Minor PPVs that don't deserve a thread *Spoilers*

[Guest]

Fairly sure that happened with the Dudleyz at Survivors 01 too

[FUM]

Wasn't Bliss and Bayley just so short as Bayley messed up by pulling the stick down early? Not sure it was meant to fall when it did.

[buba3d]

pretty sure the same thing happened on raw in 99 i think

[textonly]

Some of it was fairly poor-to-middling - Miz/Ambrose, the mixed tag, Bayley/Alexa - but overall I thought that was a pretty fun, solid show. A good main event and a couple of other decent matches meant I probably enjoyed it more than any of the other split-brand PPV's since Mania.

The surprise finish of the main event was obviously a delight, but the whole match was pretty damn good, I thought. The running story of the Bray/Joe alliance, Roman looking like an absolute fucking star, Finn showing some aggression; there was a lot to like. The only downside was that I thought, "this should really be for a championship". Obviously, in some sense, the opportunity to fight Brock for it is a big deal in itself, but it could have meant more, and it still feels a bit weird that Raw's stumbling along without a true focal point.

I am pretty gutted about Bayley. The match was poor and, for the millionth time, she was made to look like an absolute chump. To the point where I'm not even sure this win does anything for Alexa. What happens now, I don't know. Much as I want to get behind it, the Raw women's division looks pretty terrible right now. I can't think of a match/feud that would excite me aside from Bayley/Sasha, and I'd even worry about how that would work on the main show.

Neville is tremendous and I hope he holds on to his title for a long time. I echo the annoyance at the ref in that match.

[SuperBacon]

Decent PPV, thought Joe and Wyatt teaming up for a fair bit kind of killed the momentum of the 5 way but understandable why they did that. 

Really enjoyed the Neville Aries match but have to agree with who said it, the ref threatening DQs, rope breaks, count outs ruined it for me. Is this normal? I mean was it mentioned anywhere that they could win via those methods, because if so, what was the point of it being a submission match? 

[BomberPat]

I've not watched the match, so I can't comment on the specifics, but as a referee, I would still count for a rope break in a No DQ match, and attempt to break it up if they reached 5. I was once given a finish where, in a No DQ match, the babyface was to give up in a submission hold while tied up to the ropes with electrical tape - if memory serves, I was over-ruled, but I objected, on the grounds that just because I can't disqualify the heel for not breaking when the face is in the ropes, it doesn't mean that a submission in the ropes is legal.

My job is still to try and keep what's happening within the rules, even if I don't have the authority to actually disqualify the heel for breaking them.

 

That said, if he was actually threatening a DQ, or counting them out while they were outside the ring, then that's a failing of WWE not making the rules clear enough.

[WyattSheepMask]

I was under the impression that Submission matches were, much in the same way am I Quit match is, no DQ & no count out but you win by either submission or getting them to say "I Quit" into the mic. Same with how No Holds Barred matches and Street Fights are basically the same thing but with a minor tweek. Further to BomerPat's point, why would a heel for example break the hold if he couldn't be disqualified. Announcing it as a Submission match puts emphasis on that as the match outcome and would have been a massive fuck you/Russo booking to have a Submission match finish with a DQ.

 But then again, it's wrestling and the rules are fucked around with to fit the story all the time, so we're probably reading a bit too much into it or it was just not explained well enough. That aside, it was a good match that sadly played out to an indifferent crowd and I was really suprised they didn't have Neville drop the belt. No idea who he goes against now though

Edited June 5, 2017 by WyattSheepMask

[Guest]

Tozawa next for Neville surely? That'll be a blinder. 

I don't think any of the stipulations helped the matches, and putting two of the top high flyers in a submission match didn't make much sense to me, I preferred their other outings to this 

[BomberPat]

At a guess I'd say maybe Kalisto eventually beats Neville, or potentially someone like Johnny Gargano when he gets called up, but chances are he'll drop it to sodding TJP when he gets the Virgil turn.

 

With Submission matches, logically, they should only end by Submission. But then they become functionally identical to an I Quit match, which is always presented as a far more "hardcore" stipulation, about beating your opponent until they can't take it any more, whereas a Submission match tends to be presented more about outclassing your opponent with your choice of holds...in that sense, if it were up to me, I'd probably opt for a Submission match still allowing for DQ or Count Out wins just to differentiate between the two. Again, though, it should be up for the company to get these rules across to the audience rather than leave us to figure them out!

