't like each other would come together in a realistic bond to win a war...emotion..story telling. we didn't care about a 5 star match. did anyone tell chat "u cant wrestle" when Austin was just throwing punches and dropping stunners? hell no the Undertakers first 4 or 5 years with the company, when he was over as hell and caught the minds of us all....only did 4 moves..flying clothes line, throat punch, old school, and a tombstone. did anyone chant "you cant wrestle"? hell no. all those things i just brought up are the things people were talking about tuesday morning with there friends. i never once got a call from any of my friends with them marking out on the other end of the phone "did you see that 5 star match rey mysterio and ultimo dragon had last night!?!" Everyone says they love the attitude era so much but then turn around and say fuck cena he cant wrestle. Al is 110% right. We dont have emotion anymore, we have a bunch of smart fans who just judge , bitch, cry and moan and look for every reason to hate the shows. Bring back the way wrestling was and i doubt we'd keep hearing some of the non stop bitching. yes savage and steamboat had a better match but 30 million people paid the wwe a shit load of money to see hogan slam andre.
MetalPersonJ they chant it at anyone thats over 6'2" and built unless you are already a legend like Taker or Big Show......(sigh) sadly wrestling fans(not you man just a thought im having) are turning into something like todays hip hop fans, meaning they care nothing of its history.
Exactly, the only reason people are bitching about in ring wrestling is because quality story telling is basically gone in the WWE. So, now all they can hope for is a quality in ring wrestling match. The problem is if all they care about is a good fight then they should just start watching UFC. At least you'd be watching a real fight with very skilled opponents.
@@charvelgtrs wow you perfectly explain why people focus so much on quality matches now and become smarks... but then someone like Bray Wyatt comes along and they actually go back to their roots of Storytelling
On terms of ppv, Hogan vs Andre is the most important match in wrestling history. Snow didn't say it was the best match in terms of wrestling if you listen carefully
This should give you all a indication of what was the true draw in 87 and 88 WWF was all about Hogan vs Andre en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night%27s_Main_Event on February 5, 1988 featured a WrestleMania III rematch between Hogan and André and drew 33 million viewers and a 15.2 rating,
That was rude in the beginning. If Al Snow called me a dumb shit, like he did the guy in the background, I would be obligated to step up and get my ass kicked.
I like Al as well but even Bret Hart has mentioned that back then the undercard were much better matches even to the point where tag teams were headlining many shows around that time.
It's not about matches and wrestling holds. You missed the point. It's about what gets the people in the building and makes them buy the ticket. While undercard matches are part of the package, the draw was Hogan vs Andre.
@@dslking you who completely missed the point. if there weren't undercard, midcard fights, that was entertaining enough to put people heated up for more than an hour, there wouldn't be Hogan vs Andre
@@dslking I didn't say about what people are going to buy, but about what will get them to watch the rest of the show. a good appetizer can hide the defects of the main course.
What a stupid analogy. A song's success is measured primarily on how many units it sells. That's how they top the charts, and thus gets more airtime on the radio. A song reaches number one in the charts because a lot of people liked it enough to go and purchase it.
AntoG1986 What an even more stupid thing to say. Especially in music it mostly depends on marketing of an album of the song, the notoriety of the performer which basically is part of marketing as well and whether something goes viral. A lot of potential #1 hits don't even make it into the top 100 because the musician doesn't like to take his/her clothes off, is from the wrong country, didn't have the luck to have his/her song played on a commercial or whatever factors and scenatios you can think of. This is similar to Hogan vs Andre, the match was built up like crazy for a long time before WM 3 and both of them were pushed to the moon and booked as the strongest people in the world unlike Savage and Steamboat were, of course more people wanted to see Hogan vs Andre because kayfabe was a huge thing back then.
I'll make an analogy to counter Al's point. "The big mac sells more units than any other burger in the world, therefore it tastes the best." Obviously that logic doesn't hold any kind of water, but that is essentially what Al is saying here.
That's not what Al Snow was saying at all. He was stating a fact that making money is the number one priority in professional wrestling. It's what's best for business.
Yeah that's not what he said. To use your analogy the Big Mac is the best match because when people are hungry that is what gets them in the door. If chicken nuggets were the thing people went to McDonald's for then it would be the best match
@@AntoRetroGamer Al Snow conflates "best" with making money. He should have said which match made the most money on the show. Conflating best and money making isn't really accurate, imo. The video game Sonic 06, known for tons of glitches and bugs, sold millions for it to be a success, doesn't mean it was great.
@@AntoRetroGamer Making money is the overall priority in literally every business but that doesnt make it the number one priority for every person involved. I'm sure lots of people held creating something high in quality over making the most cash.
@@alexmonro1711True. However he has a point about why fans went to see WrestleMania 3. Think of it this way: Let's say wrestling is like a restaurant. When you go to a restaurant, you look at the menu and see what you want to order. Now like any restaurant, you have the appetizer and the entrée. The meal that you are looking to order is the entrée. The appetizers are things you get before the entrée. You may enjoy the appetizer more than the entrée but you didn't come to the restaurant for the appetizer. You came for the entrée. Savage vs. Steamboat is the appetizer & Hogan vs. Andre is the entrée.
Right because as someone who has been at least somehow involved in wrestling for decades, what would he know about the business over a bunch of marks whose only involvement is limited to watching it on TV and maybe attending a live event or two? Hell, Bobby Heenan said something similar about the ones who are the best sell the most tickets. The best matches sell the most tickets. It's not hard to understand.
@@SuperHyphyOne I hope if you go to a restaurant and get bad service and undercooked food you dont complain. Since they clearly have more experience in restaurants than you? (Assuming you dont personally work in that industry but the general argument still stands).
Also most financially successful and highest in quality are two completely different concepts. The word best means highest in quality. So saying the matches that sell the most are automatically the best is just objectively wrong.
@@alexmonro1711 no, the general argument doesn't stand. When I go to a restaurant and I order food, my expectation is that the food is prepared, cooked, and served as advertised or specified by me and not whatever the cook feels like at any particular moment in time. If what he serves doesn't meet those specifications, then of course complaints are justified. Take Hogan vs The Rock at Wrestlmania X8. The only reason that it wasn't the main event was because the world title wasn't involved, but yet it was the most advertised match on the card as it was all over TV and promo posters for the event. I don't recall seeing a Triple H vs Chris Jericho pic on any promo poster. Clearly McMahon wanted that to be the main event, but didn't want to overshadow the world title. The Rock vs. Hogan was by no means the best match (quality wise) as it wasn't too much more than the typical Hogan vs heel match that we've all seen hundreds of times over the years, just with a bit more back and forth action. However, as important as the world title match was, Hogan vs Rock match sold the most tickets even as a special attraction match.
@@SuperHyphyOneExactly 💯 What Alex above us doesn't understand is that Al Snow isn't saying the main event sells the most tickets, he means that the match that fans paid to see sells the most tickets. Like you said, fans didn't pay to watch Triple H vs. Chris Jericho they paid to watch The Rock vs. Hollywood Hogan. The only reason why they didn't main event WrestleMania X8 was because of Vince McMahon. Heck, even Chris Jericho & Triple H have said in interviews that they didn't want to go on last. They tried telling Vince McMahon not to put them in the main event. But he said: "You have to. It's the title and the title always main events WrestleMania." As we've seen, this was a mistake. Granted, the match itself was decent. However, by the time we got to that match, the audience were less energize after the Hogan vs. Rock match earlier that night.
So I guess if I walk into a restaurant and order a steak and it tastes like garbage, my opinion isn't valid because I've never cooked a meal in my life.
It was the best match. If you don’t actually wrestle and have a terrible match and the fans are upset like Brock and Roman in 2018 or whenever it was (I was there), it does more harm than good. It’s the highest drawing match but you have to actually have the match for it to be in contention for the best match. If it’s a let down, how can it be the best? Unless we aren’t really wrestling fans and we just pay to see guys entrances.
@@dslking That doesn't equate to "best" though, that just means it made the most money. A lot of crappy things make tons of money, look at the music industry. Substitute "best" with "Popular". It's really just semantics.
People seem to all have their own ideas on what a best match is. There are many aspects to the match, whether they be storyline, anticipation, spectacle, work rate, intensity, fan interaction, uniqueness, advertising, emotional investment, promo work, spots, false finishers, interference... etc Savage vs Steamboat is most likely the best technical match (they did perform the same match many times in house show), Hogan vs Andre overshadowed them with build up, best overall match. Look at Hogan, he had been the face of the company for 3 years by then... Andre was a hell of an attraction, an icon from the previous era. Hogan and Andre's names meant alot more than Savage and Steamboat, especially to people who may of only been watching WWF. Hogan and Andre were house hold names. How long had Savage been around for?
But i think Al means "best" in terms of "What would be the best match to put on the card in order to sell the most tickets?". That's the only way his statement makes sense, since the actual match doesn't happen until AFTER tickets are sold.
And why do people buy those tickets? There's a match people want to see. Nobody is ever going to be the best at anything unless people are around to recognize that is the point.
Snow is ignoring one important fact - Meltzer has studied the business more than most of the people who work in it. He's a historian and a critic essentially. That study gives him a different perspective and credential. It's a knowledge base that has its usefulness. A film critic is just a guy who studied film and watched a bunch of movies. Most of them are not filmmakers, yet filmmakers could learn something from those same critics for their wide knowledge base. Ebert probably can't tell you how to frame a shot, but he could help you figure out what to cut from a script when you're trying to trim it.
Ebert also called Dirty Harry and Death Wish a "fascist propaganda". And Siskel shat all over Pale Rider, a western which was hugely influential for entire western division of European comics, which sell in BILLIONS. So pardon me if I don't trust ANY CRITIC in ANY FIELD.
