I'd like to apologise for responding at the 11th hour, but life has been hectic of late.
Stating that something doesn’t work any more is quite a bold thing to do and I feel as though you have gotten the wrong end of the stick here. Yes, John Cena’s match with Randy Orton at Hell in a Cell last year was not the blow-off match in this feud but it certainly ended the feud between DX and Legacy for a long time. It also signalled the end for CM Punk’s feud with The Undertaker and both of these matches and feuds are fine examples of times when the Hell in a Cell match has ended feuds.
If 'Taker and Punk's feud ended, why were they wrestling again a month later? But you're right about DX and Legacy. So 2/3 HiaC matches last year didn't end their feuds. That's pretty significant when HiaC is supposed to be the ultimate blowoff match.
Also, you need to remember that Randy Orton and John Cena then contested and hour long Iron Match in which anything goes was a stipulation. Yes, the Hell in a Cell match did not end the feud but an even more hellacious match awaited both of the competitors. The Cell was just a progression as the feud got more intense and destructive. Would and elimination chamber match have done the same for these two men?
So the "most vicious structure to ever grace a WWE match" which is "commonly used as the blow-off match to particularly violent encounters or feuds" is less hellacious than a last man standing match? What you've just admitted is that the Hell in a Cell is no longer the most brutal match two competitors can endure. Just like it is no longer the best cage match in WWE.
I respectfully disagree with your claim that it is because it is a younger match. Yes, the Hell in a Cell match is the older of the two but the names who have competed in the Hell in a Cell match have been consistently good. With 6 spots in the elimination chamber match, you will always have some room for the filler. I mean, there was no way that Mike Know was ever going to win that match but all of the people who have competed in a Hell in a Cell match have had a very realistic chance of winning the match. The same is not true of the elimination chamber and that takes away from the intrigue of the match for me.
Rikishi had a chance to win a HiaC match which also featured The Undertaker, Kurt Angle, The Rock, Steve Austin and Triple H? Now Rikishi was a good big guy, but no way he's pinning any of those guys to win the WWF championship.
Dude, I see what you are trying to do here but you are completely wrong.
Trying to trivialise these men is beyond ridiculous and all of them can be easily explained away.
And I'll do my best to rejustify that they do indeed refute your point that "The Hell in a Cell match has literally been trusted to the biggest and best names of the WWF/E".
The Big Bossman was seen as a solid competitor at this point and it was right at the height of the Ministry’s dominance. The Ministry have now gone into WWE legend and people still talk about them fondly.
Yes he was, but that doesn't make him any thing more than a midcarder. At the time I believe he was in the corporation, and therefore playing a definate second fiddle to actual main eventers.
Rikishi was embroiled in an angle with Stone Cold, Triple H and The Rock at this point and that angle is still one which I hold very dearly as a memory. At this stage of his career, Rikishi was being put over really well and although it ultimately failed, Rikishi’s place in this match was almost assured.
It did indeed make sence to include him. After all, he ran over Steve Austin "for The Rock" on HHH's orders. However, the angle did mean that Rikishi, while being involved with main eventers at the time was pretty much Hunter's hired muscle, meaning he also doesn't fit as one of WWF's best and brightest. At any point in his career.
As for Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes, they are just young superstars who have a very bright future ahead of them. Although they failed to win against DX, they were still put over really well against two of the greatest competitors that the WWE has ever seen.
Yes, they are indeed
future stars. However, what were they at the time of the Hell in a Cell match? Midcarders playing second fiddle to a real main eventer (not that they've graduated from the midcard at this point). So while Ted and Cody may one day be classed among the elites of 'Taker, HHH, HBK and Cena they weren't when they were in the Cell.
You previously argued that people like Legacy and Rikishi had no place in the Hell in a Cell match but at the time of the match, all of these guys were always in with a legitimate chance of winning the match. It has to do with the WWE building the superstars who are going into the match. I would argue that those going into a Hell in a Cell match command more respect from fans and peers that those going into an elimination chamber because they have no escape. The WWE uses this to their advantage and I cannot recall a WWE Hell in a Cell match in which I have thought that someone did not stand a legitimate chance of winning.
So, because the buildup made it logical to include them, they had a chance to win? Forgive me if I wonder who thought that Bossman, whose career peaked with a tag team title win with Ken Shamrock was going to defeat the leader of the ministry. But I suppose building up one person from nothing to something is easier than making all 6 people appear to be valid threats.
