Six Years Ago This Week..........

[DebbieHardy]

Awesome match that is still enjoyable to watch to this day. The build up to the match, as someone mentioned, went for a few months and was gripping stuff. I remember being so excited to see this first ever HIAC match and it certainly didn't disappoint.HBK and Undertaker put on a great performance and I doubt this HIAC will ever be topped.One of my all time favourites.

[Guest Psybro]

Gee's, That long ago? It just goes to show how much time flys. I wasn't even 10 years old at that time. I still remember coming home from school on the day after and watching it after my dad taped it. If Im honest I think I watched the Hell In a cell twice because it was so much of a different kind of match than others at that time.And ECWRulz, Your sig is over the limit. Thank you.

better ???

What the bejesus is that supposed to mean you oxymoron.

For Christ's sake don't use that word if you don't know what it bloody means.

[DarthKillYourself]

Sorry to burst your bubble but i count ten Cell matches. They are:1)Undertaker Vs Shawn Michaels Oct 972)Undertaker Vs Mankind Jun 983)Kane Vs Mankind Aug 984)Undertaker Vs Big Boss Man Mar 995)Al Snow Vs Big Boss Man Sept 99 (Kennel from hell)6)HHH Vs Cactus Jack Feb 007)6 Man Hell In A Cell Dec 008)HHH Vs Jericho May 029)Brock Lesnar Vs Undertaker Oct 0210)Kevin Nash Vs HHH Jun 03This list does NOT include the cluster fuck that involved Undertaker, Austin, Kane and Mankind; in, on and around the cell on Raw Jun 98.

[MoChatra]

Maybe you've got your expectations too high or in the wrong place or something because I can't see how its anything less than awesome.

I think you'll find Bionic Redneck's expectations lodged firmly up Bret Hart's ass. As you say, it really was awesome, and the reasons BR gave for claiming it wasn't a great match are really flimsy and about as convincing as a Russo storyline.

[Ray]

It was a ***** match plain and simple,

Not really. Edited February 8, 2005 by Ray

[Midnight Zeus]

Using that logic, if one "enjoys" American Pie more than Citizen Kane, then American Pie is a better film than Citizen Kane. Don't you see how flawed that logic is?

Not at all - I'm talking about an individual's perception of art which is completely dependant on what that individual looks for in that piece of art.If a person ranks inuednos and teen angst hilarity above a deep storyline and moving performances then that person is well within their right to say American Pie is better.This applies to wrestling too - not everyone looks at wrestling the same way or wants the same thing. If a person says they thought the match was great because they love high flying moves and high octane action, and rate these more than selling and psychology then, much the movie analogy, they are well within their right to say the first match is better and be correct, using the pre-requisites they have in their mind.You can't apply pre-requisite requirements to art and expect everyone to adhere to them and then tell people the way look at that is wrong - it's all subjective to what a person wants and gets from that piece of art - movies, wrestling and whatever else.I personally don't look that deeply into wrestling matches and things like lack of selling and psychology will probably pass me by - now you are telling me I'm wrong for saying a match like HIAC 1 is a MOTYC because I don't analyse matches like you - that's just arrogance on your behalf to expect everyone to watch wrestling with the same pre-requistes and reuirements as yourself.I stand by my original judgment of HIAC 1 being MOTY and being better, for me, than Steve Austin v Bret Hart. I liked the fued more, I liked HBK way more than either Hart or Austin and the match got me far more involved and gave me far more pleasue than Austin v Hart. Now on what level could I possibly rate Austin v Hart better if I rate everything that I want from a wrestling match more in the HBK match? I don't watch wrestling matches in the same way as you and I don't care about the same things so why would I ever even attempt to rate matches on the same scale as you? I rate matches on what I like to see not on how anyone thinks I should rate matches, hance I can say HIAC 1 is better than Austin v Hart because it gave me what I want in a wrestling match more than what Austin v Hart did.

[MoChatra]

Ray,you still haven't given me reasons as SSS behind your thinking on the Benoit/Angle match from the Rumble.Also, can I ask you why you watch wrestling. All you seem to do is spend your time 'picking holes' and 'exposing flaws' in matches, and putting down workers for their 'goofiness'.Anyone can sit there being overly negative about wrestling in an effort to look really smart, and that's exactly how you come across.