Al Snow was always a smart man. So it amazes me how he can't seem to differentiate between "best" match, in terms of entertainment, and "most important" match in terms of drawing people in to make money. And like with anything in life, it's mostly subjective. Some people think the Steamboat/Savage match was the most exciting, entertaining match. Fine, that's their perspective, and it's not right or wrong. Some people think the Hogan/Andre the Giant match was the most exciting and entertaining match, that's fine. People see things differently, and get their kicks from different things. That's life, and neither is right or wrong, just different perspectives. But we have to be careful how we define "best". Someone can book a match between Austin and Rock, promote it to the moon, have them go out and smack talk each other in the most entertaining way possible, get everyone excited to see it, get everyone to tune in on PPV, or go to the arena and pay money to see it live, draw 100,000 people, 100 million on PPV, because they are so stoked to see it. And by Al Snow's definition, that would by default make it the "best match." But then...they go in the ring, and perform horribly, miss all their spots, botch all their moves, gas out quickly because they're out of shape, and generally give the worst performance you've ever seen in a wrestling ring. Then, would you call it the "best" match at that event, probably not. So the lines are not defined of what makes a match "the best match." By most peoples definition, it's the most exciting entertaining sound match. And not everyone will have the same perspective on which match was most exciting and entertaining. So it's not cut and dry, it's not chiseled in granite. Like with most things in life, it's subjective. My opinion is, the Hogan/Andre match was the best match, in terms of entertainment. Because, they did put on a great match, it wasn't a blunder. And it was the marquee match between these two mega stars that was a must see, and they didn't disappoint. It was an exciting match between 2 mega stars, that was a must see. That to me, put it over the top. Steamboat/Savage, may have been more entertaining in certain ways. But, just because of the hype surrounding the Hogan/Andre match, the fact that it was Hogan and Andre, and the fact that the match was exciting to watch also....I will give the nod to them. So Al Snow was right, but wrong in his interpretation of what makes a match "the best". A match isn't by default the best match, because it's the main event and people pay to see it more than the other matches. At the end of the day, the wrestlers have to go out there and perform. And if they perform badly in the main event match, forget it. If they perform good, and make the match exciting for fans to watch, that's the important bit. And usually the main event matches are the best matches anyways, just because of the hype surrounding it, and the megastars wrestling in it. All they really need to do is go out and perform well to put it over the top. Other guys down the card could "steal the show" by performing incredibly. But for the most part, the main event has far greater potential to be the "best" match, for a myriad of reasons.
Al likes to refine terms in a very narrow fashion. I remember him saying getting a pop when you come out to the ring is bad because you're supposed to save that for the match itself.
Adam H nah man.. hogan andre drew the most ticket sales and people went there for that match but was it the best match? no. savage/steamboat stole the show as it was the BEST match on the card.
Look at the comments by the so called smart fans who disagree with Al here. Lol. I wish some of the old-school mentality would re-emerge and a gang of shoot wrestlers would stretch all these deluded experts into submission.
i understand where he's coming from but it's a team effort as far as the whole roster has to come alive. Savage and Steamboat took an opportunity that presented itself in front of 93,000 people and made the absolute most of it. they made sure people remembered them forever. that is why they had one of the greatest matches ever. Hogan and Andre didn't keep those people in the building for 4-5 hours, everybody was trusted to perform.
I absolutely understand where Al Snow is coming from, but his unwillingness to understand the difference between having the most exciting match on a card and having the match that draws the most money shows that he's a condescending prick. Also, I don't know anyone who has ever bought a ticket to see Al Snow wrestle
If you go by the definition of the word attendance yes, if you go by how many fans were there it's not correct. Attendance by definition is "being present at an event" in that building for that event including the fans, employees of the stadium including vendors security designated please there were 93,000 people present. And since they were present at the event they were therefore in attendance by definition of the word.. so it's not lying, they did not actually say fans they said attendance, the paid fans was like 78,000
Hey, here's a question for you wannabe wrestling experts: if a run-of-the-mill house show had a "five-star match", but only 1'000 people paid to see it, was the show a success?
Kayspaify I didn't ask that. If they promoted a main event as a guaranteed 'five-star match', but 1'000 people came out to see it, was that show a success?
AntoG1986 It depends, if it were only 250 people the week it was a success. And WWE's house shows don't advertise with five star matches, they advertise with their so called top draws and big stars but in some regions of the world they have actually a hard time to get those 1,000 people. But to answer your question: Not necessarily, it always depends on the circumstances.
Kayspaify The answer is no. It has nothing to do with circumstances, it all boils down to one simple question: did it make a profit? That's all that really matters.
***** I'm not missing the point, you're missing mine. There is no such thing as a 'five-star match' in a fake business; that's not how pro wrestling works. Promoting wrestling shows that are an 'artistic success' (opinion) at the expense of shows that are a commercial success (profit) is counterproductive. No smart promoter runs wrestling shows to consistently lose money, and no smart wrestler would work a show where they would earn little money. It's called the wrestling business for a reason. Savage - Steamboat at WrestleMania 3 cannot be declared the best match, because it isn't unanimously agreed upon as the best match. Why? Because it's an opinion: not everyone has the same one. The point Al Snow is making was judging the success of WrestleMania 3 based on Savage - Steamboat, over the match that drew that monster crowd (Hogan - Andre), is what predicated the downfall of the pro wrestling business. A growing influence is judging the success of a show artistically, rather then commercially. Is it any wonder it's in a steep decline... His argument, as is mine and many successful people in the wrestling business, is that the best match for business is the one that draws the crowd and makes money. Drawing money cannot be disproved, and no-one in the comments section has managed to do otherwise. The 'best match on the show' is a myth, fabricated by smart marks who know next to nothing about how pro wrestling works. You can have your favourite match on the show, as can I, but the primary objective of pro wrestling is to make money. Arguing what match was technically the best, is for smart marks who are almost never happy anyway.
Part of your reply in incorrect - Vince Jr. had nothing to do with the business during his childhood.....he wasn't even with his father. But the gist of what you said is spot on
I agree that Al sort of unwittingly downgrades his role as a jobber by saying only the high drawers were the best wrestlers, but I don't agree that Al Snow was never a draw. I ain't saying a big draw, but if I was going to watch an Attitude Era show and Al Snow wasn't on the card, I'd be pissed off. I'm a huge 'Snow man'!
Ok, if you're going to listen to him talk about the biggest draws being the best match, then you would have to call Flair / Inoki the greatest ever since that 2 day festival in North Korea in '95 drew 340,000 fans.
Yeah, but of course the asterisk to that event is the fans didn't actually buy tickets. Their government literally told them to show up or die, well, go to a prison camp at the very least..
Al snow is saying if the hogan andre fight didn't happen there would be no WWE. Let us assume that was the case, If that fight saved the company, it saved the wrestlers jobs, because their jobs are saved you now get to watch more and more of WWE. A viewer although will have a different take on that because they paid to be entertained, so the best match to the viewer is the match that was most exciting and not the one that bring in the most dollars. But if the match itself saved the company from going under it technically was the best match of the night even though the steamboat fight was better entertainment wise.
It brought in the most money because the viewers wanted to see that particular match, therefor making it the most entertaining. It's not always the case, but in this instance I would say it is.
The Silverdome held 80,311 for football seating. None of those seats were closed off. Meltzer wants to say that negative 2,311 people sat on the floor, bring the total to 78K. Sure. I'll take WWE's word that they managed to put 13K seats on a floor space of about 130 yards x 65 yards.
He has a point in the sense that people paid to see hogan and Andre but he can't admit that savage and steamboat stole the show? Various wrestlers will say that ended up being the best match, Jericho, Bryan, Punk, even Hogan himself said it.
To me, "stole the show" means it was better than anyone expected it to be. And maybe for Savage and Steamboat, as good as one might have expected the match to be, it really did exceed expectations. Al's point would be - "So what if they stole the show?"
For those who don't understand Al's logic, he measures the greatness of a match by the level of emotional investment that viewers and audiences have for it and the performers involved. He measures that emotional investment by how much money was made from it, and how many people paid to see it. Because Hogan and Andre drew the most money and sold the most tickets, that means viewers and audiences were the most emotionally invested in them and their match. In Al's eyes, that level of emotional investment (and the money and people that it drew) made it the best match on the show.
Well wm 3 did not drew " 93 ,000 " people it drew 87,000 which is a great number but the best match was savage and steamboat , the match that changed the game and till talked about , yes Hogan vs andre was the most important but not the best , that match sucked
@@vampirascoffin870 Which match did the audience care the most about? For which match did the audience pop the loudest and hardest for? That's what decides how great a match was for the promoters and bookers. A match can be technically brilliant. But if nobody pays to see it, or if the audience is practically dead while watching it, then businesswise it was a dud. Not saying that Savage and Steamboat was a dud. But did it meet the promoter and booker criteria for what a good match is?
@@willcardona7712 you just as dumb as al snow , that's basically saying THE TRANSFORMERS MOVIES IS THE BEST CAUSE THOSE MOVIES MADE 1 BILLIONS OF DOLLARS DOESNT MAKE IT THE BEST YOU MORON , Steamboat vs savage was the best match , Hogan vs andre sucked plus andres health was not good needed surgery so please don't make an argument , like I said it's the most important but not the best match!!!!!
@@willcardona7712My brother said it similar to Al Snow. He said the following: "You might be the best indie wrestler out there who can do all kinds of spots in a match. But if I don't know who the heck you are, why should I care about your match?"
Al misses a fine point here; Dave is a journalist and student of the game. He was mentored by people like Paul Boesch, an extremely successful promoter, as well as having interviewed hundreds of workers, promoters, and creative staff in wrestling promotions. He's also a seasoned sports journalist, having worked with people like Frank Deford. As such, he brings an outsiders viewpoint, but backed up by tons of inside info and experience. That is his function. Yes, he presents his opinions, but they are based on years of study and interview, not just watching tv and PPVs. he has never said that Steamboat and Savage drew the crowd at Wrestlemania 3 (which was legit &8,000+, not the WWE fantasy of 93,000); he said they had the best match in terms of story, excitement, and technical skill. Hogan and Andre drew the bulk of the crowd, but Steamboat & Savage drew a chunk of it, too.
I get what Al is saying. But - suppose at the start of the Andre-Hogan match, Hogan gave Andre the finger poke of doom. Andre took a bump - lay on his back - then Hogan pinned him 1-2-3. Match over in 10 seconds say. Would it still have been the best match on the card? I can just imagine how crazy fans would have acted - crazy in a bad way.
If folks demanded a refund, and/or that outcome did significant damage to the business, I think he'd whistle a different tune. But if folks simply accepted that outcome and it somehow grew the business, I imagine he'd still call it the best match on the card. And the same logic would apply.
Seth Rollins once said that people buy ticket to see us,they watch ,enjoy and have a great time,that's the end of the story.5-star or 6-star matches are just a remark made by dave meltzer which people actually don't appreciate.
Al Snow wondering how Meltzer can be considered an expert without ever being in the business reminds me of something I read Meltzer say in an interview, something like this"So I have to be a gourmet chef to know what food taste good and what doesn't?"
I know this is a comment from 9 years ago but that would be just an opinion and he says people are entitled and welcomed to have one, he's not saying people can't say if the food tastes good or bad, he says that person can't be consider an "expert", because they don't know what actually makes the food taste good or bad, and same goes with Meltzer and any other fan who doesn't have the experience an actual wrestler has
Al Snow put it in a way that makes it seem like Dave Meltzer never acknowledges the business aspect of wrestling but it's not like he said that Savage and Steamboat drew for the whole show. Even now, he would give some Cena matches two stars but he doesn't deny that both Cena vs Rock matches are what carried Wrestlemania 28 & 29. Dave Meltzer simply stated his opinion that simply appealed to a lot of fans who have an affection for the technical aspect of pro wrestling to the point that the wrestling community habitually cites Savage vs Steamboat as one of the best matches of all time. It's not any different from how Citizen Kane earned its reputation as one of the greatest films. If Al believes that he doesn't feel the level of respect and credulity Meltzer receives is justified that's fine, but a lot of the so called 'public consensus' stem from the opinions of a guy who expressed them in a way that makes people listen to him. How many movie critics have made globally well known films? Not many. But I don't see how a lot of people citing critics and paying attention to what they say is something so hard to grasp someone's mind around.
I get your point Sean. However, just because a critic says something doesn't mean that they are right all the time. For example, both Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel thought that Home Alone will not become a Christmas Classic because they didn't like the film. I guess it is safe to say that they were wrong 30 years later.
Al seems to be confusing the word "best" with the words "most important." Hogan/Andre was clearly the most important match on the card for business, and that was decided by ticket sales before the show ever started. The best show on the card isn't decided until after the show's over, and is determined by the participants in-ring performance. My opinion.
That argument makes no sense. So by his logic HH/Andre is a better match before the match even happened. That's lunacy. That's like saying Avatar is the greatest movie of all time no questions asked because it made the most money, whereas a film like Citizen Kane is worthless because it made 1.5 million dollars.
That's exactly right. The movies that draw the most are the best because the purpose of the film is to make money. Critics and fans think differently because they are critics and fans.
OneManThrillRide Al is acting as if you can't judge matches for other merits than how much it draws. That's retarded. Wrestlers should try to put on better matches because it's one of the drawing factors. Al is essentially arguing the best draws are the best draws because they're the best draws. He's a dumbass.
I agree with Al, 100%. It's about drawing money. Great video. I'd enjoy more videos of wrestlers destroying "Smart" Marks. In fact, that's my next video.
chris seddon The idea is to draw money. That's why they call it the wrestling business. In any line of business, the goal is to make money and that's what Hogan-Andre did.
This clip is a bit out of context. Long story short, Al was talking about wrestling as a business. That's why he was talking about drawing money. Strictly speaking for myself, when I was a kid, Hogan-Andre was the match I wanted to see and I still consider it my favorite Wrestlemania match. Also, as far as "workrate" (A term that after five years on the indy circuit as a ref, I don't recall a worker ever saying.) 93,173 people were on their feet the whole time during the main event and the one high spot was a half-assed body slam that had all the people in the Silverdome loose their minds. Not taking away from Savage-Steamboat, but if Hogan-Andre can make a classic out of doing as little as possible, that makes for a great match.
No, Al Snow said the "best" match. Not "the most profitable". If wrestling is a craft, falling just short of true artistry but still a craft, let's judge the quality of the matches and how well they stand the test of time. Andre the Giant has long since passed away, Hulk Hogan has spent his WMIII money several times over--all that is left is the quality of the match, to serve as an example of how (or not how) to have a main event match. It's the legacy that one leaves behind that determines true greatness. Vincent Van Gough died in poverty and only sold one of his 800 plus paintings in his lifetime, but you ask any art guru, the man is considered one of the all-time greats in his field. Judging by Al Snow's logic, the Goldberg vs. Hogan match that was meant to happen on the first episode of Nitro for 1999 was a great match, because that's one that many people flocked to the Georgia Dome to see. In the end, Goldberg was detained as the police station (in the storyline) and Nash replaced Goldberg, and we got the "finger poke of doom". It was the main event, roughly 40,000 people saw it live, and it drew a huge rating on TV. According to Snow, that would make either bout (the Goldberg vs. Nash match that never happened, and its Hogan vs. Nash replacement) better than Steamboat vs. Savage at WMIII. What if Andre had been unable to perform for some reason that night (he was in awful health) and, say, Paul Orndorff replaced Andre? Would that have then been the "best" match in Snow's mind? Because let's say that did happen, the fans would've been watching a match they didn't pay to see. So much of what Snow says is wrong, and I use the film analogy demonstrated elsewhere about this subject: if a film with Adam Sandler draws more money than a film featuring Charles Chaplin, does that mean that Sandler is a better comic than Chaplin? Also, what if money were to someday become obsolete, and wrestling was to be purely about entertainment and not making bread? Surely then future generations will regard Savage vs. Steamboat as the best match, regardless of Snow's money-obsessed nonsense--and Snow is a wrestler who quite frankly never drew a dime for a major promotion, so his opinion is no more valid than anybody else's opinion.
MisterObjectivity Al may not have drawn main event money, but he's been in the business for years and has more knowledge about it than any internet smark that waits for people like Dave Meltzer to tell them what they want to hear.
I will admit that I see where Al is coming from and understand his point of view but will also say that I completely disagree with it. Just because a match is the draw or main event doesn't mean its the best match on the show, the actual quality of the work in the match combined with the heat etc is what makes it the best match
Al Snow welcome to the real world son..This is true in all aspect of sports and society..Doesn't matter if it's Meltzer in wrestling or the sports journalist on ESPN talking about the game played the previous night..Its that way in politics also but it's these aspects of media that can grow a genre of a sport..One thing that has been proven is you don't have to play a sport to be a good or even a great coach or to analyze and give good insightful commentary on what just happened...If flocks turn to Meltzer for wrestling insight and this bothers Snow then that's an Al Snow problem it's not a wrestling problem..
I respectfully disagree my friend. He has a point about Meltzer. Yes I don't need to be a 5 star chef to cook but I definitely need to know how to cook.
Actually, people, at one point, did buy tickets to shows to see Al Snow. When he was an indy worker in the 90's. Because indy fans, even back then, loved great WRESTLING and great WRESTLERS as opposed to the hype machine of McMahon or WCW, and Snow's initial popularity was based on the quality of his ring work.
@@MPHswayze no because justin and drake in a wrestling match would be the biggest wrestling match sigh i cannot believe my 15 year old self was brighter than u lool
Wildfire Gaming considering andre was way past his prime due to the gigantism he suffered from and hogan could wrestle just as great as a ham sandwich. the only reason hogan andre is so great it the spectical built around it. i would argue hhh reigns from wm32 is a better worked match.
I think it's just a semantic issue. Most people would say Savage and Steamboat had the most athletic and physically captivating and entertaining match on that show. But, Hogan and Andre was the big money draw. It also got a huge reaction from the crowd and entertained them in a different way. I think Al is being a bit closed-minded here just because he wants to prove a point. To me, the best match on the card is the match that gets the fans into it the most, creates the best memories, and makes people want to re-watch it. How the wrestlers accomplish this is up to them. I would say Hogan/Andre and Savage/Steamboat are about equal in my opinion. But, it is certainly possible to have two huge stars in a match with a lot of hype and have it disappoint the crowd and clearly not be the best match; just look at Hogan/Warrior from Halloween Havoc.
@@andystegall7407 That's not true at all. You don't need to be a wrestling nerd to understand that certain matches are better than others. It's called common sense and general recognition of talent and athletic ability. Match quality aside, Savage and Steamboat weren't just two jabronis. They had a high profile rivalry and were two of the biggest stars in the company. You must think all the 90k people in the crowd that night were "wrestling nerds" because they had that whole stadium going crazy.
@@zackvanhalenYou are correct but Snow has a point as well. Wrestling is like a restaurant. When you go to a restaurant you are going for the entrée. And if you read a menu, you might want an appetizer for starters. Think of it like this: Hogan vs. Andre = Entrée Savage vs. Steamboat = Appetizer
just because something earned the most money does not make it the best. whether its wrestling match, movie or whatever. I dont care what Al says or anybody else.
***** From a business perspective it is a better movie. Not only that, it is a franchise, so Disney can continue to pump the movies out and practically print money. Look what happened to Orson Welles.... he died a pauper because he put ego before money.
