Steel Cage Matches - How Should They End?

[IrishCanadian25]

I'll start this thread off with this one simple fact: IC25 was right, NorCal was wrong.

Last night, while watching the MITB Pay Per View, a "gull-darn donnybrook" broke out at D-Man's house regarding the proper use of a cage match to blow off a feud.

Cage matches have been contested under a variety of rules since their inception in (I believe) the late 70's or early '80's. In the NWA and AWA, a cage match was fought to a pinfall or submission. In the old WWF, a cage match was won by escaping either through the door or over the top, and no referee on the inside was needed. The purpose of a cage was to keep people out of the cage - managers, tag team partners, etc.

The match has evolved today to being potentially won either by pin, submission, or escape. Often times the door is now locked and the only escape is to climb it.

Point- a steel cage match should only be won via escape. If you want a match to end via pinfall or submission, it's a normal match. The whole "escape from the cage" clause makes a cage match more unique and creates drama. Furthermore, it advances the face / heel dynamic with the heel trying to take the "easy" route through the door (with his manager helping) while the face tries to take the heroic and more difficult climb the cage route.

Counterpoint - a steel cage match is often the blow-off match to a feud, and the final moment of a feud should only be acheived with pin or submission - a show of dominance over the other. Furthermore, if the idea of a cage match is to keep people out and keep the contestants in, why is the point to run away and escape your opponent? The only real way to finish off a rivalry is with a clean pin or submission victory.

Notice how I have not told you who (NorCal or I) was on which side. We'll reveal that soon enough after we see how people fall on this issue.

So the question is - should the rules of winning of a cage match be to pin / submit your opponent? Or to escape the cage?

 

[Tenta]

Look, you know how far back my love for Old School Wrestling goes, and thus, I'm going to have to say that both points have their merits. Unfortunately, to the wrestling mind, the concept of a Steel Cage has evolved over time, and I blame the rampant use of outside interference being the cause of the evolution of the steel cage.

In the old days, a steel cage match was the way to blow off the feud, but it meant something more. It meant, simply enough, that the heel has nowhere to run, and thus, the logi behind the escape rule made perfect sense. The Heel has to be able to incapacitate the face to the point that he can escape, and there's typically a psychology involved with the heel looking for the way out of the cage, with the face beating him down, and finally getting the vengeance he's been looking for. Consequentally, when it comes the face's time to get out of the cage, the heel fights him back in, because frankly, that's the best way a heel can get heat in the cage. It was magnificent, as the psychology worked both ways, but in different reasonings for the wrestlers.

Now, however, the focus has shifted from "The heel can't escape" to "The Face and Heel are trapped in the cage, and no one can help them". Of course, it never typically works out that way, but that's the intention of the cage now. It's made to keep the wrestlers away from outside interference, in a shift that started I want to say in 1999. Actually, yes, I can pinpoint that period in which that happened, and it was in 1999, with Austin and McMahon in the cage. You'll notice, before the bell I admit, that the two wrestled outside the cage for a while. The focus was clear; the cage wasn't so much about containing Austin and McMahon, so much as it was keeping The Corporation at bay. The psychology has changed now, and the times have made it so that the old way in which things are done, the way of "escaping the cage" is a little obselete. Of course, this could be solved by less outside interference in matches, but that would be far too simple, wouldn't it?

For the record, I'm going to take the wild stab that I'm arguing The NorCal side of things. You both seem pretty old school, but I think you're more of the Old School mindset in this. It's ok, I am too, but we have to accept that the times have changed

 

[Alex]

Most definitly escape. It kind of loses its appeal to me if it simply is a pinfall/submission match, yes you can use the cage as a weapon but whats wrong with having a normal match with weapons???

As IC25 said it kind of gives the wrestlers the heel/face dynamic more 'oomph' when they're trying to escape (the heel using the easy route through the door, the face climbing heroically over the top)

 

[Ferbian]

I would lean mostly to the escaping the cage part. As you point out so nicely yourself IC - A is nothing special if a match ends by submission or through pinfall. It's a regular match then. With an added pair of stipulations in terms of the fact that you can't get disqualified. You can't get interference involvements (arguable. Last night proved this thing wrong. Many cage matches has proved this wrong).