[edgecrusher]

I think that both Ray and BR suffer from the same problem: An incredibly defined sense of what wrestling is and is not, and if anything deviates from that they can't cope with it. Hence why they put Shawn down. -with a loo brushShawn Michaels is one of the best wrestlers of all time. Even Bret Hart, his worst enemy, still says that. Shawn played his character to perfection, and he wrestled HIS style to perfection. The way Shawn wrestled and wrestles is as valid a wrestling style as any other, as are the matches it produces. Pretending that it isn't is ridiculous. If you compare Shawn's matches against other matches of a similar type, Shawn's almost invariably come out better. Why? Because Shawn was actually very very good at telling a story. He just told it differently to your idol Bret. But because he tells it differently, you claim that he doesn't tell it at all. -in my pantsThe HIAC match is a brilliant match. Its engrossing, intelligently told, and it has one of the most memorable (albeit silly) finishes of all time. That said, it isn't just the finish that people remember. They remember a great number of Shawn's bumps, they remember him doing everything he could to get away from his nemesis who stalked him relentlessly, and they remember him being lucky enough to get away with it in the end. The story was very well told, and a great deal of that lands firmly in Shawn's lap. -with a loo brushOn top of that, when a match takes place inside the confines of a gimmick, you can't expect the match to stay the same. The story changes. Here they based their story almost entirely on interaction with the Cell, and this helped to make it so iconic. They used the environment brilliantly, told their story with style and panach

[cattle mutilation]

Using that logic, if one "enjoys" American Pie more than Citizen Kane, then American Pie is a better film than Citizen Kane. Don't you see how flawed that logic is?

You've picked the wrong film. Both American Pie and Citizen Kane are definitive examples of their respective genres. Both are ***** films, AP is the perfect example of a gross-out teen comedy the same way CK is a flawless and influential political satire. So it could be argued that AP is a greater example of its genre than CK, and therefore a better film.

That's basically a huge cop out. There's a thing called objective analysis. Just as people analyze films, we analyze wrestling. If a film has giant holes in the plot, then it's not a good film, REGARDLESS of how much one enjoyed it. It's still a FLAWED film. There is a difference between LIKING something and that thing being GOOD.

Flawed matches can still be great matches, they can still be MOTYCs. A ****3/4 is a flawed match, it has a telling flaw that drops 1/4* off the final rating, this doesn't make it a terrible match though does it? If you wanna pick errors, flaws, inconsistencies or whatever then you could say that Austin/Bret isn't a ***** MOTY because Austin bladed on camera and a real pro wouldn't have done that.Just because a match is more intelligently worked doesn't mean its automatically greater than anything else. Look at Kojima's Fire Festival matches with Tanaka and Ohtani. The former was a simplistic heated, ultra dramatic bout which featured terrible selling from Tanaka. But it was BETTER than the Ohtani bout. Kojima/Ohtani was an incredibly cleverly worked match featuring layer upon layer of psychology and great selling from both guys, especially Ohtani. It wasn't better than the Tanaka bout though, it lacked the spark and the UNBELIEVABLE heat of the first match and whether you like it or not those are incredibly important factors if you want to sit down and analyse. Just because Ohtani's has and always will be a better and cleverer worker than Tanaka it doesn't mean EVERY match he wrestles is superior. The same applies to Bret and Shawn.

It was a ***** match plain and simple,

Oh no it was not.

Yes it was. Twas a ***** cage match, in the same way Speed is a ***** action movie. It simply fulfilled all the demands asked of it and more. What more could anyone ask?

Most HIAC matches are poor, so being the definitive one isn't exactly something to be proud of.

UT/Mankind *****HHH/Cactus ****1/2Armageddon ****HHH/Jericho ***1/2and the brawl atop the cell on Raw before KoTR 98 was some of the best ten minutes of wrestling TV I've ever seen.

You can't expect Ohtani or Bret level psychology from a match like this but then again UT/HBK/A Big Cage doesn't promise anything like that,

Did you just admit it was poor?

