Bret/Austin was not only the (slightly) better match, but it was historic in a way that HBK/Taker could never touch.
This. I had a write-up shortly after this thread was created but accidentally clicked back and going forward my post was gone. Both epic but HBK/Taker was just a match about winning (which every match should be anyways). Austin vs. Hart created a megastar and was the start of Bret as a heel and then a stable.
I suppose one could prefer the HBK/Taker match stylistically as Hart/Austin was basically an old school NWA blood, rage and courage match with an outstanding story, but other than that I have a hard time seeing how HBK/Taker could be better.
As mentioned, I am not a huge mark for the HBK/Taker match after a recent watch. Very good, but it's going up against the match most people thought would win from the start.
The next match-up is the hardest one for me through this whole thing. I think I know where I'm leaning, but I'm going to rewatch them and give them they're just due one more time.
One of the big debates I have between the two matches - which I'm not even sure I should consider - is about how Savage wanted to act out every move of a match and Flair (and Steamboat) just went at it with a few focal points mixed in.
I also add that at one point Steamboat said he didn't consider the Savage match one of his better ones because of the laying out every move in advance thing. However, on the Ricky Steamboat DVD he said something to the effect that "Both Savage and I strived to recreate that match the rest of our careers." I feel Steamboat could have said that because Macho had passed away - I think - at the time of the filming of that interview with Ricky.
Additionally. Another question I have is - Who cares if every second of that match was scripted? It was perfect, like a good play or movie. Not to say the Chi-Town match with Flair wasn't perfect in it's own right.
Before I started writing this I knew which way I was leaning, but now I'm not so sure and will hold off on my vote for now. I hope that this has a close vote to mimic how hard a decision this is for me.
Not hard for me. Savage/Steamboat, while a great match, is extremely overrated (I say this and it's a match I have at 5*). Steamboat/Flair, if anything, is underrated because it's the worst of the trilogy of '89.
one weird thing i noticed when i rewatched this... the crowd in this match seems really markish and especially so for an 80s crowd. i don't remember wwf crowds being markish until the attitude era which might be a product nwa being built around a heel (flair) and wwf being built around a face (hogan)
Think it's a really close call. The quality of the ringwork is a virtual push. I like the Steamboat/Flair ending better than the Steamboat/Savage ending. Announcing is excellent on both, though I probably have a slight preference for the old school mentality behind Jim Ross's call on the Chi-town Rumble match. Steamboat/Savage has a more epic feel due to its venue and event and feels like probably the bigger deal since it was a blowoff of a great angle.
The improvised vs. scripted factor doesn't really move the needle for me...granted that it's even more impressive to improvise near-perfection, but I think Savage/Steamboat probably had slightly better psychology based on how it was mapped out.
All of that rambling aside, I think I just barely would prefer watching one over the other on the average day.
I just enjoy this match more. I could see voting either way; both matches have held up very well over time, in part because they rely on things that are timeless like great athleticism and sensible storytelling, and in part because they have such an influence on matches even today. At the same time they were both matches that, when they happened, a lot of people thought they had just seen the greatest match of all time.
This vote comes down to logic for me. If Savage/Steamboat beat Flair/Steamboat II in the first round, and Flair/Steamboat II > Flair/Steamboat I, how could I not vote for Savage/Steamboat?