There's a bigger feeling in the escaping the cage concept. If you wanted a regular match with no interference you'd make it a no interference match with stipulations that causes them not to interfere.

Escaping the cage does indeed give that superiority kind of feeling. And no I'm not saying the pinfall or submission does zero for your superiority or credibility. But I am saying that the credibility and superiority could be created in any given situation outside of the steel cage match. There's no need to end these "special" matches through something that can be achieved any other way.

It makes sense to end through pinfall or submission. Don't get me wrong. But there's no special feeling of it ending that way. It's like ending some other matches through stipulations allowed. But less special. It's like the Money in the Bank we cried about ending where Jack took the briefcase down after 40 seconds of fiddling with it.

I won't complain about either one of them and how they end. But I would much rather see escaping the cage as the result. Because it gets a bigger feel.

 

[Optimist Prime]

They already have the Hell in the Cell match which includes the pinfall and submission combo. I don't understand why they have to take the original Steel Cage match which had the "escape the cage to win" original factor that kept it different from the seemingly better Hell in the Cell match. Now the Steel Cage match is cheapened by the tweaking of it. Mainly because there is no reason to do so. It's unnecessary. It's as if they basically wanted to have the coolness of the Hell in the Cell match (with a pinfall/submission outcome) but can't set it up for a Monday Night Raw show as easily - so it's cheaper to just bring the old steel cage down we're all used to and just change ruin the rules of the original steel cage because it's easier and cheaper to do so.

There is no point of the Steel Cage match if they add pinfall and submission because then it becomes a much worse version of the Hell in the Cell. At least if it keeps it's original "escape the cage" rules - it keeps its originality and prevents the inevitable comparisons.

 

[Carpathian Florist]

Although I did vote for pinfall or submission, I really don't mind the "escape" method, if it is done properly. Or at least "properly" by my tastes anyway, although who knows how many people would shre such a view. I don't like the idea of escaping out of the door either. If it was purely up and over, I'd prefer an escape only, but as it is then I think pinfall or submission is fine.
One spot I really hate is when both wrestlers fall and it happens to be whoever hits the ground first that wins, I saw this in a cage match featuring Mick Foley and Sting, I really hated that as an ending to the match. To me the cage is for a brutal match up, where I would like to see someone beaten so badly that their opponent has enough time to drag themselves up the cage and climb down for the win. Another aspect I don't like is when a wrestler is halfway down the cage and they're magically pulled back up and over by their opponent who has miracously recovered. That just looks completely absurd to me.
At least if it's a pinfall or submission you get a legitimate winner (in most cases) whereas some of the escape methods either look too absurd or involve luck too much to me.

 

[goodlay]

I was just thinking about this last night. Honestly, before last night, when's the last time a WWE cage match ended by escaping the cage? Yeah....it's been a while.

Im fine with a pinfall/submission finish every once and a while, but mainly these matches should be about escaping the cage. I hate how most cage matches these days revolve around getting pinfall/submission. Though I thought Cena/Sheamus did a good job last night of going for both escaping the cage and trying to get pinfalls.

Personally im just not a big fan of cage matches ending with pinfall/submissions, but shit's gonna happen. The main point of a cage match to me is the fact that you shouldn't be able to get a pin/submission to get out of the match, you should have to escape. The original design of the cage match was so that you couldn't get out the easy way. You'd have to beat the living hell out of your opponent so that you could have enough time to climb the cage.

 

[Megatron]

It depends on the type of feud, to be honest. If it's a hate feud and both men are wanting to kill each other, the only possible reason should be by pinfall/submission. What would be the point of running away from the guy that you want to destroy?

On the otherhand, if it's a chickenshit heel trying to avoid punishment from the face, escape is the right option. He's gonna want to avoid as much punishment as possible and get up and out of there as soon as possible.

I am a fan of pin/submission, tbh. I don't wanna see guys run away from the battles, unless the situation were to call for it (example above). But when I see a cage match I think: these two are gonna wanna kill each other and someone is gonna get a decisive victory. This will prove who the better man is.

At least that's my take. Pin/submission.

 

[Big Sexy]

I never liked the whole pin/submission aspect being involved with cage matches. The cage match is only unique nowadays because you can win by escaping through the door or climbing out. When the pin fall aspect is added it's basically a slightly different variation of a HIAC. With the similar match types that now exist, the one thing that makes cage matches stand out is the way that you win. The thing that makes a cage match special to me is watching guys climb over to get the victory.

The old WWF is really where the whole escape thing started in cage matches and some of the companies most memorable cage matches happened with only the escape rule in place. Snuka missing a leap from the top of the cage allowing Bob Backlund to escape at MSG, Snuka hitting Muraco and having him fall out of the cage for the win at MSG, Hogan escaping at Mania 2 to defeat Bundy, and Bret Hart climbing out at Summerslam 94 to defeat Owen Hart. I've always found the best cage matches in the WWF/E to be the ones where guys escaped rather then winning by pin/submission.

 

[Lee]

You have to take into place the fact we now have hell in a cell matches where you can only stay inside (I know what you're going to say so don't). If the Hell in a cell match type exists where you win by pinfall or submission, then that kind of makes the cage match redundant doesn't it? Unless of course the aim is to escape the cage by either climbing the top or through the door. You want a blow off by pin or submission? Then take it in the cell.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

think about it, You say they have a cage so there is no inteferance, and having a pinfall/submission added in makes the match normal..I think thats good...lets just say Cena/Sheamus match...

The reason it was a cage match was so there was no Nexus and they couldn't get in the ring...therefore it was more or less a standard one on one match wasn't it??

While I do agree and say the best way is to escape, i'm just more open to any idea...

 

[IrishCanadian25]

It depends on the type of feud, to be honest. If it's a hate feud and both men are wanting to kill each other, the only possible reason should be by pinfall/submission. What would be the point of running away from the guy that you want to destroy?

No, it really doesn't depend on the type of feud. Or it shouldn't. A cage match should be a cage match.

The match type should be determined by the type of feud. Inconsistent rules of a cage match shouldn't. If it's a hate feud where both men wanna just wail on each other and interference is less of a concern, then a cage match is useless anda Last Man Standing makes sense. If the idea is to keep two men inside until something is settled, then a HIAC makes sense. If it's a title match that needs a spin, then a Ladder Match makes sense.

A cage match should have consistent, either-or rules. So should a cage match be pin / submission? Or escape only?

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm very old school, so my answer is escape only.

Consider the idea of a cage match. While there are bonuses of keeping people both in and out of the cage depending on who they are, the main idea is that these two men hate each other so much that something special must be done. Think of Taker vs. Mankind in the cage. The idea was that these two men had reached the point where they could not coexist in this company and despite all their battles, nothing had been settled. The solution: lock them in a cage, last man standing wins.

That's the idea of a cage match in general. To get a pinfall in a match, you have to keep a guy down for three seconds. Cage matches are supposed to be brutal. It takes longer to get out of a cage than it does to get a quick win via 1-2-3. You have to beat the other person to a level where they can't stop you from leaving that cage. That is based on nothing but brutality and violence and is what cage matches are supposed to be about. Think of Angle vs. Anderson at Lockdown. They couldn't stand each other and after a brutal beating from Angle, he left Anderson laying there in a pool of blood and in essence says this is over and leaves him laying. There's something powerful about that which you don't get from hooking a leg and having the referee count a pin.

Escape only.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

KB is spot on.

Incidentally, I argued in favor of escape only. NorCal went pin / submission. Hopeflly he shows up in the thread someday.

A great point was brought up last night, I believe by the legendary JGoose. He said that with a steel cage match in which pins or submissions are permitted, it is logical (however it would never be booked this way, you must suspend disbelief) that a steel cage match could end with a school boy roll-up or a small package. If that concept alone doesn't kill the concept of a pinfall or submission cage match, try this on for size.

For a pin or submission finish, a referee is required to be in the cage. In a match with such anger and hate, what is the point of an authority figure to keep it in check? Would he 5-count chokes? If a guy is in a pinfall situation and puts his foot on the ropes, is the pin broken up? Isn't this supposed to be a no-rules, caged-animals sort of affair?

If you go escape-only, you also can eliminate the referee, let the wrestlers have the entire stage, and make sure it's truly a no rules situation.

