King Pitcos Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 12 hours ago, hallicks said: Why does a triple threat automatically have become a no-DQ affair? (In WWE at least). Is it because of there only being one fall allowed so it can't be a DQ? Couldn't you just say if someone does something DQable, they're eliminated from the match and it continues 1-on-1? You could, and no doubt they would if they had a narrative reason for it, but for the most part they want the three-way drama at the finish so they'd not want to use a DQ to make it a singles match. And triple threat matches started being used a lot in the attitude era, where it gave them a reason for chairshots and whatnot. They could still do it as a rule change, I'm just not sure what it would gain.
Paid Members hallicks Posted February 13, 2019 Paid Members Posted February 13, 2019 31 minutes ago, King Pitcos said: You could, and no doubt they would if they had a narrative reason for it, but for the most part they want the three-way drama at the finish so they'd not want to use a DQ to make it a singles match. And triple threat matches started being used a lot in the attitude era, where it gave them a reason for chairshots and whatnot. They could still do it as a rule change, I'm just not sure what it would gain. It doesn't really gain them anything, it's more about making them tighten up on storytelling. Why not just start the match with a sledgehammer in your hand if all bets are off at the end? I just think, triple threats are always treated like a normal match but with an extra person, but there's always an easy way out, whether it's chair shots, low blows, outside interference, etc. Robert Tepper was clearly never in a triple threat match.
King Pitcos Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, hallicks said: It doesn't really gain them anything, it's more about making them tighten up on storytelling. Why not just start the match with a sledgehammer in your hand if all bets are off at the end? I just think, triple threats are always treated like a normal match but with an extra person, but there's always an easy way out, whether it's chair shots, low blows, outside interference, etc. Robert Tepper was clearly never in a triple threat match. I think that's a fruitless road of thinking to go down with wrestling, because by the same token, why not start a no-DQ match with a shotgun in your hand? Why did Ric Flair's mates wait for twenty minutes to come running down the aisle and save his title? There's too much shit that falls apart if it's bound by logic. It's too ingrained in the fabric of WWE now to change it as well. A new promotion could try running without wrestling's illogical old tropes, but they'd have to come up with new ways to achieve the same responses.
Paid Members hallicks Posted February 14, 2019 Paid Members Posted February 14, 2019 6 hours ago, King Pitcos said: I think that's a fruitless road of thinking to go down with wrestling, because by the same token, why not start a no-DQ match with a shotgun in your hand? Why did Ric Flair's mates wait for twenty minutes to come running down the aisle and save his title? There's too much shit that falls apart if it's bound by logic. It's too ingrained in the fabric of WWE now to change it as well. A new promotion could try running without wrestling's illogical old tropes, but they'd have to come up with new ways to achieve the same responses. Yeah it's true, I know it's not it in the spirit of things. I just think it looks weak because they never mention it until something DQable is about to happen... which is pretty much every time, at which point Michael Cole will pop up with "No DQs in triple threat match rules, of course!"
Wrasslin Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 12 hours ago, King Pitcos said: You could, and no doubt they would if they had a narrative reason for it, but for the most part they want the three-way drama at the finish so they'd not want to use a DQ to make it a singles match. And triple threat matches started being used a lot in the attitude era, where it gave them a reason for chairshots and whatnot. They could still do it as a rule change, I'm just not sure what it would gain. Remember the Triple Threat where Austin was in the Crossface and the Walls of Jericho at the same time and was tapping out. They could have used the elimination rule there but the ref waved it off and kept the match going because he couldn't declare a winner. Fast forward to NXT. Sami Zayn, Samoa Joe and Baron Corbin are in a triple threat. Same thing happens. Ref ends the match amid confusion (leads to the awesome Sami vs Joe 2 out of 3 falls episode). As long as they keep it consistent I don't care.
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 14, 2019 Paid Members Posted February 14, 2019 17 minutes ago, Wrasslin said: Remember the Triple Threat where Austin was in the Crossface and the Walls of Jericho at the same time and was tapping out. They could have used the elimination rule there but the ref waved it off and kept the match going because he couldn't declare a winner. Fast forward to NXT. Sami Zayn, Samoa Joe and Baron Corbin are in a triple threat. Same thing happens. Ref ends the match amid confusion (leads to the awesome Sami vs Joe 2 out of 3 falls episode). As long as they keep it consistent I don't care. Reminds me of one of my most hated finishes in company history - Rock vs HHH vs X-Pac for the I title the night after Fully Loaded 98. Rocky takes a walk and gets counted out. Tony Chimel forced to simply announce "The Rock has lost this match" in lieu of a winner because.... well, did they both win, or what?? Very close to the time the Outlaws were somehow able to win a multi-team by pinning each other. Fucking Russo, man.
WyattSheepMask Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 4 hours ago, air_raid said: Reminds me of one of my most hated finishes in company history - Rock vs HHH vs X-Pac for the I title the night after Fully Loaded 98. Rocky takes a walk and gets counted out. Tony Chimel forced to simply announce "The Rock has lost this match" in lieu of a winner because.... well, did they both win, or what?? Very close to the time the Outlaws were somehow able to win a multi-team by pinning each other. Fucking Russo, man. Ah, the match were they technically won and lost at the same time They used to love doing that bit in Four Way Tag matches where the faces were able to get the heel partners to face each other. This match actually went through with what 13 year old me would say of “well why doesn’t he just pin him?”, but that then makes your faces look a right bunch of gimps for letting it happen
Paid Members Chris B Posted February 14, 2019 Paid Members Posted February 14, 2019 I loved that, actually - and they did actually bring in the 'Outlaw Rule', didn't they? For me, that's a perfect example of logic in wrestling. The Outlaws spotted a loophole, took advantage of it, and a rule was changed to stop it ever happening again. And it was funny as well.
Otto Dem Wanz Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 The King of the Ring 2001 set is bloody ace - shame Shane got chucked through part of it. What a shame that DDP stalker angle went down like a wet fart after the start it had. Kurt Angle was/is a fuckin lunatic. Not really a surprise Benoit or Jericho didn’t get any heat as WWF title contenders booked as faces against a heel Steve Austin. King of the Ring lost most of its allure after 1999.
Paid Members Murtz Posted February 15, 2019 Paid Members Posted February 15, 2019 2002 was pretty good considering the winner would be the number one contender for the title.. the start of Brock vs Rock.
Paid Members Fox Piss Posted February 16, 2019 Paid Members Posted February 16, 2019 Just caught a bit of Balor for first time in Bullet Club. Did he have a hair transplant? Cena and Randy too from a quick google. Anybody else on the roster?
Paid Members Lorne Malvo Posted February 17, 2019 Paid Members Posted February 17, 2019 Kane's had a few.
Paid Members wandshogun09 Posted February 17, 2019 Paid Members Posted February 17, 2019 Well this isn’t creepy from Santino at all, is it?
Brewster McCloud Posted February 17, 2019 Posted February 17, 2019 Even if he was drunk when he wrote it, you'd think he'd have some idea of how it could be construed.
Paid Members Accident Prone Posted February 19, 2019 Paid Members Posted February 19, 2019 Stumbled across this fantastic clip of a young John Cena geeking out over his new gaming set-up and the Command & Conquer games. How is it possible for anyone to dislike this man? Yeah, there are some questionable stories of his backstage politicking and squandering 'pushes', and his superman booking put a lot of people off the WWE product, but he is so bloody entertaining at everything else that you instantly forgive him. Hell, this clip alone has made me forget the atrocious ending to the Nexus angle and him supposedly putting the kibosh on JTG's merch.
.thumb.jpeg.55e5547a252a5ad1a05f197973025167.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.