Not enough people give enough shits to recognize wrestling as "high art". And even if they did, there would be many opinions as to which type of wrestling is the best. "Technical" wrestling is just performing moves cleanly without risk. Knowing a few more moves is like a writer having a thesaurus on hand. It doesn't make their stories any better. And doing things fast does not really make matches better. Who is a better comedian, someone that spits out joke 100 miles per hour, or one that knows the nuances of comedic timing? Fan reactions have shown time and again that Hogan is one of the best "workers" ever. He has the timing, the psychology, and charisma, plus he has an imposing look and looks like he could legitimately handle any opponent thrown at him. Contrast with some 180 lb flyweight "smart" fans love to cream over because he can do what any gymnast can do. Meltzer has taken it upon himself to define the "artform" of wrestling, and set himself as a critic of a form of entertainment that the intellectual mainstream has scoffed at. He is a wannabe critic hiding out where no other critic will venture. His definition of "workrate" is subjective at best. It punishes big guys for being big, and power guys for being powerful, when historically, big guys have drawn the most money in this sport.
Snow never said he was a main point of any promotion. He's a man who accepted his place at the bottom of the card and did what bottom card guys are supposed to do by putting people over. Snow came from that last class of the dying territories, back when it was all about making money and the marks where outside the ring.
But he believes he has the best matches during the attitude era lol
@@vampirascoffin870does he?
Everybody came to see Iron Sheik make Brian Blair humble.
Nobody can deny this fact.
+CommentatorDeluxe LOL!
+CommentatorDeluxe You forgot about the "fuck him in the ass" part xD
+CommentatorDeluxe *the Brian Blair
SpeedAnchor LOL!
SpeedAnchor
Yea he beat dat jbrronii Brain Blair in the tag match at WM 3
I was at at Wrestle Mania 3. Incredible event. Amazing to see Hogan in person body slam Andre. So much different than watching it on tv.
How far back was you? Did Andre look like a roach and Hogan like an ant struggling to lift a discarded half an oreo?
Lol
How many of you were there!??never got a clear answer😂💀
Then that means they had the best match. I agree with Al.
I think Al snow is one of those wrestlers that never really got a big push or anything but man he understands the business in such a unique way. U can disagree with what he says but I think his knowledge reflects a real grasp about what the wrestling business is really about which is something not spoken about publicly often.
Raven was the same way.
I think both matches served their own important role. One was the technical masterpiece that the pure wrestling fans can admire, the other was the larger than life confrontation that the general masses can get into. Every huge event needs both those things.
Every huge event needs the latter for the former to even exist
"General masses." You fart into a champagne flutes and smell it, don't you
People didnt pay to see Wrestlemania 3 to see Savage and Steamboat, yes it was a wonderful treat and a wonderful match, but nobody was thinking "That Savage Steamboat is the match i paid to see" because the match that everyone wanted to see was Andre and Hulk. He's not saying they didnt have a great match, he's saying Hogan and Andre were the match being paid for to see
I agree with him
Jesus if you think really hard in that head of yours that believes that you just as dumb as al snow PEOPLE WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW SAVAGE VS STEAMBOAT WAS GREAT AND IT WAS THE BEST MATCH!!! If you also believe it drew " 93,000 " clearly it tells me what type of fan you are
People did NOT keep coming back for Savage Steamboat actually their rematches drew poorly in the spring of 1987 facts folks and Hogan and Andre rematches ala Survivor Series 87 and Main Event on NBC drew record PPV numbers and ratings facts
chris seddon
Promoters book to make $$$ Hogan and Andre made $$$ what some consider best matches is a matter of opinion
chris seddon
right and others are equally incorrect when they say Savage and Steamboat was "best match" because they could do a bunch of spots in no way could they overshadow Hogan or Andre in terms telling a story, capturing people imaginations, and mainstream attention. People loved seeing the giants
chris seddon You have to be THE dumbest poster on this video, and with the fierce competition of stupid posts, that is quite the statement.
***** Yes you are right
@@2COOLGHOULS i bet your favorite wrestlers is big sweaty men with only 5 moves and belives it drew 93 ,000 knowing it was really 87 ,000 you moron
Nearly 40,000 RUclipsrs have Googled who in the flying fuck "Dave Meltzer" is by now.
+ATCRyderX© how do you not know who he is
lol
He's the Young Bucks' uncle duh.
Dave meltzer is reason a lot of great workers get buried he has a huge fan base who idolize him you can check them out on raw trying to make the show all about themselves
Meltzer sounds like Jerry Springer to me
Dave Meltzer really is the best worker in the biz when you lay out the facts like that..
If you take Meltzer's word as gospel then that's no different than opening up USWeekly and taking those opinions as gospel.
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
He's wrong about the definition of "best match" but he's not wrong about Meltzer.
No he’s not. He’s 100% correct.
@@johnnysins4158 By this logic, Nitro, January 4th 1999 was Hollywood Hogan vs Kevin Nash. It drew the most fans and was *the* main event. The match went just over a minute and involved a wrestler taking a flat back bump from a finger poke and then being pinned. That was it. You and Al Snow are going to sit here and say that was *the best wrestling match* on that card? Are you nuts? there was no wrestling involved?
No he’s absolutely right.
Your entitled to your opinion
@@Pillmanizedthat wasnt a match. I think you need to also deliver in the match. Not technically but have it emotionally be satisfying. Nash hogan wasnt that. Rock hohan was. Mcmahon hogan was.
Thank you Al Snow for calling out Dave Meltzer! As Bobby Heenan said, the best worker is the one who sold tickets.
Al Snow is talking about it from a BUSINESS perspective. The ones who don't agree with Al have poor listening comprehension. Al is right. So far, mostly everyone here is trying to combat Al with illogical arguments.
No, the problem is that Al is saying outright that the Hogan/Andre match was the best match just because it was the marquis match. He is mixing up 'best' in terms of actual quality with 'most important, most lucrative and most well advertised'. I'm not sure why he's doing that and why he is deliberately refusing to see any other way. He is right about the importance of the Hogan/Andre match, of course he is, but to say it was the best match when 'best' is always judged on quality is questionable at best. He is talking of business issues, you are right, but he's not using business terminology, he's using terms which are used when judging quality, not profitability.
And Al doesn't understand Meltzer is NOT talking from a business perspective. He's the fucktard.
@@Grumftheld perfectly said.💯👍
@@Grumftheld The reason you feel that way is because you're still looking at it from a fan's viewpoint. Al is talking about the business viewpoint of someone who works in the business. You'll never agree on what constitutes a great match cause you have different definitions of what a great match is.
@@NukeCaulfield yea hogan vs andre was the most important not THE BEST so you gonna lose this battle
Spot on comments by Al Snow
You dumb just like him
@@vampirascoffin870 you a fucking dumb mark
@@vampirascoffin870 shut up smark
100 % spot on regarding Meltzer- he is the biggest con artist ever - more power to him for having milked the business
Al Snow is fucking awesome.
In this case All snow has never had a great match. Nobody has paid a dime to see a Al snow match
Head drew more money than Al did LOL
JS8700 That sounds a bit harsh but it actually might be the case.
I think Head's gimmick was that she had a jobber carrying her and not the other way around.
if that wwere the case wwf wwe woulda never hired him.. sure he never made hogan money persy.. but still its a name that people know, and a name usually = capitol of some extent... i can gurantee you he lives in a far better house than you or drives a nice car than you as well
Player DIEZ exactly
Finally someone at least attempts to expose Dave Meltzer as it pertains to him being the be all end all in wrestling opinions. Hulk Hogan and Andre had the most significant match of that show and possibly all time. Does that make it the best match on that show??? It depends in that moment absolutely not because clearly Savage and Steamboat outworked them. But when you look back at the significance of the two matches and which one sold the show and which one allowed wrestling to reach new heights then you could make the argument that Hogan and Andre had the better match because it has withstood the tests of time. I guess it depends on how far you are willing to take the word best match out of context and how many avenues you are looking at when deciding what it means to have been the best.
Hogan vs andre that match sucked it was the most important moment in history but not the best match
All I see is a washep up guy who doesn't understand what a critic is
@@Kr4ShSkeLHe isn't wrong my friend
@@lancethefilmguy9392 he's 100% wrong, there are people like meltzer in every form of entertainement the dude is just doing his job and he never claimed to have infused knowledge. Al Snow is a bum everyone knows it, just ask the fcw students
Here's an analogy
I'm not a chef, but I can taste the difference between a delicious meal and an overpriced/hyped Mc'Rib
Tony Elliott the overpriced McRib MAKES MORE MONEY THEREFORE IT IS STATISTICALLY BETTER.
Tony Elliott and the majority of people's opinions are that the McRib is good so odds are its probably quite good
мар яp
Al is sad he literally never had a 4 star match in his career it would be hard to find some decent 3 star matches as well from him
Here is a rebuttle, I am not a chef, yet I can cook meals and I too can taste the difference between the two.
Being able to cook and develop even a rudimentary pallete doesn't take years of training. It requires moderate motor skills and taste buds.
Meltzer is a conman.
Most people are idiots with no taste. Popular opinion means nothing. Odds are, if the masses like something, it's lowbrow shit.
Because Sid vs Undertaker and Jericho vs Triple H will remain in out hearts as the best and biggest matches on the show. The impact they've had since has been incomparable!
people don't understand that workers are workers, the world title won't always have the spotlight
You are aware that those matches weren't what sold the tickets right? WrestleMania 13 was about Austin vs. Hart & WrestleMania X8 was about The Rock vs. Hollywood Hogan.
I like Snow but I disagree with the “best match” argument he has but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I think that we have here a failure to communicate. Snow and everybody else must distinguish between “greatest” and “best”. Now the IC Title match can be the best, as long as the WWF Title match is recognized as the greatest.
Your opinion on wrestling got skewed by wrestling
Al comes across as a good bloke.
If the people left before Hogan/Andre then it wasn't the best match on the card. However people did stay and the match lived up to the buildup. Savage/Steamboat was proably the standout match on the card but it was a giant spotfest. WMIII was built around Hogan/Andre. Everything else were the undercard which was put together to build for the main event.
Selling tickets determines success, because the money you make determines success in a business. The match that they came to see, that they paid for, that they bought a ticket specifically for, is the best match of the night when we’re talking about business.
Dave claims to be the ultimate insider and his ratings are so highly respected, yet at the end of the day it’s an old smark who people pay to read is biased-for-the-time opinions.