Elimination Chambers have a strange habit of showing the gulf in class and build that plagues the superstars involved. Before every EC match, you can automatically rule out half of the people who are not going to win and that kills the very point of the match.
You have a point there. However, in spite of there being some chaff among the wheat, does the Elimination Chamber not effectively separate them, and provide a champion who has been through an immensely tough challenge to earn their prize?
The Elimination Chamber does, admittedly not provide the rediculous, insane spots that Hell in a Cell can and does provide. But it not a match intended for that purpose. The purpose of the match is to separate the wheat from the chaff and provide a man who has thoroughly earned his championship belt. It does this very well, and by this point in time, it does its job better than Hell in a Cell does its job of providing a suitably violent way to end an intense feud.
Yeah because Triple H, Shawn Michaels, The Big Show and Vince McMahon don’t cut it in the main event, right?
Please!
Yes, all of the men in that match
were main eventers. However, the match itself was in the midcard, and McMahon at the time was 60 and should have been (and was) nowhere close to being in the main event of a PPV.
Kevin Nash was in the World Heavyweight Championship race for good reason.
Politics?
He teamed with Shawn Michaels frequently suring this perios and was constantly in the ring with people like Ric Flair, Triple H and Randy Orton. He was build into that match and didn’t seem like an outsider that had been thrown in.
So the 45 yearold with multiple injuries 'belonged' in a match which would supposedly shorten the lives and careers of healthy men because it was well built up to? If Hell in a Cell was as brutal as it was supposed to be, Nash wouldn't have lasted very long in it.
Plus, the only reason that Nash was in the Cell match with Triple H was so that Triple H could not get DQ’d.
So, this big omega event was one which could have been replaced with a bog standard no DQ match?
Mick Foley and The Undertaker have given s brilliant moments and matches inside the Cell, broken down or not. At the end of the day, Remix, it all comes down to entertainment value and whether a broken down Undertaker and Mick Foley surpasses a fully fit Mike Knox and I know what my response to this would be. Any wrestling fan should agree.
Yes they have given great moments and matches. However, look at 'Taker's most recent outing into the Cell. A match that was wrapped up in 10 minutes, in which the Cell took virtually no part. Once this match was as great as you assert it was, but now? Not so much.
Absolutely!
Mick knew what he was doing when they planned these spots and they have paid off for both him and the WWE. The fans still talk about how recklessly insane they were and they will always hold a place in the nostalgic memories of the WWE fans who have seen those moments. Nothing (and I do mean nothing) that has happened in the Elimination Chamber match has given me as much entertainment or enjoyment as the moments given to us by wrestlers putting their careers on the line.
Sorry, but in my opinion the moments of insanity provided by Mick Foley do not justify Hell in a Cell as being greater than the Elimination Chamber. It makes Mick Foley a crazy bastard, but it does not make the Cell a better enclosure match.
This is because the Cell's insane spots are simply unsustainable and that when people were no longer willing/required to wrestle in the insanely brutal style of the Foleys of the world, the matches took a sharp decline in brutality, to the point where other matches in the feud were more brutal and the match itself could have been replaced with any other where weapons are not only encouraced, they're allowed.
And what in that paragraph is not true of the elimination chamber?
There have been no insane, innovotive spots which can never happen again in today's WWE. Thus any innovations which happen can be reused in future matches without somebody getting in trouble.
If the Hell in a Cell match is slowly dying of the Attitude Era’s sins then the Elimination Chamber match is just a tame product of the new PG WWE. Attitude may be gone from the WWE but when two men step inside the Cell on very rare occasions, you know it has the potential to be enthralling. I have never watched an elimination chamber match and found myself guessing what was going to happen next, with the possible exception of Michaels getting involved.
Fair enough.
Once these men are in the chambers, then the match is pretty open and shut really, There is so much untapped potential from the chamber that it is unreal.
Indeed it is.
However, a lot of that potential would come from getting out of the cage and for the match type to be successful, then there needs to be a whole lot of order.
I disagree. There's a lot of potential for some awesome spots within the confines of the cage.
I mean, it wouldn’t make sense if two competitors got out of the Elimination Chamber cell and fought throughout the arena, leaving the other 4 men in their respective chambers. The unpredictability of the Hell in a Cell match will always outdo the tightly ordered Elimination Chamber.