So all matches have to be overloaded with psychology to be great? The beauty of UT/HBK (like any great action movie) lies in its uncompromising simplicity. You're looking for the wrong things in the wrong type of match.

Enjoying it does not make it a good wrestling match.

Because a wrestlers ability to connect with the audience isn't important

[Mikeymike83]

There was another post on here in the last week....list your top ten in ring wrestlers of the modern era, or something similar to that.The only thing I remember was BR's constant put downs of Shawn Michaels again. I didn't say anything then because I just let it go. But to hear him rant on and on about how one of the absolute greatest wrestlers of the past 25 years is really very over rated again, caused me to reply. To me, your the type of people that give the internet fan a bad name. Defending their idols, a la Bret, Ohtani etc, (who are very good too), objective about the smallest little thing in a match, you're nothing but pathetic fucking smarks.As stated earlier by someone else, even Bret Hart, (the guy that hates Shawn Michaels with a passion), admits to him being not only a great wrestler but the best he has gone against, a list that includes other super workers as Chris Benoit and Ric Flair.Now yes you could say that I am being objective and defending my favourite wrestler, but thats not entirely true. I don't care if people hate the guy or wouldn't consider him in their top 10's etc etc, but if people were to answer truthelly, I could guarentee at least 90% of wrestling fans would admit that Shawn is one of the best to ever step foot in a wrestling ring.Get off your fucking pedastals and take wrestling for what it is, something there for the fan, (casual or not), to enjoy. Sure that may not be delivered at all times, but when its all said and done, I challenge absolutely any one of you to go out there and give me a better match then your average Funaki vs Zach Gowen match. To sit there and type why and how someone isn't a great wrestler, you think and you learn what it takes to even get to the level that a Shawn Michaels, a Bret Hart or a Ric Flair got to.

[MoChatra]

There was another post on here in the last week....list your top ten in ring wrestlers of the modern era, or something similar to that.The only thing I remember was BR's constant put downs of Shawn Michaels again. I didn't say anything then because I just let it go. But to hear him rant on and on about how one of the absolute greatest wrestlers of the past 25 years is really very over rated again, caused me to reply. To me, your the type of people that give the internet fan a bad name. Defending their idols, a la Bret, Ohtani etc, (who are very good too), objective about the smallest little thing in a match, you're nothing but pathetic fucking smarks.As stated earlier by someone else, even Bret Hart, (the guy that hates Shawn Michaels with a passion), admits to him being not only a great wrestler but the best he has gone against, a list that includes other super workers as Chris Benoit and Ric Flair.Now yes you could say that I am being objective and defending my favourite wrestler, but thats not entirely true. I don't care if people hate the guy or wouldn't consider him in their top 10's etc etc, but if people were to answer truthelly, I could guarentee at least 90% of wrestling fans would admit that Shawn is one of the best to ever step foot in a wrestling ring.Get off your fucking pedastals and take wrestling for what it is, something there for the fan, (casual or not), to enjoy. Sure that may not be delivered at all times, but when its all said and done, I challenge absolutely any one of you to go out there and give me a better match then your average Funaki vs Zach Gowen match. To sit there and type why and how someone isn't a great wrestler, you think and you learn what it takes to even get to the level that a Shawn Michaels, a Bret Hart or a Ric Flair got to.