Al's not using the same definition of "best" as the rest of the world. Of course Hogan/Andre was the reason WM3 existed and the reason WWF had continued success afterwards. It put asses in seats and created a lot of new fans.
But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the most enjoyable match to watch. And that match was Savage/Steamboat.
Brett Mann The fact is that when someone says "best match" they are almost never talking about which match sold the most tickets.
Frankly it's a dumb way to define it. Hogan and Andre could have pulled down their pants and took a shit in the ring and rolled around in it, and it still would have been the match that sold the most tickets. The tickets weren't sold after the match happened because people heard it was so exciting to watch that they had to pay their money to go and see it.... they were sold purely on marketing hype, promotion, and the excitement and anticipation that Vince/Hogan/Andre were able to create for the main event. It had nothing to do with how good anyone's performance was in the ring that night.
By Al Snow's logic, the best movies of 2014 were Transformers and Mockingjay, and anyone who thinks 12 Years A Slave or Dallas Buyers Club or The Wolf of Wall Street are better is just flat wrong, because movie making is part of the entertainment business, where the goal is to make money. He's saying that money is the only goal and the only thing that defines quality.
(And that's not even addressing the fact that seeing exciting, action-packed matches like Savage/Steamboat or Harts/Bulldogs is what improves the overall experience of the show and gets people to buy another ticket next time they're in town.)
That's true. But most people aren't Hollywood movie producers. That's why it doesn't make sense for Al Snow to insist that everyone else is wrong to use the standard of "most entertaining match" or "best performance".
To use a footballing analogy, and I mean real football, not the American kind, its like trying to argue who is the best player ever, is it the guy who won the most trophies, scored the most goals, or played the best, all are valid methods to justify who was the best. same goes for Al
Someone finally figured how many asses he put in the seat his entire career. I'll give you a hint. It was in negative numbers.
3:31 The Young Bucks and Kenny Omega in a nutshell
What did that person that said "Steamboat and Savage" off camera do to warrant being called a "dumb shit" by al snow? Especially when that answer is common.
Damnit I see you all calling him dumb for saying this but ur not getting what he saying. He knows that savage and steamboat had the best quality match there man. ur missing whats hes saying. today its so cool to chant "u can't wrestle" at a guy that is a "power move guy" but if u look back on what everyone talked about and what everyone raved about in the 80's, Hogan, Road Warriors, Andre....people wanted to see a fight. in the 80's at any wwe house show im sure the best "quality match" would be something like the rockers vs the hart foundation, however the people that bought tickets wanted to see hogan and andre go at it. the wanted to see the Road warriors or the ultimate warrior press slam someone, the wanted to jake roberts throw a snake on some one!
Look back at the 90's and what everyone was into then. It was the raw emotion, the story telling. We wanted to see Stone Cold drink beer, flip the bird and give people the stunner, we wanted the rock to lay the smack down on the mic, we wanted to see what funny ass shit DX was going to do, we wanted to see hall and nash, run into a WCW arena with ball bats in street clothes and start taking out wcw wrestlers just because they were wcw wrestlers so that guys that wrestled for wcw that didn't like each other would come together in a realistic bond to win a war...emotion..story telling. we didn't care about a 5 star match. did anyone tell chat "u cant wrestle" when Austin was just throwing punches and dropping stunners? hell no
the Undertakers first 4 or 5 years with the company, when he was over as hell and caught the minds of us all....only did 4 moves..flying clothes line, throat punch, old school, and a tombstone. did anyone chant "you cant wrestle"? hell no.
all those things i just brought up are the things people were talking about tuesday morning with there friends. i never once got a call from any of my friends with them marking out on the other end of the phone "did you see that 5 star match rey mysterio and ultimo dragon had last night!?!" Everyone says they love the attitude era so much but then turn around and say fuck cena he cant wrestle. Al is 110% right. We dont have emotion anymore, we have a bunch of smart fans who just judge , bitch, cry and moan and look for every reason to hate the shows. Bring back the way wrestling was and i doubt we'd keep hearing some of the non stop bitching.
yes savage and steamboat had a better match but 30 million people paid the wwe a shit load of money to see hogan slam andre.
Brian Rose Yea but I feel like fans chant "u can't wrestle" exclusively at John Cena. And that was because of how sloppy he was at basic stuff.
MetalPersonJ they chant it at anyone thats over 6'2" and built unless you are already a legend like Taker or Big Show......(sigh) sadly wrestling fans(not you man just a thought im having) are turning into something like todays hip hop fans, meaning they care nothing of its history.
Brian Rose they didnt chant that at drew galloway, sheamus, orton,Del rio, Orton
Exactly, the only reason people are bitching about in ring wrestling is because quality story telling is basically gone in the WWE.
So, now all they can hope for is a quality in ring wrestling match. The problem is if all they care about is a good fight then they should just start watching UFC. At least you'd be watching a real fight with very skilled opponents.
@@charvelgtrs wow you perfectly explain why people focus so much on quality matches now and become smarks... but then someone like Bray Wyatt comes along and they actually go back to their roots of Storytelling
On terms of ppv, Hogan vs Andre is the most important match in wrestling history. Snow didn't say it was the best match in terms of wrestling if you listen carefully
He corrected the guy when he said most important. In terms of business and making money the best match isn't about wrestling holds
This should give you all a indication of what was the true draw in 87 and 88 WWF was all about Hogan vs Andre en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night%27s_Main_Event on February 5, 1988 featured a WrestleMania III rematch between Hogan and André and drew 33 million viewers and a 15.2 rating,
That was rude in the beginning. If Al Snow called me a dumb shit, like he did the guy in the background, I would be obligated to step up and get my ass kicked.
Bless you Al Snow!
I like Al as well but even Bret Hart has mentioned that back then the undercard were much better matches even to the point where tag teams were headlining many shows around that time.
It's not about matches and wrestling holds. You missed the point. It's about what gets the people in the building and makes them buy the ticket. While undercard matches are part of the package, the draw was Hogan vs Andre.
@@dslking you who completely missed the point. if there weren't undercard, midcard fights, that was entertaining enough to put people heated up for more than an hour, there wouldn't be Hogan vs Andre
@@bosnio7985 nobody buys a ticket to see the killer bees. They are merely an appetizer before the main course
@@dslking I didn't say about what people are going to buy, but about what will get them to watch the rest of the show. a good appetizer can hide the defects of the main course.
@@dslking What is the best match and what is the biggest draw are two different concepts. Not sure why you and Al have them confused.
I fucking love Al Snow!
"This song is #1 on iTunes and is played on the radio every day, so it's the greatest song there is!"
Yep, Al Snow. Yeeeeeep.
What a stupid analogy.
A song's success is measured primarily on how many units it sells. That's how they top the charts, and thus gets more airtime on the radio. A song reaches number one in the charts because a lot of people liked it enough to go and purchase it.
AntoG1986 What an even more stupid thing to say.
Especially in music it mostly depends on marketing of an album of the song, the notoriety of the performer which basically is part of marketing as well and whether something goes viral. A lot of potential #1 hits don't even make it into the top 100 because the musician doesn't like to take his/her clothes off, is from the wrong country, didn't have the luck to have his/her song played on a commercial or whatever factors and scenatios you can think of. This is similar to Hogan vs Andre, the match was built up like crazy for a long time before WM 3 and both of them were pushed to the moon and booked as the strongest people in the world unlike Savage and Steamboat were, of course more people wanted to see Hogan vs Andre because kayfabe was a huge thing back then.
So, you, agree?
I'll make an analogy to counter Al's point. "The big mac sells more units than any other burger in the world, therefore it tastes the best." Obviously that logic doesn't hold any kind of water, but that is essentially what Al is saying here.
That's not what Al Snow was saying at all. He was stating a fact that making money is the number one priority in professional wrestling. It's what's best for business.
Yeah that's not what he said. To use your analogy the Big Mac is the best match because when people are hungry that is what gets them in the door. If chicken nuggets were the thing people went to McDonald's for then it would be the best match
@@AntoRetroGamer Al Snow conflates "best" with making money. He should have said which match made the most money on the show. Conflating best and money making isn't really accurate, imo. The video game Sonic 06, known for tons of glitches and bugs, sold millions for it to be a success, doesn't mean it was great.
@@AntoRetroGamer Making money is the overall priority in literally every business but that doesnt make it the number one priority for every person involved. I'm sure lots of people held creating something high in quality over making the most cash.
@@alexmonro1711True. However he has a point about why fans went to see WrestleMania 3. Think of it this way:
Let's say wrestling is like a restaurant. When you go to a restaurant, you look at the menu and see what you want to order. Now like any restaurant, you have the appetizer and the entrée. The meal that you are looking to order is the entrée. The appetizers are things you get before the entrée. You may enjoy the appetizer more than the entrée but you didn't come to the restaurant for the appetizer. You came for the entrée.
Savage vs. Steamboat is the appetizer & Hogan vs. Andre is the entrée.
Al seems like someone it would be very hard to have a conversation with. He's always so convinced he's right that there is no room for debate.
Right because as someone who has been at least somehow involved in wrestling for decades, what would he know about the business over a bunch of marks whose only involvement is limited to watching it on TV and maybe attending a live event or two? Hell, Bobby Heenan said something similar about the ones who are the best sell the most tickets. The best matches sell the most tickets. It's not hard to understand.
@@SuperHyphyOne I hope if you go to a restaurant and get bad service and undercooked food you dont complain. Since they clearly have more experience in restaurants than you? (Assuming you dont personally work in that industry but the general argument still stands).
Also most financially successful and highest in quality are two completely different concepts. The word best means highest in quality. So saying the matches that sell the most are automatically the best is just objectively wrong.
@@alexmonro1711 no, the general argument doesn't stand. When I go to a restaurant and I order food, my expectation is that the food is prepared, cooked, and served as advertised or specified by me and not whatever the cook feels like at any particular moment in time. If what he serves doesn't meet those specifications, then of course complaints are justified.
