King Steventon

After seeing the awards for this years Slammys which inevitably included this year's Hell In A Cell match, I got thinking about how the stipulation is often majorly overated by marks and the company as a whole. The Hell In A Cell is a match which seems to divide alot of fans, people often end up either hating the matches or loving them to peices, usually with very little middle ground. So I thought for a thread, what were the good HIACs and what were the bad? Simply, put each of the Cell matches (the ones you have seen atleast) into the catagory you think they fall in, and why:


The Good
- Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker (IYH: Bad Blood 1997)
Whilest I do the match is overated, and there is alot of crap in here, the positives really outwiegh the negatives. The use of the steel chair and the opening half with Taker getting his hands on Michaels were definately good enough to make the original one of the better ones.
- Triple H vs Cactus Jack (No Way Out 2000)
Better than the overated Street Fight, this match contains so much emotion as Cactus has to do or die, as well as great story-telling as he refuses to stay down no matter how much it defies all logic. I'd go far enough to say this is the match that made HHH.
- Triple H vs Kurt Angle vs Rikishi vs Steve Austin vs The Rock vs The Undertaker (Armageddon 2000)
Yes, it was clustefuck to the max, and yes it was nothing particularly epic, but it was still fun as hell(in a cell lolpun). Some of the spots were actually pretty good looking and the in-ring stuff near the end was all good.
- Brock Lesnar vs The Undertaker (No Mercy 2002)
My pick for best HIAC ever. This is what the Cell should be all about, just two guys, locked up beating the living fuck out of each other. No BS outside stuff or interference, just hideously violent. Not even Taker's awful selling at the end can ruin this match.
- Triple H vs Batista (Vengence 2005)
Definately one of the better Cell matches. They kept it simple, yet brutal and it worked.
- The Undertaker vs Batista (Survivor Series 2007)
Not as good as some of the others, but I liked this for the same reason Lesnar/Taker. Just two guys, beating the shit out of each other. Some big near falls and violence despite the botched Edge return.

The Bad
- The Undertaker & Steve Austin vs Mankind & Kane (RAW 1998)
There really is nothing good about the match really, just a boring brawl.
- The Undertaker vs Mankind (King Of The Ring 1998)
Easily one of the most overated matches ever. Two minutes into the match Mankind it thrown off the top of the cage. Two minutes. So much for making spots mean something. The next ten fucking minutes of the match were just people helping Mankind to his feet before he starts climbing again for no apparent reason. The rest of the match is just trashy hardcore shit and boring.
- Mankind vs Kane (RAW 1998)
Same as Taker/Austin vs Mankind/Kane, only worse.
- Triple H vs Chris Jericho (Judgement Day 2002)
Maybe not bad as in terrible, just so painfully average. Outside of the finishing minutes on top of the cell theres practically nothing standout in it at all. Didn't help matters that the fued wasn't even between HHH and Jericho either, it was between HHH and Vince.
- Triple H vs Kevin Nash (Bad Blood 2003)
Until looking it up I forgot this match even existed. I wish I could go back to fogetting it.
- Triple H vs Shawn Michaels (Bad Blood 2004)
A contraversial choice most likely, but pretty much all the matches these two had together were just the exact same thing, recycling the same story and the same spots over and over again. Just because you go 50 minutes doesn't make it epic, in fact they should have gone half the time and cut out all the long boring parts.
- The Undertaker vs Randy Orton (Armageddon 2005)
Just a hugely boring match with pretty much all the middle part being filler. There was some good stuff but it was overshadowed by all the dullness and the lame interference finish.
- DX vs The McMahons & The Big Show (Unforgiven 2006)
NOTE TO DX: Comedy and violence do not go together well. This was just lame so bad.
- The Undertaker vs Edge (Summerslam 2008)
I get that they were going for the whole "Edge being a maniac again" story, but when the first ten minutes of a match is practically nothing but chairshots, it's a car wreck. I enjoyed the middle part, but the spots were both lame and predictable and the weapons were all whored to fuck.


So, what Cells make the cut and which make you want to cut (yourself)?

__________________

Tommy Platinum

The Good:

The Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels -(IYH:Badd Blood 97)
I believe we have discussed this before, with me believing it was a great match and you thinking that while good, it is overrated. I loved most things about the match. Undertaker basically kicking HBK's ass all around the Cell was entertaining, and yet HBK still managed to come back and actually be on top for a while until they left the Cell. The rest was just really well worked. Sure you could argue it was dumb having them leave the Cell in the first ever one, but it made it so memorable.