If you like anarchy and unpredictability, then sure it will. If you like logic reason and progression, not so much. The two most recent Elimination Chambers for example perfectly set up all three main events of Wrestlemania. Cena vs Batista was set up by 'Tista taking advantage of an exhausted Cena (who entered last, and yet was weak and tired enough to be beaten afterwards in 30 seconds), Edge vs Jericho was set up by the latter winning Smackdown's chamber, and HBK vs 'Taker was set up by HBK's Superkick ending 'Taker's title reign. I like logic and progression, so for me, the Elimination Chamber is the better match.
Sorry, two seconds ago you were arguing that wrestlers causing themselves to encounter possible career-shortening injuries was a bad thing and now you are saying that the measures that the WWE have put into place to try and ensure that the match can be as “brutal” as possible whilst being entertaining are bad things?
You said that the Chamber was designed to be the most vicious structure in all of sports entertainment, when it was designed because the existing cage hurt like hell. Mick Foley shortening his life with bumps from the top of the Cell were an unintended consiquence of adding a roof, and turning the brutality of the Cell up to eleven.
Putting a Champion to the ultimate test? I beg to differ, mate.
Of the last 6 Elimination Chamber matches, the Champion has not been involved with a third of them.
Yeah, you've got me there. This is what happens whern you don't read Wikipedia closely enough.
Rather, the two matches at No Way Out 2008 were number one contender matches.
I realise that
now. But still, the eventual winner, champion or not has truely earned that win and the right to walk away with the championship, that night or at Wrestlemania.
Furthermore, of the last 4 elimination chamber matches, the Champions have come out of their pos at the last entrant half of the time.
In WWE the champion always has an advantage. In normal matches he retains ther title even if he gets DQed or counted out, in the elimination chamber he gets to go in last. And not to mention that the entry order of everybody except the starters is supposed to be random. he's bound to come out last sometimes.
How can this match really be putting a champion to the ultimate test if some of the competitiors in the match could have already been competing in the match for 30 minutes before the Champion came into the mix?
Because he's still got to come out the victor. Look at how easily Batista beat Cena who came out at number 6. And we all know how hard Cena is to beat, and yet after coming out at number 6, he was able to be decimated by Batista.
Are you implying that Jericho would not have been considered a valid Champion if he had not entered the match from the last position. Or would he not have been considered a valid Champion if he had won the Championship in a singles match?
No. I'm implying that in spite of him taking the most tainted victory in Elimination Chamber history, he had still gone through pne hell of a lot to earn it. Even though he hid in a pod to escape 'Taker, and Shawn Michaels finished him off, Jericho had still earned his win.
Dude! We are talking about Chris Jericho here. The man is possibly one of the most well-rounded superstars that the wrestling business has ever encountered and no matter when Jericho wins the Championship belts, he is always considered a valid Champion these days.
And so he should, he is damn good. But look at the cercumstances of the win. He won by picking up the scraps, hiding and in general being a pussy, and yet (in kayfabe) he'd earned it by surviving the perils of the Elimination Chamber.
Actually, I would beg to differ. The moments that people like Mick Foley have given us from outside of the cage are something that the WWE are very proud of and indeed hang their hats on. You say that those spots do not deserve to be in the Hell in a Cell matches but look at the description that the WWE give to their fans about the Hell in a Cell match:
The spots are mentioned not because they bellonged to be there, but because that is the match where they took place. If the insane falls had never taken place, would the Cell still be a better match?
Those spots have had a huge impact and as the WWE have shown us by their own descriptions mean everything to that match type. Those moments easily surpass anything that the elimination chamber has given us and for me, they are hell of a lot more entertaining. Whe it comes right down to it, entertainment value will always sway what fans think of certain matches and I don’t even think that the elimination chamber matches are even in the same league as Hell in a Cell matches.
I agree, Mick Foley's falls, JR shouting "With god as my witness he is broken in half" surpass anything that the elimination chamber has produced. But ask yourself, aside from suicide spots what makes the Cell any better. I've asserted throughout my arguements that with WWE's pg era, the brutality of the Cell has, by neccesity been reduced. What is the Cell without wrestlers (defying the original point of the match) and risking life and limb on the roof of the cage? It is a shell of what it once was. A match no longer living up to the brutal expectations it earned in its earlier years, one that can no longer finish the feuds it was designed to blow off. In short, it is a match that once was great, but peaked in its third outing. The Chamber, as you've said has nearly unlimited potential and has become the better match for doing its job, and therefore is the better match.
.