Take Hogan vs The Rock at Wrestlmania X8. The only reason that it wasn't the main event was because the world title wasn't involved, but yet it was the most advertised match on the card as it was all over TV and promo posters for the event. I don't recall seeing a Triple H vs Chris Jericho pic on any promo poster. Clearly McMahon wanted that to be the main event, but didn't want to overshadow the world title. The Rock vs. Hogan was by no means the best match (quality wise) as it wasn't too much more than the typical Hogan vs heel match that we've all seen hundreds of times over the years, just with a bit more back and forth action. However, as important as the world title match was, Hogan vs Rock match sold the most tickets even as a special attraction match.
@@SuperHyphyOneExactly 💯
What Alex above us doesn't understand is that Al Snow isn't saying the main event sells the most tickets, he means that the match that fans paid to see sells the most tickets. Like you said, fans didn't pay to watch Triple H vs. Chris Jericho they paid to watch The Rock vs. Hollywood Hogan. The only reason why they didn't main event WrestleMania X8 was because of Vince McMahon.
Heck, even Chris Jericho & Triple H have said in interviews that they didn't want to go on last. They tried telling Vince McMahon not to put them in the main event. But he said: "You have to. It's the title and the title always main events WrestleMania." As we've seen, this was a mistake. Granted, the match itself was decent. However, by the time we got to that match, the audience were less energize after the Hogan vs. Rock match earlier that night.
So I guess if I walk into a restaurant and order a steak and it tastes like garbage, my opinion isn't valid because I've never cooked a meal in my life.
I love when Al Snow drops the fucking knowledge. People paid for WM3 to see Andre vs Hogan, not Steamboat vs Savage.
My favorite part about this, is how it feels like Sean is the tenth person Al has had to explain this to today, lmao. Al is spot on!
I get what Snow is saying ... the most ascetically pleasing match on the card was Savage vs Steamboat tho. Hand down!
It was the best match. If you don’t actually wrestle and have a terrible match and the fans are upset like Brock and Roman in 2018 or whenever it was (I was there), it does more harm than good. It’s the highest drawing match but you have to actually have the match for it to be in contention for the best match. If it’s a let down, how can it be the best? Unless we aren’t really wrestling fans and we just pay to see guys entrances.
@@doubleemcastillano464 it can still be the best match and not draw future business. That's on the Booker to read the audience and determine
Snow conflates "best" with money making. There are tons of popular things that have sold millions, but the quality is bad.
@@crystalwater505 and at the end of the day all that matters is that it makes money.
@@dslking That doesn't equate to "best" though, that just means it made the most money. A lot of crappy things make tons of money, look at the music industry. Substitute "best" with "Popular". It's really just semantics.
People seem to all have their own ideas on what a best match is.
There are many aspects to the match, whether they be storyline, anticipation, spectacle, work rate, intensity, fan interaction, uniqueness, advertising, emotional investment, promo work, spots, false finishers, interference... etc Savage vs Steamboat is most likely the best technical match (they did perform the same match many times in house show), Hogan vs Andre overshadowed them with build up, best overall match.
Look at Hogan, he had been the face of the company for 3 years by then... Andre was a hell of an attraction, an icon from the previous era. Hogan and Andre's names meant alot more than Savage and Steamboat, especially to people who may of only been watching WWF. Hogan and Andre were house hold names. How long had Savage been around for?
But i think Al means "best" in terms of "What would be the best match to put on the card in order to sell the most tickets?". That's the only way his statement makes sense, since the actual match doesn't happen until AFTER tickets are sold.
And why do people buy those tickets? There's a match people want to see. Nobody is ever going to be the best at anything unless people are around to recognize that is the point.
Snow is ignoring one important fact - Meltzer has studied the business more than most of the people who work in it. He's a historian and a critic essentially. That study gives him a different perspective and credential. It's a knowledge base that has its usefulness.
A film critic is just a guy who studied film and watched a bunch of movies. Most of them are not filmmakers, yet filmmakers could learn something from those same critics for their wide knowledge base. Ebert probably can't tell you how to frame a shot, but he could help you figure out what to cut from a script when you're trying to trim it.
I can't tell if this comment is being sarcastic or not
Ebert also called Dirty Harry and Death Wish a "fascist propaganda".
And Siskel shat all over Pale Rider, a western which was hugely influential for entire western division of European comics, which sell in BILLIONS.
So pardon me if I don't trust ANY CRITIC in ANY FIELD.
Al Snow was always a smart man. So it amazes me how he can't seem to differentiate between "best" match, in terms of entertainment, and "most important" match in terms of drawing people in to make money.
And like with anything in life, it's mostly subjective. Some people think the Steamboat/Savage match was the most exciting, entertaining match. Fine, that's their perspective, and it's not right or wrong. Some people think the Hogan/Andre the Giant match was the most exciting and entertaining match, that's fine. People see things differently, and get their kicks from different things. That's life, and neither is right or wrong, just different perspectives.
But we have to be careful how we define "best". Someone can book a match between Austin and Rock, promote it to the moon, have them go out and smack talk each other in the most entertaining way possible, get everyone excited to see it, get everyone to tune in on PPV, or go to the arena and pay money to see it live, draw 100,000 people, 100 million on PPV, because they are so stoked to see it. And by Al Snow's definition, that would by default make it the "best match."
But then...they go in the ring, and perform horribly, miss all their spots, botch all their moves, gas out quickly because they're out of shape, and generally give the worst performance you've ever seen in a wrestling ring. Then, would you call it the "best" match at that event, probably not.
So the lines are not defined of what makes a match "the best match." By most peoples definition, it's the most exciting entertaining sound match. And not everyone will have the same perspective on which match was most exciting and entertaining. So it's not cut and dry, it's not chiseled in granite. Like with most things in life, it's subjective.
My opinion is, the Hogan/Andre match was the best match, in terms of entertainment. Because, they did put on a great match, it wasn't a blunder. And it was the marquee match between these two mega stars that was a must see, and they didn't disappoint. It was an exciting match between 2 mega stars, that was a must see. That to me, put it over the top.
Steamboat/Savage, may have been more entertaining in certain ways. But, just because of the hype surrounding the Hogan/Andre match, the fact that it was Hogan and Andre, and the fact that the match was exciting to watch also....I will give the nod to them.
So Al Snow was right, but wrong in his interpretation of what makes a match "the best". A match isn't by default the best match, because it's the main event and people pay to see it more than the other matches. At the end of the day, the wrestlers have to go out there and perform. And if they perform badly in the main event match, forget it. If they perform good, and make the match exciting for fans to watch, that's the important bit.
And usually the main event matches are the best matches anyways, just because of the hype surrounding it, and the megastars wrestling in it. All they really need to do is go out and perform well to put it over the top. Other guys down the card could "steal the show" by performing incredibly. But for the most part, the main event has far greater potential to be the "best" match, for a myriad of reasons.
Al likes to refine terms in a very narrow fashion. I remember him saying getting a pop when you come out to the ring is bad because you're supposed to save that for the match itself.
Al snow always say ass backwards lol
@@vampirascoffin870Not really
just because a match drew the most PPV buys or ticket sales etc doesnt make that automatically the BEST match on the card..
Adam H
nah man.. hogan andre drew the most ticket sales and people went there for that match but was it the best match? no. savage/steamboat stole the show as it was the BEST match on the card.
Agree totally with what al is saying here.
Look at the comments by the so called smart fans who disagree with Al here. Lol. I wish some of the old-school mentality would re-emerge and a gang of shoot wrestlers would stretch all these deluded experts into submission.
there would be no Al Snow if it wasnt for these deluded experts
@@bullhead4963 They have made him famous but they doesn't mean they know more than he does about the topic here. LMAO.
@Oberstein Knows Best I was just trying to trip up some closet homosexuals.
i understand where he's coming from but it's a team effort as far as the whole roster has to come alive. Savage and Steamboat took an opportunity that presented itself in front of 93,000 people and made the absolute most of it. they made sure people remembered them forever. that is why they had one of the greatest matches ever. Hogan and Andre didn't keep those people in the building for 4-5 hours, everybody was trusted to perform.
I absolutely understand where Al Snow is coming from, but his unwillingness to understand the difference between having the most exciting match on a card and having the match that draws the most money shows that he's a condescending prick. Also, I don't know anyone who has ever bought a ticket to see Al Snow wrestle
Al Snow is a smart SOB. He sure is a great interview.
Al Snow is a mark if he thinks the actual attendance of WrestleMania III was over 93,000.
He says in his own words everyone is a mark. He would agree with you.
93173 people went to wm3..
And you're a Meltzer sheep if you believe it wasn't over 93000..see everyone has his own opinion over provided facts without clear proof
If you go by the definition of the word attendance yes, if you go by how many fans were there it's not correct. Attendance by definition is "being present at an event" in that building for that event including the fans, employees of the stadium including vendors security designated please there were 93,000 people present. And since they were present at the event they were therefore in attendance by definition of the word.. so it's not lying, they did not actually say fans they said attendance, the paid fans was like 78,000
@@mrexposethetruth6549 There is no way that there were 15,000 employees, etc., working that event. Regardless, the number is a Vince McMahon work.
Hey, here's a question for you wannabe wrestling experts: if a run-of-the-mill house show had a "five-star match", but only 1'000 people paid to see it, was the show a success?
If way more people come to the next show because of that five star match it was a success.
Kayspaify I didn't ask that.
If they promoted a main event as a guaranteed 'five-star match', but 1'000 people came out to see it, was that show a success?
AntoG1986 It depends, if it were only 250 people the week it was a success. And WWE's house shows don't advertise with five star matches, they advertise with their so called top draws and big stars but in some regions of the world they have actually a hard time to get those 1,000 people.
But to answer your question: Not necessarily, it always depends on the circumstances.
Kayspaify The answer is no.
It has nothing to do with circumstances, it all boils down to one simple question: did it make a profit? That's all that really matters.
***** I'm not missing the point, you're missing mine.
There is no such thing as a 'five-star match' in a fake business; that's not how pro wrestling works. Promoting wrestling shows that are an 'artistic success' (opinion) at the expense of shows that are a commercial success (profit) is counterproductive. No smart promoter runs wrestling shows to consistently lose money, and no smart wrestler would work a show where they would earn little money. It's called the wrestling business for a reason.
Savage - Steamboat at WrestleMania 3 cannot be declared the best match, because it isn't unanimously agreed upon as the best match. Why? Because it's an opinion: not everyone has the same one. The point Al Snow is making was judging the success of WrestleMania 3 based on Savage - Steamboat, over the match that drew that monster crowd (Hogan - Andre), is what predicated the downfall of the pro wrestling business. A growing influence is judging the success of a show artistically, rather then commercially. Is it any wonder it's in a steep decline...
His argument, as is mine and many successful people in the wrestling business, is that the best match for business is the one that draws the crowd and makes money. Drawing money cannot be disproved, and no-one in the comments section has managed to do otherwise. The 'best match on the show' is a myth, fabricated by smart marks who know next to nothing about how pro wrestling works. You can have your favourite match on the show, as can I, but the primary objective of pro wrestling is to make money. Arguing what match was technically the best, is for smart marks who are almost never happy anyway.
Part of your reply in incorrect - Vince Jr. had nothing to do with the business during his childhood.....he wasn't even with his father. But the gist of what you said is spot on
I agree that Al sort of unwittingly downgrades his role as a jobber by saying only the high drawers were the best wrestlers, but I don't agree that Al Snow was never a draw. I ain't saying a big draw, but if I was going to watch an Attitude Era show and Al Snow wasn't on the card, I'd be pissed off. I'm a huge 'Snow man'!
Ok, if you're going to listen to him talk about the biggest draws being the best match, then you would have to call Flair / Inoki the greatest ever since that 2 day festival in North Korea in '95 drew 340,000 fans.
+Master Miracle That was in North Korea and it was kind of a mandatory thing
Yeah, but of course the asterisk to that event is the fans didn't actually buy tickets. Their government literally told them to show up or die, well, go to a prison camp at the very least..
Al snow is saying if the hogan andre fight didn't happen there would be no WWE. Let us assume that was the case, If that fight saved the company, it saved the wrestlers jobs, because their jobs are saved you now get to watch more and more of WWE. A viewer although will have a different take on that because they paid to be entertained, so the best match to the viewer is the match that was most exciting and not the one that bring in the most dollars. But if the match itself saved the company from going under it technically was the best match of the night even though the steamboat fight was better entertainment wise.
It brought in the most money because the viewers wanted to see that particular match, therefor making it the most entertaining. It's not always the case, but in this instance I would say it is.
His comments about Steamboat and Hogan vs Andre were pretty stupid but I couldn't agree more on the doctor comparaison and the wrestler
I love Als sarcasm 😂
By Al Snow's logic, Gangnam Style is one of the best songs of all time. For shame.
93,000 people weren't even there. It was around 78,000.
+Rasuke11 What are you mad about, mark?
+Calico Matt Good God. You can't be that naive surely...
+AntoG1986 it has been PROVEN by the promoter who booked the venue there was actually 78,000.
Bryan Clark Evidence?
Al, I love you, but everyone knows it wasn't 93,000 people.
The Silverdome held 80,311 for football seating. None of those seats were closed off. Meltzer wants to say that negative 2,311 people sat on the floor, bring the total to 78K. Sure. I'll take WWE's word that they managed to put 13K seats on a floor space of about 130 yards x 65 yards.
BRIAN BLAIR I MAKE YOU HUMBLE !
He has a point in the sense that people paid to see hogan and Andre but he can't admit that savage and steamboat stole the show? Various wrestlers will say that ended up being the best match, Jericho, Bryan, Punk, even Hogan himself said it.
To me, "stole the show" means it was better than anyone expected it to be. And maybe for Savage and Steamboat, as good as one might have expected the match to be, it really did exceed expectations.
Al's point would be - "So what if they stole the show?"
For those who don't understand Al's logic, he measures the greatness of a match by the level of emotional investment that viewers and audiences have for it and the performers involved. He measures that emotional investment by how much money was made from it, and how many people paid to see it. Because Hogan and Andre drew the most money and sold the most tickets, that means viewers and audiences were the most emotionally invested in them and their match. In Al's eyes, that level of emotional investment (and the money and people that it drew) made it the best match on the show.
Well wm 3 did not drew " 93 ,000 " people it drew 87,000 which is a great number but the best match was savage and steamboat , the match that changed the game and till talked about , yes Hogan vs andre was the most important but not the best , that match sucked
@@vampirascoffin870 Which match did the audience care the most about? For which match did the audience pop the loudest and hardest for? That's what decides how great a match was for the promoters and bookers. A match can be technically brilliant. But if nobody pays to see it, or if the audience is practically dead while watching it, then businesswise it was a dud. Not saying that Savage and Steamboat was a dud. But did it meet the promoter and booker criteria for what a good match is?
@@willcardona7712 you just
as dumb as al snow , that's basically saying THE TRANSFORMERS MOVIES IS THE BEST CAUSE THOSE MOVIES MADE 1 BILLIONS OF DOLLARS DOESNT MAKE IT THE BEST YOU MORON , Steamboat vs savage was the best match , Hogan vs andre sucked plus andres health was not good needed surgery so please don't make an argument , like I said it's the most important but not the best match!!!!!
@@willcardona7712My brother said it similar to Al Snow. He said the following:
"You might be the best indie wrestler out there who can do all kinds of spots in a match. But if I don't know who the heck you are, why should I care about your match?"
That’s like saying mayweather paquiao was the best boxing match
Dam he's never changed his stance. This is 10 years old at least. He just said the same thing in a recent interview.
Al misses a fine point here; Dave is a journalist and student of the game. He was mentored by people like Paul Boesch, an extremely successful promoter, as well as having interviewed hundreds of workers, promoters, and creative staff in wrestling promotions. He's also a seasoned sports journalist, having worked with people like Frank Deford. As such, he brings an outsiders viewpoint, but backed up by tons of inside info and experience. That is his function. Yes, he presents his opinions, but they are based on years of study and interview, not just watching tv and PPVs. he has never said that Steamboat and Savage drew the crowd at Wrestlemania 3 (which was legit &8,000+, not the WWE fantasy of 93,000); he said they had the best match in terms of story, excitement, and technical skill. Hogan and Andre drew the bulk of the crowd, but Steamboat & Savage drew a chunk of it, too.
I get what Al is saying. But - suppose at the start of the Andre-Hogan match, Hogan gave Andre the finger poke of doom. Andre took a bump - lay on his back - then Hogan pinned him 1-2-3. Match over in 10 seconds say. Would it still have been the best match on the card? I can just imagine how crazy fans would have acted - crazy in a bad way.
If folks demanded a refund, and/or that outcome did significant damage to the business, I think he'd whistle a different tune. But if folks simply accepted that outcome and it somehow grew the business, I imagine he'd still call it the best match on the card. And the same logic would apply.
Who's a better actor: The Rock or Tom Hanks? The Rock makes more money...
His movies don’t
Seth Rollins once said that people buy ticket to see us,they watch ,enjoy and have a great time,that's the end of the story.5-star or 6-star matches are just a remark made by dave meltzer which people actually don't appreciate.
So he's trying to say "30 years of criticism is not the same as 30 years in the business". I can understand that, even if I don't side with it.
Al Snow wondering how Meltzer can be considered an expert without ever being in the business reminds me of something I read Meltzer say in an interview, something like this"So I have to be a gourmet chef to know what food taste good and what doesn't?"
The only people who actually say that are the ones who order their steaks well-done.
I know this is a comment from 9 years ago but that would be just an opinion and he says people are entitled and welcomed to have one, he's not saying people can't say if the food tastes good or bad, he says that person can't be consider an "expert", because they don't know what actually makes the food taste good or bad, and same goes with Meltzer and any other fan who doesn't have the experience an actual wrestler has
Al Snow put it in a way that makes it seem like Dave Meltzer never acknowledges the business aspect of wrestling but it's not like he said that Savage and Steamboat drew for the whole show. Even now, he would give some Cena matches two stars but he doesn't deny that both Cena vs Rock matches are what carried Wrestlemania 28 & 29. Dave Meltzer simply stated his opinion that simply appealed to a lot of fans who have an affection for the technical aspect of pro wrestling to the point that the wrestling community habitually cites Savage vs Steamboat as one of the best matches of all time. It's not any different from how Citizen Kane earned its reputation as one of the greatest films. If Al believes that he doesn't feel the level of respect and credulity Meltzer receives is justified that's fine, but a lot of the so called 'public consensus' stem from the opinions of a guy who expressed them in a way that makes people listen to him. How many movie critics have made globally well known films? Not many. But I don't see how a lot of people citing critics and paying attention to what they say is something so hard to grasp someone's mind around.
Preach Buddy!
Meltzer DOESN'T deserve the credibility or the respect he gets
I've also heard wrestlers who were much bigger draws than Al Snow state respect for Meltzer's opinion
Cena vs rock did not carry wm 29 lol that was punk vs taker the only best match in that card that mania sucked
I get your point Sean. However, just because a critic says something doesn't mean that they are right all the time. For example, both Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel thought that Home Alone will not become a Christmas Classic because they didn't like the film. I guess it is safe to say that they were wrong 30 years later.
Al seems to be confusing the word "best" with the words "most important."
Hogan/Andre was clearly the most important match on the card for business, and that was decided by ticket sales before the show ever started.
The best show on the card isn't decided until after the show's over, and is determined by the participants in-ring performance.
My opinion.
Al Snow is Excalibur.
That argument makes no sense. So by his logic HH/Andre is a better match before the match even happened. That's lunacy.
That's like saying Avatar is the greatest movie of all time no questions asked because it made the most money, whereas a film like Citizen Kane is worthless because it made 1.5 million dollars.
