Tommy Platinum

This is a debate which has arisen quite a few times on WS, so I thought a thread would be beneficial so the point can be argued once and for all.

Example: Someone is arguing that a particular wrestler is good. Someone else disagrees, and asks the first person to name some great matches they've had. They name the matches, and the second person says ''yeah but they're mainly gimmick matches''.

Now I have always been of the opinion that a hardcore match is just as valid as a great match as any other match, and just as relevant to an argument that someone is a great wrestler. A wrestler, in sports entertainment terms, does not mean someone who can put on a technical wrestling clinic, more so somebody that can put on a very entertaining match with a good story behind it, get the crowd into the match etc. So sure, if the argument was that someone is a great technical wrestler, street fights etc probably wouldn't be a valid example. However, if you are arguing about someone's in ring ability, of course a hardcore match is valid. If it was that easy to have a great hardcore match, everyone would be doing it.

I have always said that with hardcore stipulations, it may be easier to put on a watchable or even good match, but it is just as difficult to put on a great one. People who say it is easy to put on a great hardcore match surely overlook little things like psychology, which are essential to any great wrestling match. The basics are the same, it is just a different style (brawling/hardcore wrestling as opposed to technical wrestling)

So do you think that hardcore matches are less valid than other matches when given as an example of a great match?

__________________

King Steventon

I think the main difference is that to have a really great hardcore match, you need to have great psycology, whereas a normal match can be great through the psycology or through just good *wrestling*. Obviously, you would want your ideal wrestler to perform without the need of weapons and other stuff, but not every wrestler is a technical master. That doesn't necassarily mean they aren't a great wrestler, just that they need a certain scenario to shine. I'm kinda rambling here, but at the end of the day a great match is a great match, regardless of circumstances. It all depends on wether you'd rather see epic MOVEZ and technikals wrasslin or you'd rather see a well worked match. If it's the latter, then I don't see why it would bother you if a match is stipulation match or not. That said, wrestlers who can perform in an array of circumstances are always going to be superior to those who need something to hide their faults.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

Hardcore matches are generally not valid for a great match. The reason being is that they're mainly used to help hide weaknesses in poor wrestlers. The perfect example would be JBL. I asked a simple question in the Raw forum, "Name any of his great matches." Compared to some wrestlers, no one was able to give out a long list covering his entire career. The only matches that was listed were all stipulation matches. Through the stipulation, JBL is able to sometimes look like a decent wrestler.

Now, stipulation matches can be valid if the wrestler(s) have proven to be able to put on a great non-stipulation match. Case in point, Shawn Michaels. It's no secret that I can't stand the guy. However, Michaels has put on some great non-stipulation matches. Due to that, people claiming any of the ladder matches or hell in a cell matches as great is valid for a great match. Michaels like Chris Benoit, Steve Austin (Especially pre-neck injury), Scott Hall and The Undertaker (Later in his career though) has used stipulation matches as they were intended. The stipulation didn't make the match, it was just an extension of a match.

So yes, generally, stipulation matches aren't credible seeing how most hardcore wrestlers are incapable of putting on a great match any other way.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

But surely a great match has to be judged on the match itself rather than other matches the two wrestlers have had? You can't say a match isn't great because one of the guys in it hasn't had many other great matches. That is insane. A great match is a great match regardless of how capable the wrestlers are in other situations.

__________________

King Steventon

Indeed. A guy can have a shitfest of a career, with one great match, but that doesn't stop that match from being anyless great...

__________________

horrorfan_1986

Actually, I can say the match isn't great. A stipulation match with JBL is a cheap cop out instead of putting on an actual good match. It's like taking two untrained wrestlers from the street and just allowing them to hit each other with light tubes. Some people would be entertained by that. But I'd see it for what it truly was. A way to hide someone's weaknesses.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

Please explain how that would be a great match in the first place?

I am saying that if a hardcore match is truly great, it doesn't matter what you think about the wrestler's ability, the match is great nonetheless.

You are talking as if anyone can have a great hardcore match, which is frankly laughable.

__________________

King Steventon

Useless shit like psycology is irrelevant, if you use a foreign object, the match is automatically bad.


:rollfuckingeyes:

__________________

horrorfan_1986

Great is all a matter of opinion. There isn't a set great. For example, you feel as if Cactus Jack vs Triple H (Royal Rumble) is great. I don't. Does it mean the match is great because you think it is? No. Does it mean it's not great because I don't think it's great? No.

I never said that a hardcore match can't be great. I'm saying that if the only great matches a wrestler has are hardcore, the wrestler isn't great. Which goes back to the original question you posed.

I believe in some cases, they are. I would consider a "Great" HBK stip match as being more significant than a "Great" JBL match. The reason being since Michaels doesn't use the stipulation as a crutch. JBL's hardcore matches are all the same in it's very basic concept. It's always "What can I do using weapons that can make this match actually exciting?" For Michaels or anyone else who is actually good, it's "What can I do to make this story feel even more intense?"

__________________

Tommy Platinum

Yeah, so that refers to the actual quality of the match itself.

You were insinuating that a match is less great if the wrestler hasn't had other great matches in a non hardcore environment, regardless of what the match in question is like.

What you are actually saying is that someone who is a great non hardcore wrestler is more likely to be great in a hardcore match, which seems fairly obvious.

There are guys who can produce something special in hardcore matches while being fairly dull most of the time though. Crutch or not, it is still a great match. I would again reiterate that it is not 'easy' to have a great hardcore match.

__________________