Triple H vs Cactus Jack (No Way Out 2000)
I disagree about the Street Fight being overrated, but I agree about this match. In terms of pure emotion, this is obviously the best Hell in a Cell ever and won't be beaten. Great build to the match, with Foley basically having to pull out all the stops if he wanted to get the title and remain in WWF, and I love the way throughout the match, although the fans were willing Foley on, you had almost resigned yourself to the fact that he couldn't win. Shame he fucked it up by returning a month later in one of the shittier Wrestlemania main events we've seen.

Triple H vs Chris Jericho (Judgement Day 2002)
I actually think this is one of the more underrated ones. Probably the most underrated because nobody seems to talk about it. I found it very enjoyable even before they left the Cell, and it was cool to see Jericho using a ladder etc. After that, a cool ref bump which allowed them to exit the Cell, and some very nice spots such as the DDT through a table. Finish was pretty decent, nothing special though. Not bad enough for the other section, but not spectacular.

Brock Lesnar vs The Undertaker (No Mercy 2002)
Wouldn't say it was the best ever, but this was certainly a very very good match. Undertaker's bad bladejob made it more dramatic, and it was a great way to get Lesnar over still further, having him basically defeat Undertaker clean in Undertaker's environment. The brutality of it really worked, and basically summed up what the HIAC match should be about. This is also why I liked....

Triple H vs Shawn Michaels (Bad Blood 2004)
Yes, it may have gone on too long, but the point is that this HIAC represented everything the match should be about. It worked that it lasted so long, because HIAC is supposed to be a gruelling and brutal match, and these guys basically beat the hell out of each other to the point that they couldn't stand. Sure, it is not a perfect match. Sometimes it was slow and boring, but in terms of the psychology, it all made sense, and it was easily entertaining enough to be on the 'good' side.

Triple H vs Batista (Vengence 2005)
Not watched this one for a while, but I remember it being a good match. It also served a purpose in getting Batista over of course.

The Undertaker vs Edge (Summerslam 2008)
Joke aftermath aside, this was a very good match and easily one of the best matches of 2008. I loved the whole build to it with Edge taking Foley's advice and becoming the maniacal sadistic Edge who could survive in this sort of environment. I felt Foley's contribution to the feud was a meanigful last act as a WWE employee, because it really worked considering his own history. The weapons were used a lot, but they were the weapons Edge feels comfortable using, so it all made sense. If guys have access to any weapons they want to use, they are going to use them. I loved the references to previous incidents in their feud such as the camera, and I felt the finish worked very well with Taker using Edge's moves. One severe problem was the lack of blading, which really made no sense. All in all, easily good enough to be in this section.

The Bad:

The Undertaker & Steve Austin vs Mankind & Kane (RAW 1998)
Not even a match really. Shouldn't count as it was simply build to another HIAC.

The Undertaker vs Mankind (King Of The Ring 1998)
Interesting one this. It would be dumb to claim that this was a good match, and yet I am glad it happened. Sure you can talk about the overuse of spots etc, but this was one of the most memorable matches in wrestling history, and for that reason I feel guilty putting it in the bad section. In terms of match quality, it can't be considered good though.

Mankind vs Kane (RAW 1998)
Come on, its on RAW. Do I need to comment? It was just pointless and shit.

The Undertaker vs Big Bossman (Wrestlemania 15)
Sure, it was realistic, but it sure as hell wasn't memorable. Just your average brawl, but in a Cell. And any believability was removed when Undertaker hung Bossman after it.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Triple H vs Kurt Angle vs Rikishi vs Steve Austin vs The Rock vs The Undertaker (Armageddon 2000)
At the time of course, I loved the idea of this. 6 of the company's top stars in the most brutal environment possible, with the WWF title on the line, what could be bad about that? Well now I am more 'educated' if you will, I realise that it was a terrible idea. The match was a clusterfuck as you said, and it was simply too spotty to be good. The Rikishi spot was pretty bad, and a lot of the brawling on the cars in the entranceway looked terrible. It was basically just too over the top, and the finish, although necessary, was cheap as hell and seemed an anticlimax. I will say that the idea of Vince trying to stop the match was pretty good though.