As for why a heel would break on five if he can't get DQ'd for it - they wouldn't, but the referee is there to enforce the rules even if they can't punish those who break them. Personally, if I were in that position, if they didn't break after five I'd step in and try and physically force them to break the hold.

As for the difference between No Holds Barred, No DQ, Street Fight, Extreme Rules, Hardcore Match etc., again I think there are distinctions, but the way the WWE have booked them they've become irrelevant.

For me, "No Holds Barred" means exactly that - you're allowed to use moves and holds that would otherwise be illegal, like how the Piledriver used to be illegal in Tennessee. It's a great blow-off match for something like a heel authority figure banning a babyface champion's finisher, for example. But the stipulation should strictly refer to holds - any other means of disqualification still should be in play, so, for example, you shouldn't be able to hit someone with a chair in a No Holds Barred match.

No DQ is what it says on the tin - can't be disqualified for anything. Count outs would theoretically still apply. And then you move up to the interchangeable Hardcore Match/Extreme Rules which, to me, means No DQ, no count out, no time limit. I suppose the old WWF Hardcore matches were also Falls Count Anywhere, so that's what differentiates them.

Finally, Street Fight, I'm a sucker for the point of this stipulation being that, in addition to it being No DQ and No Count Out, the competitors should wear their "street clothes" rather than ring gear. Really hammer home the "it's a fight, not a match" angle.

 

 

As you say, though, the rules are there to be bent to fit the story. That's the outlines I'd approach for those match types, though.

 

Note: I have booked wrestling shows, so there's a reason my brain does this. Not just a mental.

Edited June 5, 2017 by BomberPat

[Ambulance Chaser]

Is Sasha the most Uncool cool person in Wrestling. She dances like my Gran.

I was dreading the end of this Neville/Aries feud as what the holy hell do they do next, there are those 2 and then everyone else way down here.

[Ro_y Disco]

34 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

... That's the outlines I'd approach for those match types, though.

Couldn't agree with this more!! I hate that in the WWE's world the stipulation is picked purely as a name to market the match (No DQ matches happen as throwaways on Raw and Street Fights are saved for very special occasions), while the rules are all identical.

At last year's 'Mania there was the Extreme Hardcore Street Fight, or whatever crazy title it had. No different to a No Holds Barred match in terms of rules, and ended up being a boring let down.

I know it wouldn't do anything to fix the bigger problems WWE has (just like bringing back the special stages for different PPVs wouldn't make a difference to the actual in-ring show), but I'd really like to see the distinctions between match types like you outlined.

In regards to this show, how is an Extreme Rules Fatal Five-Way different to a 'regular' Fatal Five-Way?? Non-elimination multi-man matches are always no DQ, no count out anyway. Do the wrestlers sign contracts before the match promising they'll twat each other with chairs to fulfil the stipulation?!?

[theringmaster]

I personally though the Womens was put together really well, it told a dead simple story; Bayley is a superior wrestler to Bliss and she would rather beat her using wrestling moves than hit with the kendo stick (because shes a face), Bliss on the other hand is a sh!t wrestler so she needs to use the Kendo stick and has no problem doing so. I liked she just beat her down and pinned her, no 'spirited come back', it made the Kendo stick look like a deadly weapon.

 

If the feud continues and Bayley finally snaps and starts laying into Bliss with the Kendo stick the crowd will go nuts

[scotswizard]

4 hours ago, sj5522 said:

Scotswizard has the network 

The women's match isn't getting shit on cos it's a gimmick match, strictly speaking the main event was a gimmick match, it was shit cos it was a poorly put together match that drained Bayley of credibility she sorely needed to hang on to. The audible boos for Bayley say it all really. As someone who was basically a super fan of her only 2 years ago, to not give a shit now is sad. 

On a pole matches ARE always shit but that's beside the point. This could've been less shit than it was. 

 

 

 

I don't have the network.

 

It's a way to fill time. There are 5 hours of WWE on TV a week not counting NXT or Main Event. THey have fill time some way and doing a pole match is one way of doing something different. Obviously the feud will continue.

[Arch Stanton]

The rules of the tag team cage match are simple enough, both team members must escape the cage to win. Doesn't have to be at the same time, but the announcers were doing their best to put over the strategy of not leaving your partner vulnerable to a double-team beating if you escape the cage first, as Jeff did. It played back into the story when he realised that he needed to re-enter to help Matt out. I didn't see any issue at all with the way the whole thing was explained or played out.

[zep81]

As if the Great Balls Of Fire name wasn't enough

https://mobile.twitter.com/Macho_Mattness/status/871562470191583232

Lol