Dr.PeterVenkman Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Just had a quick look, September 2008 they started allowing punches, I assume that was around the time Big Show had that feud with Taker where he kept punching him in the back of the head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted December 20, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted December 20, 2014 Isn't a closed fist illegal, making his finisher illegal?Closed fists are probably the most used attack/move in WWE, and have been for decades! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Arch Stanton Posted December 20, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted December 20, 2014 The closed fist rule hasn't been enforced in forever. JR bangs on about this on his podcast like it's something that has only happening in the past few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.PeterVenkman Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 I take it everyone has me on ignore?! It's not illegal to punch in WWE!!!! Â It was daft punching being illegal anyway, you can drop a knee on someone's face or superkick them in the face/on the jaw but you can't punch them? From a kayfabe point of view it was bollocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted December 20, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) I've never understood the close fists rule...if you punch someone with an unclosed fist it wouldn't even hurt and you'd probably break your hand. And wrestling is based on feuds where people hate eachother...of course you're going to punch someone with a closed fist. It looks better. Â Reigns superman punch is fucking awesome by the way. I don't know how anyone can't like it. Badass. Edited December 20, 2014 by LaGoosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Linus Posted December 20, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted December 20, 2014 Closed fist punches were banned because that's boxing. There are so many legal creative ways to strike an opponent - in a grappling sport, by the way - that a closed fist punch was the perfect heel trick. Some things don't need changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.PeterVenkman Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 It's fake though, and everyone was punching anyway so why not make it legal? All they did was fix a gap in logic from years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) I take it everyone has me on ignore?! It's not illegal to punch in WWE!!!!  It was daft punching being illegal anyway, you can drop a knee on someone's face or superkick them in the face/on the jaw but you can't punch them? From a kayfabe point of view it was bollocks  Then why do refs still often do that "its ok, it was an open fist" thing, or in other cases berate the wrestler for using a closed fist?   It's fake though, and everyone was punching anyway so why not make it legal? All they did was fix a gap in logic from years ago   Because then heels can use punches as a way of cheating.  I was listening to Stone Cold's podcast the other day, and he mentioned something really interesting.  He said that he suggested to Cesaro that he incorporate a sneaky back heel into his arsenal, behind the ref's back.  And Cesaro said that they weren't allowed to do illegal moves any more, even as a heel.  "We wouldn't be allowed to do that nowadays" or words to that effect.  Stone Cold thought it was ridiculous, as all the best heels made careers out of cheating (Ric Flair anyone?).  No wonder it's hard to get over.  No cheating moves, no bleeding, scripted promos.. these guys have it tough. Edited December 20, 2014 by Loki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted December 20, 2014 Moderators Share Posted December 20, 2014 I suppose it doesn't help that refs apparently are to treat the match like it's a shoot now as well. So if wrestlers cheat and it's seen, they'd have to call for a DQ I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.PeterVenkman Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 I agree about not being able to do heel moves being daft but thats a seperate argument anyway, Funny you should mention Stone Cold though, their biggest draw ever as a babyface and half his matches at his drawing peak consisted of punches  If the referees are doing the punch motion thing still then its probably out of habit, doesn't make it right of course as they're making a mistake but I'd guess that it is down to them simply doing it out of habit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted December 20, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted December 20, 2014 I think they do a lot of stuff out of habit. Look how often in a Street fighter or No DQ match they tell the wrestlers off for climbing the ropes and suchlike. They also force rope breaks. I've never got that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Giving the five count for a rope break in no DQ matches is the thing I hate most in wrestling. Â Remember that time a few years ago they rewrote the count out rules for one Raw match? I think Evan Bourne was in it, and it was done to facilitate him hitting an aerial move to the outside then getting back in and winning by count out. Â The no illegal moves thing is ridiculous. What's the point of banning them? It's like saying they're not doing outside interference anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Linus Posted December 20, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted December 20, 2014 Think of no DQ as removing the red card in football. The ref is still going to punish you with a free kick - or a rope break, move you out of the corner, etc - but you won't get the ultimate sanction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted December 20, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted December 20, 2014 Nah, that doesn't translate at all Linus. A red card doesn't automatically lose you the match whereas a DQ does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Think of no DQ as removing the red card in football. The ref is still going to punish you with a free kick - or a rope break, move you out of the corner, etc - but you won't get the ultimate sanction. Â Won't you? So what happens if you don't stop before the five count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts