Extreme matches on WrestleMania

[NegativeFeedback]

Everyone remembers the infamous Triple H vs. Randy Orton main event from WM25. It followed one of the best matches of all time with a horrible stinker of a title match that kept the fans sitting on their hands.

Well, here's what Randy Orton had to say about it:

Randy Orton:
"I think when all that happens and then you have this match where he can't be disqualified or he loses the title, you kind of screw yourself," Orton said. "Matt and Jeff Hardy had a hardcore no-holds-barred match. They were able to use all the bells and whistles to beat the hell out of each other. Everyone was expecting Triple H and me to do the same, but we had rules that put a fence around everything we were able to do. We weren't able to go to the extreme. If anything hurt us, it was that."

I kinda agree with him. When you build a feud for its climactic ending, you're hoping for a real fight. But we didn't get that because of WWE's tendency to keep the main events as straight-up singles matches.

There was only ONE No DQ match in each of the past 3 WrestleManias. Guess who had them? The one and only Triple H, who refused to be shackled by the rules anymore and booked himself into No Holds Barred matches with Brock and Taker, and a Hell in a Cell in between.

I wonder why Triple H is the only one who gets that special treatment though. I think WrestleMania would REALLY benefit from ending lots of these top feuds in hardcore matches. And not just No DQ's, I'm talking about LMS matches, I Quit matches, Tables matches, etc.

Imagine if the 5-star Last Man Standing match between John Cena and Edge had occurred at WM25 instead of Backlash. It would have made the event much more entertaining.

Imagine if the boring Orton vs. Kane at WM28 had been replaced with the Falls Count Anywhere match they had a month later?? Or if Punk/Jericho had been a Street Fight like their Extreme Rules match for that matter??

I think WWE has really undervalued the idea of being able to use stipulations to boost the quality of their card (well Triple H obviously hasn't). I wonder why they always book a few stipulation matches all year and then focus on keeping WrestleMania single-match-central.

When was the last time a World title match had stipulations at WrestleMania?? I have no idea. I'm guessing it was the No DQ at X-7, which is one of the best WrestleMania main events of all time. I think WWE should try recreating that type of magic by allowing their main eventers to let loose and really sell their feud with some hardcore stips.

 

[MCMG]

A few years ago the ref would take a bump, lay down for 15 minutes and they could just bring in a chair. Also, ref's would follow them into the crowd rather than count them out. I mean, who can forget when Mike Chioda went into a coma during HHH/Taker at Wrestlemania 17.

I think they should use gimmick matches sparingly at Wrestlemania. It should be 1) the right type of match and 2) the correct storyline. For example, I don't think Last Man Standing fits in with Wrestlemania. A simple No DQ/holds bard match is sufficient. It should also be where giving the match a gimmick really adds to the match or is necessary. Triple H vs Orton was one of those cases. They have wrestled so many times and it was a personal feud: just let them use weapons.

There is also the point that why give away great gimmick matches away at a PPV that people are going to buy. They can use them elsewhere to boost buyrates and give us a high quality show. Look at Extreme Rules 2012. I'd say one of the top 4/5 PPV's of the last decade or so. The WM a month before was shit. Swings and Roundabouts really.

There is definitely a case for having extreme matches at WM. Not just on the undercard but for main-events. It can add to the entertainment as well the match being more anticipated and/or feeling like a bigger match.

 

[Dum Dum Dudley]

There's no need for too many gimmick matches at Mania when your next PPV is exclusively gimmick matches. You could move Extreme Rules but I wouldn't. I enjoy seeing feuds end in great blow-off matches like Sheamus v Bryan in 2012 and Brock v HHH last year.

If the feud is strong enough, it doesn't need a gimmick. Orton/Kane would have probably benefited from an extreme stipulation but that was probably because the feud was horseshit. Matt v Jeff needed it because both guy's careers have a rich history of extreme moments. HHH/Orton probably did need a gimmick because of how extreme the feud was. To break into the man's house and kick the shit out of him upped the intensity, onlyto bring it back down by stifling them by rules.

I'm old-school in a way, and prefer no-frills, normal matches at Mania. With the talent on the roster, there's no need to tarnish the legacy and reputation of Wrestlemania by loading the card with gimmick after gimmick match. Save it for ER. One of the worst Wrestlemanias IMO is WM 2000 and the second matchwas garbage. Throwing lower-midcard guys in a hardcore match didn't scream 'Wrestlemania caliber-match'. If you are going in with good talent and logical booking, you can play it straight.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

There's no need for too many gimmick matches at Mania when your next PPV is exclusively gimmick matches. You could move Extreme Rules but I wouldn't. I enjoy seeing feuds end in great blow-off matches like Sheamus v Bryan in 2012 and Brock v HHH last year.

If the feud is strong enough, it doesn't need a gimmick. Orton/Kane would have probably benefited from an extreme stipulation but that was probably because the feud was horseshit. Matt v Jeff needed it because both guy's careers have a rich history of extreme moments. HHH/Orton probably did need a gimmick because of how extreme the feud was. To break into the man's house and kick the shit out of him upped the intensity, onlyto bring it back down by stifling them by rules.

I'm old-school in a way, and prefer no-frills, normal matches at Mania. With the talent on the roster, there's no need to tarnish the legacy and reputation of Wrestlemania by loading the card with gimmick after gimmick match. Save it for ER. One of the worst Wrestlemanias IMO is WM 2000 and the second matchwas garbage. Throwing lower-midcard guys in a hardcore match didn't scream 'Wrestlemania caliber-match'. If you are going in with good talent and logical booking, you can play it straight.

Triple H and Orton by that point had two Last Man Standing matches, a Steel Cage match and a bunch of other matches under their belt. A normal bout was anticlimactic as hell. Frankly, I think that putting two guys that had been through it all in the main event title feud was absurd to begin with but that's a topic for another day.

I think gimmick matches can help. Edge and Cena's LMS match from Backlash was outstanding and I really wish they had moved it up to WrestleMania. The Triple Threat with Big Show was underwhelming and that's saying the least. WrestleMania should be about big dream matches, not random thrown together triple threats.

 

[Blade]

Well, Wrestlemania 2000 was quite gimmicky, and that is regarded as one of the worst Manias ever, ladder match aside. Wrestlemania is a pure wrestling show through and through, despite the "pageantry" of it all. The best wrestlers go one on one in normal matches.

With that said, I'll agree that Orton vs Triple H desperately needed a no DQ stipulation. It was pretty short sighted by WWE. Between Money in the Bank, which is regularly excellent, the fan reaction that a Hardy vs Hardy match was bound to have and the brilliance of HBK vs. Undertaker, a regular Orton vs. Triple H match that we'd seen plenty of times beforehand was always going to disappoint. Plus, the rivalry was intense and personal. We didn't want a classic wrestling match, we wanted Orton and Trips to beat the hell out of each other with chairs and sledgehammers.

Apart from that though, gimmicks shouldn't play any part in the main event matches of Wrestlemania. That's not what Wrestlemania is about, it's what Extreme Rules and/or Backlash are about.

 

[Dum Dum Dudley]

Triple H and Orton by that point had two Last Man Standing matches, a Steel Cage match and a bunch of other matches under their belt. A normal bout was anticlimactic as hell. Frankly, I think that putting two guys that had been through it all in the main event title feud was absurd to begin with but that's a topic for another day.

I think gimmick matches can help. Edge and Cena's LMS match from Backlash was outstanding and I really wish they had moved it up to WrestleMania. The Triple Threat with Big Show was underwhelming and that's saying the least. WrestleMania should be about big dream matches, not random thrown together triple threats.

I agree that they can help feuds, I just don't agree with going to that well all the time at Mania. A classic Mania match IMO is Angle/HBK; 2 phenomenal talents going one-on-one to see who the better man is. Did it really need a table gimmick? Or a last man standing gimmick. The wrestling told the story. HHH/Taker III needed the HIAC gimmick but I'd warrant the match at Mania 27 didn't need No-DQ because the story was HHH wanting to end the streak, not gain revenge.

The occasional gimmick match at Mania works, there's no denying that. But i don't think a card full of gimmick matches does a good job showcasing the pagentry of Wrestlemania.

 

[darbare]

It depends on the match, but also you have to look at it from a business perspective..WWE knows that people will spend money on Mania regardless of anything..its tradition..but the month after its really hard convincing people to pay more, so they have something like Extreme Rules to culminate feuds..its just smart business, unless they risked it at Mania and somehow convinced people to pay again the next month, but WWE doesnt take risks, they dont have to which sucks

 

[Trail_Blazin]

I actually feel like WrestleMania is the one pay-per-view that doesn't need gimmick matches. It could live strictly on drama and intrigue. Every once in awhile it could be fun to see "extreme" type matches, though.

I say that, but I think Money in the Bank was fun at WrestleMania. And the Hell in a Cell match with Taker vs. Trips was phenomenal.

But for the most part, the spectacle is enough to get away with mostly traditional matches. But you can't put the talent at a disadvantage by having a big gimmick match and then expecting someone to go on after that.

 

[Dum Dum Dudley]

I actually feel like WrestleMania is the one pay-per-view that doesn't need gimmick matches. It could live strictly on drama and intrigue. Every once in awhile it could be fun to see "extreme" type matches, though.

I say that, but I think Money in the Bank was fun at WrestleMania. And the Hell in a Cell match with Taker vs. Trips was phenomenal.

But for the most part, the spectacle is enough to get away with mostly traditional matches. But you can't put the talent at a disadvantage by having a big gimmick match and then expecting someone to go on after that.

I think MITB at Mania was a great addition and at one point was a staple of the event. But just like the TLC match, WWE oversaturated the gimmick by giving it a PPV of its own. 2 MITB matches at the PPV and another one at Mania is overkill and ultimately led to it not being involved at Mania.

With a world title unification imminent, I'd much rather see MITB back at Mania but with a pool of 6 guys rather than 8 or 10. Get rid of MITB PPV. But what I'm against is just throwing random stipulations to matches at Mania when the prestige of the event suggests it doesn't need it.

 

[Dayno]

I'm all for extreme matches at Mania, but keep 'em limited. I think Wrestlemania is a showcase for straight up wrestling, being creative with the backbone of what the company is and was built on and using good fueds and storytelling to get people on the edge of their seats.

That being said I think it will always benefit from having one extreme match to give both memorable moments and a straight simple to watch enjoyable slobberknocker also to break the repetitiveness. That was part of what was great about Money in the Bank; you were guaranteed one awesome memorable match you'd talk about for awhile and the rest was good old fashioned wrasslin.

It also has to suit the fued, and most benefit simply from no dq or falls count anywhere is always good. And theres other match types like 2 out of 3 falls that can add variety.

The Extreme Rules PPV does kinda prevent this though, seriously fuck all these gimmick PPV's