Triple H vs Kevin Nash (Bad Blood 2003)
Oh yeah the year when Triple H was basically facing washed up WCW stars all year. This wasn't HIAC worthy, and was basically slow and boring as expected. Foley bump the only memorable thing from it, which is pretty bad considering he was only the ref.

The Undertaker vs Randy Orton (Armageddon 2005)
Another waste of a Hell in a Cell match. Feud wasn't right for HIAC. Nowhere near personal or heated enough. The Wrestlemania 21 match blows this out of the water. I have only seen it once but I have no real desire to watch it again. Pretty boring and didn't belong in this stipulation as it wasn't brutal in the slightest.

The Undertaker vs Batista (Survivor Series 2007)
In ways I enjoyed it, but it has to go down as bad really. It was brutal to an extent, but I hated the way all the spots seemed so planned and needless. It wasn't uncontrolled brawling, more ''ohay we should use a table now''. Batista gets the table out, puts Taker through it, next spot. Just seemed too staged and for this reason I couldn't really get into it. Edge's return was a nice surprise though.

The Downright Terrible:

DX vs The McMahons and the Big Show - Unforgiven 2006
A handicap match inside HIAC, and DX and McMahon are involved? Alright so we already know this match shouldn't be happening. Big Show thrown in for no reason other than to make DX underdogs. DX basically mixing comedy with trying to kill somebody by breaking a sledgehammer over his head (yet a 60 year old man was fine after that and didn't suffer any long term damage. REMINDER: the sledge broke over his head). Yeah this one was pure wrestlecrap tbh.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

As far as the Raw HIAC's go, I think they made a strong point to make them less exciting than the PPV ones goes. It was just a way to give fans a free chance to see what the HIAC can do in order to get them to buy the major ones on PPV.

HIAC is really a match that I feel is greatly overrated and at times underrated. Matches like Foley vs Taker being called a MOTYC is such an overrated statement. I'll give Foley credit, the guy had some serious balls to do the spots he did in that match. However, having your match talked about doesn't make it great.

One of the most underrated ones was The Boss Man vs Taker. I felt it was everything it should of been. There wasn't any kind of huge spots that made the match unrealistic. Taker was by far means a bigger star so at times it did feel like a squash. However, I really dug Boss Man's shots with the nightstick while Taker was cuffed to the cell.

My biggest problem with the HIAC is the believability. I want to feel like it could really happen. In the case of the KOTR one, it wasn't realistic at all. The WM 15 was the complete opposite.

I'll problably give a proper list later, but for now my library session is almost over.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

I think the main problem with that match can be summed up by the fact that I forgot it happened, and as such left it off my list.

>_>

I'll edit it in.

__________________

King Steventon

Oh I agree, that Mankind/Taker is extremely important match historically, it's the matc that turned the HIAC into a hit.

And Batista/Taker, I didn't see it necassarily as just moving from one spot the nextm so much as they were building it up. "Normal finisher doesn't work, what the fuck next, I'll put him through a table. Fuck, that doesn't work, what next? "etc, I'll have to rewatch it though.

And I left Taker/Bossman out of mine because its the only one I havent seen.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

I can see your point, but to me it really did feel like they just threw in a table spot in an attempt to make it more 'brutal', even though putting somebody through a table isn't brutal at all. It just seemed like a load of common hardcore spots thrown together.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

Well I assumed you and Steve forgot it happened mainly because it's not on the HIAC DVD. I believe that's the only HIAC that wasn't on the DVD. I really don't understand why it wasn't even on the DVD. It's not like it'll take up a lot of room. The match time under 10 minutes so with the pre and post match action, I assume it's just around 15 minutes.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

Well Steve says he hasn't seen it.

I have not even seen the HIAC DVD, so that is not the reason why. I don't understand why it wasn't on the DVD either, although I didn't know it wasn't.

I guess maybe I forgot it because it wasn't on Steve's list, but it is the opposite of memorable to be fair.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

I won't deny that it's not too memorable. It's a non-spotty HIAC during a time that HIAC's were expected to have that one (Or a few) huge spots.

I believe the only way to even see it on DVD is through the WM anthology that was released a few years ago.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

That isn't the reason it isn't memorable though. It also just isn't very good. If Taker/Lesnar had happened during that period, it wouldn't be forgotten about like Bossman/Taker is.

__________________