I agree totally.Bionic Redneck claimed he was 'challenging' people's top ten picks, yet all he was doing was mocking other posters for not using the same criteria as he does.If you notice, the vast majority of his posts are very negative about the business and he rarely posts anything positive about current happenings.Here's some stuff I posted at the SSS message board about fans who overanalyse matches:"Over the last four or five years, a new generation of internet smart fans have emerged, who tend to look at both the business and star ratings in a different light. Not meaning to sound insulting, but they generally seem to hold a small handful of matches up at ***** level, and compare all other matches to those. In addition, they pay a lot closer attention to finer points in matches, and can sometimes lose sight of the big picture. For example, they'll watch a great match, but because of 'poor' or 'inconsistent' selling, that 99.9% of casual fans either won't give a shit or be aware about, those smart fans will then talk about how that match 'sucked' and other kind of negative speak.I think one of the real negatives about the internet is that a whole generation of smarts have emerged who have forgotten what this business is about. It's about having fun and allowing yourself to be entertained, not to wallow in and become consumed by trivial things that the vast majority of wrestling audiences never give a second thought to.Heck, according to some Mistakes in Movies website I came across once, The Matrix had a huge number of inconsistencies, yet I'm sure most people here loved that film. It's only my opinion, but I think many smart fans need to stop viewing pro wrestling like ice-skating judges, and learn to enjoy wrestling more. "There's more:"Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with analysing the finer points of pro wrestling, because many of its strengths lay in the subtleties and smaller things. It's when fans become engrossed in these things, and get irked, annoyed or even upset when they feel that these little things are done incorrectly or mistakes are made, whilst totally missing the big picture, that some smart fans let themselves down.Pro wrestling is a work, and its an art form. There is no right or wrong way of working a match. Why does one head-drop in a match HAVE to be better than lots of head-drops? How long should a wrestler sell a certain bodypart that's been worked on? To what extent should they sell it? When are facial expressions right, and when are they overdone? Why is a match with few highspots better than a match crammed full of highspots? Why does a wrestler not just stop when he/she is Irish whipped? Why do wrestlers use moves which never get a result? Why don't wrestlers try to go for wins straight away? You can drive yourself crazy analysing matches to the nth degree. I'm sure if you sit down and try, you can pick lots of holes in the greatest ever matches (Hokuto/Kandori, Liger/Sano, Dragon/Ohtani, Misawa/Kawada, Kobashi/Hansen, Flair/Steamboat, etc.). The trick is having a proper perspective on all these factors and understanding what this business is all about. When a fan loses that perspective, and becomes obsessed by what are, at the end of the day, only trivial things that the overwhelming vast majority of wrestling fans doin't give a shit about, then that fan is watching wrestling for all the wrong reasons." Edited October 13, 2003 by MoChatra

[edgecrusher]

Kind of how I think about the issue, too. Don't know if you mentioned it, but its also worth noting that most of the smarks like that also have a very SET definition of what makes a match good. -in my pants

[Midnight Zeus]

It's hard sometimes because the most vocal people on the net tend to be the negative nay sayers and a lot of staisfied fans probably can't be bothered to post in threads like this because they get insulted, attacked and basically told that they are watching wrestling in the wrong way and they should be watching it under some set of rules that only the super smart fans seem to know about it.It's gratifying to see some people who like myself seem to just thoroughly love this bizarre industry that has brought us all together.Me and Mo may have had our differences in the past over opinions and trivial matters but deep down we are just a couple of fans who love to be entertained - yay us I say, we get what we want out of wrestling.

[BionicRedneck]

There is a huge difference between hating Shawn Michaels and taking offence when someone claims him to be the "greatest wrestler ever~!!!!1111111 masterclass!" when there are 50 better wrestlers and just because they are a mark for him/Dave Meltzer said so. I don't hate Shawn Michaels. I don't hate HITC. I believe I called it "fun". OMG! Fun! I hate Shawn Michaels! I love Bret Hart! Wait a minute? It didn't have anything to do with Hart except for me pointing out that Hart-Austin smoked this in every way imaginable. In other words, Chatra was just trolling again.

But to hear him rant on and on about how one of the absolute greatest wrestlers of the past 25 years is really very over rated again, caused me to reply

Shawn Michaels is not one of the greatest wrestlers of the last 25 years.

To me, you

[MoChatra]

Kind of how I think about the issue, too. Don't know if you mentioned it, but its also worth noting that most of the smarks like that also have a very SET definition of what makes a match good. -in my pants

Absolutely. Wrestling's supposed to be art, and in art there is no right or wrong way to produce art, of whatever kind.Unfortunately, some of the wannabe smart fans we come across on the net, who try and stand out by burying popular figures who are generally considered to be great talents by 'exposing their flaws', don't understand this and do judge matches by narrow criteria that totally undermine the whole concept of art.