That's exactly right. The movies that draw the most are the best because the purpose of the film is to make money. Critics and fans think differently because they are critics and fans.
OneManThrillRide Al is acting as if you can't judge matches for other merits than how much it draws. That's retarded. Wrestlers should try to put on better matches because it's one of the drawing factors. Al is essentially arguing the best draws are the best draws because they're the best draws. He's a dumbass.
I agree with Al, 100%. It's about drawing money. Great video. I'd enjoy more videos of wrestlers destroying "Smart" Marks. In fact, that's my next video.
Yeah, as if Al Snow would know ANYTHING about drawing money.
chris seddon The idea is to draw money. That's why they call it the wrestling business. In any line of business, the goal is to make money and that's what Hogan-Andre did.
This clip is a bit out of context. Long story short, Al was talking about wrestling as a business. That's why he was talking about drawing money. Strictly speaking for myself, when I was a kid, Hogan-Andre was the match I wanted to see and I still consider it my favorite Wrestlemania match. Also, as far as "workrate" (A term that after five years on the indy circuit as a ref, I don't recall a worker ever saying.) 93,173 people were on their feet the whole time during the main event and the one high spot was a half-assed body slam that had all the people in the Silverdome loose their minds. Not taking away from Savage-Steamboat, but if Hogan-Andre can make a classic out of doing as little as possible, that makes for a great match.
No, Al Snow said the "best" match. Not "the most profitable". If wrestling is a craft, falling just short of true artistry but still a craft, let's judge the quality of the matches and how well they stand the test of time.
Andre the Giant has long since passed away, Hulk Hogan has spent his WMIII money several times over--all that is left is the quality of the match, to serve as an example of how (or not how) to have a main event match. It's the legacy that one leaves behind that determines true greatness. Vincent Van Gough died in poverty and only sold one of his 800 plus paintings in his lifetime, but you ask any art guru, the man is considered one of the all-time greats in his field.
Judging by Al Snow's logic, the Goldberg vs. Hogan match that was meant to happen on the first episode of Nitro for 1999 was a great match, because that's one that many people flocked to the Georgia Dome to see. In the end, Goldberg was detained as the police station (in the storyline) and Nash replaced Goldberg, and we got the "finger poke of doom".
It was the main event, roughly 40,000 people saw it live, and it drew a huge rating on TV. According to Snow, that would make either bout (the Goldberg vs. Nash match that never happened, and its Hogan vs. Nash replacement) better than Steamboat vs. Savage at WMIII.
What if Andre had been unable to perform for some reason that night (he was in awful health) and, say, Paul Orndorff replaced Andre? Would that have then been the "best" match in Snow's mind? Because let's say that did happen, the fans would've been watching a match they didn't pay to see.
So much of what Snow says is wrong, and I use the film analogy demonstrated elsewhere about this subject: if a film with Adam Sandler draws more money than a film featuring Charles Chaplin, does that mean that Sandler is a better comic than Chaplin?
Also, what if money were to someday become obsolete, and wrestling was to be purely about entertainment and not making bread? Surely then future generations will regard Savage vs. Steamboat as the best match, regardless of Snow's money-obsessed nonsense--and Snow is a wrestler who quite frankly never drew a dime for a major promotion, so his opinion is no more valid than anybody else's opinion.
MisterObjectivity Al may not have drawn main event money, but he's been in the business for years and has more knowledge about it than any internet smark that waits for people like Dave Meltzer to tell them what they want to hear.
Just remember Dave Meltzer rated Hogan vs Andre match at Wrestlemania 3 -4 star.
Al snow is a great speech giver
I will admit that I see where Al is coming from and understand his point of view but will also say that I completely disagree with it. Just because a match is the draw or main event doesn't mean its the best match on the show, the actual quality of the work in the match combined with the heat etc is what makes it the best match
If it match doesn't draw an audience there's no point. The point of this business is to make money. You can't make money without an audience.
As far as work rate, Al is way out on a limb but as far as money, he's right. Sean said it best: it was the MOST IMPORTANT match, not the BEST match.
Agreed. It's a semantics issue.
It's good to have commentary from outside of the business so there is, in theory, more objectivity.
awesome shirt gotta love it
I always thought Steamboat was boring, I definitely just wanted to see WM 3 for Hogan vs. Andre.
I think Hogan is boring. I guess it depends on your point of view.
I loved steamboat and savage who was best heel but I paid to see Andre vs hulk.
Al Snow welcome to the real world son..This is true in all aspect of sports and society..Doesn't matter if it's Meltzer in wrestling or the sports journalist on ESPN talking about the game played the previous night..Its that way in politics also but it's these aspects of media that can grow a genre of a sport..One thing that has been proven is you don't have to play a sport to be a good or even a great coach or to analyze and give good insightful commentary on what just happened...If flocks turn to Meltzer for wrestling insight and this bothers Snow then that's an Al Snow problem it's not a wrestling problem..
I respectfully disagree my friend. He has a point about Meltzer. Yes I don't need to be a 5 star chef to cook but I definitely need to know how to cook.
100% true
The best match is the one that draws the most money, the main event.
Snow is dead on.
Actually, people, at one point, did buy tickets to shows to see Al Snow.
When he was an indy worker in the 90's.
Because indy fans, even back then, loved great WRESTLING and great WRESTLERS as opposed to the hype machine of McMahon or WCW, and Snow's initial popularity was based on the quality of his ring work.
🤓🐑🐑🐑🐑s'marks 😭
1. Ad-hominem is attacking the person, rather than their argument.
Quote "The only thing you have is one guy and a fake journalist who repeated him."
It was actually 78,000. 93,000 is a worked number.
So if Justin Bieber and Drake had a wrestling match, would that be the best wrestling match ever?
If it draws more money than any wrestling match in history than yeah
What? The analogy would be if Justin Bieber and Drake had a concert, would that be the most popular concert for their era? Yes
@@MPHswayze no because justin and drake in a wrestling match would be the biggest wrestling match sigh i cannot believe my 15 year old self was brighter than u lool
@@ingobernable4262 you're 20 and you have an anime p4p. Smart is relative
@@MPHswayze ya from over 5 fkn years ago lmaoo nice try tho idiot
Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant was the worst main event in WrestleMania history.
I see your point, but I raise you Bigelow vs. LT.
R. Grant Tackett Dude, I'll swear to my grave that Bigelow vs. LT was better. In fact, it was also better than Hogan vs. Sid.
***** Yes.
Wildfire Gaming considering andre was way past his prime due to the gigantism he suffered from and hogan could wrestle just as great as a ham sandwich. the only reason hogan andre is so great it the spectical built around it. i would argue hhh reigns from wm32 is a better worked match.
@@codyvettori hhh vs reigns was a good match. It got ruined cause of smarks. Smarks hijacking shows does not mean matches are bad.
I don't think Al Snow knows the definition of the word "best"
Neb Nekkol Enlighten us then...
The JOB Squad knows a work when they see it
I think it's just a semantic issue. Most people would say Savage and Steamboat had the most athletic and physically captivating and entertaining match on that show. But, Hogan and Andre was the big money draw. It also got a huge reaction from the crowd and entertained them in a different way. I think Al is being a bit closed-minded here just because he wants to prove a point. To me, the best match on the card is the match that gets the fans into it the most, creates the best memories, and makes people want to re-watch it. How the wrestlers accomplish this is up to them. I would say Hogan/Andre and Savage/Steamboat are about equal in my opinion. But, it is certainly possible to have two huge stars in a match with a lot of hype and have it disappoint the crowd and clearly not be the best match; just look at Hogan/Warrior from Halloween Havoc.
It's not semantics. It's you being unable to fathom that nobody except wrestling nerds care about workrate
@@andystegall7407 That's not true at all. You don't need to be a wrestling nerd to understand that certain matches are better than others. It's called common sense and general recognition of talent and athletic ability. Match quality aside, Savage and Steamboat weren't just two jabronis. They had a high profile rivalry and were two of the biggest stars in the company. You must think all the 90k people in the crowd that night were "wrestling nerds" because they had that whole stadium going crazy.
@@zackvanhalenYou are correct but Snow has a point as well. Wrestling is like a restaurant. When you go to a restaurant you are going for the entrée. And if you read a menu, you might want an appetizer for starters. Think of it like this:
Hogan vs. Andre = Entrée
Savage vs. Steamboat = Appetizer
just because something earned the most money does not make it the best. whether its wrestling match, movie or whatever. I dont care what Al says or anybody else.
***** From a business perspective it is a better movie. Not only that, it is a franchise, so Disney can continue to pump the movies out and practically print money. Look what happened to Orson Welles.... he died a pauper because he put ego before money.
Not enough people give enough shits to recognize wrestling as "high art". And even if they did, there would be many opinions as to which type of wrestling is the best. "Technical" wrestling is just performing moves cleanly without risk. Knowing a few more moves is like a writer having a thesaurus on hand. It doesn't make their stories any better. And doing things fast does not really make matches better. Who is a better comedian, someone that spits out joke 100 miles per hour, or one that knows the nuances of comedic timing? Fan reactions have shown time and again that Hogan is one of the best "workers" ever. He has the timing, the psychology, and charisma, plus he has an imposing look and looks like he could legitimately handle any opponent thrown at him. Contrast with some 180 lb flyweight "smart" fans love to cream over because he can do what any gymnast can do.
Meltzer has taken it upon himself to define the "artform" of wrestling, and set himself as a critic of a form of entertainment that the intellectual mainstream has scoffed at. He is a wannabe critic hiding out where no other critic will venture. His definition of "workrate" is subjective at best. It punishes big guys for being big, and power guys for being powerful, when historically, big guys have drawn the most money in this sport.
Wrestling is just like any other business, its main purpose is to make money.
Snow seems like a pretty hardcore money mark.
Snow is saying that the point of the business is to make money. It doesn't matter if if you do it by tickets or merchandise.