Escape only is the ONLY way a cage match should be done. Otherwise, it's not a cage match.

 

[Барбоса]

I would go with the "it depends on the nature of the feud" argument.

I can definitely see the argument of if it is a very personal feud fuelled by hatred, then why would either man be wanting to escape? Look at the third fall of 3 Stages of Hell between SCSA and HHH. Two guys who hated each other and had no real inclination to run away, beating the living hell out of each other using the cage as a weapon. Pinfall/submission was perfect for them. Perhaps the superceding of the cage by HIAC, in main event feuds in particular, which has never ended through escape, means that cage matches should probably end with escape far more often just to keep them different.

However, the cage can also be used to prevent a cowardly heel from running away easily and taking a countout victory to retain his title. In such a scenario, you could argue that the cage is simply there to make sure there is a decisive winner either by pinfall or submission. Personally, I think that such a match ending with an escape is somewhat contradictory. Take JBL vs Big Show inside the Barbed Wire Cage. What was the point of the barbed wire other than to prevent escape? Big Show wants JBL to fight him so he can beat him but instead of pinning him, he decides to walk out the door? Sure, the finish gave JBL more heat due to his lucky victory but there was something strange about a feud that had been based on one guy running away from the other ends with both trying to run away.

There is something inherently heelish about escaping the cage; it is a glorifed retreat. You are running away. There is a part of me that thinks that a face should never win a cage match through escape, particularly when it hasn't come about with the heel beaten to a bloody pulp. Angle/Anderson was a good example of how a cage match should end as KB mentioned but in a way it suffers from the terminology of victory. The record book will say that Angle won by escape but in reality, he simply left because his opponent was unable to continue.

The advent of factions such as the Horsemen and all their derivatives down to the modern day Nexus, has added a new dimension to the cage match. The cage at times is now there to keep a participant's allies, such as the epic Bret vs Owen at SS '94, or a third party, such as Sheamus vs Cena from MITB, out of the contest.

I think the rules of victory in a cage match should continue to be taylored to the aspects of the feud.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Escape only. Pinfalls and submissions shouldn't even be considered as viable alternatives to win the match, because tradition says that the reason cage matches exist in the first place is because two men do not like one another so much so to the point they have to settle their differences in the most primordial and animalistic way possible – in a cage (often referred to as a cage of death, for a reason).

Historically, the heel in the feud would have done a slew of cheap tricks to gain victories over the face and have run when actually confronted with the possibility of loss, hence the idea of locking the men in a cage neither (but most importantly, the heel) can't escape from. Face wins and the blow off is complete.

See Kurt Angle v. Mr. Anderson at Lockdown 2010 for the last classic cage match.

 

[Hawkeye]

I think Cage matches should 90%-100% of the time end with the winner escaping.In my opinion,the point of the cage match is to keep the competitors in,whereas HIAC is used to keep others out. Case in point Edge V. Eddie Guerrero on Smackdown several years ago.Eddie escaped,but then the un-Americans came in through the door and assaulted Edge.Coming to his aid were John Cena and Rey Mysterio,the latter leaping off the top of the cage onto Storm and Christian. None of that would be able to take place in a HIAC match because there's no way in or out unless somethings broken,and once you start destroying the cell it just becomes irrelevant anyway.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I'm with IC25.

The "Cage Escape" finish of Steel Cage matches, in theory, means that the victor has outlasted his opponent so much that instead of keeping him down for just three seconds, he keeps him down from the time it took to land the move that truly took his opponent out to getting to the top of the cage, to climbing over. Either that, or you get a suspenseful race to the finish, like we had with Cena and Sheamus the other night.

The "Cage Escape" finish also has led to some of the most awesome moments of the past decade or so. If it weren't for that, we would never have had Angle's Moonsault, Benoit's Diving Headbutt (well, we know what this ultimately helped lead to, but it was really cool at the time), and Hardy's Whisper in the Wind on Umaga from the top of the cage.

There's a lot more work involved in a cage match. It's also the reason they're in the cage to begin with. Long before HIAC, the reason of the match was so scores between two hated rivals was settled. You had to face your opponent, and there was nowhere to run. Beat the shit out of him, then go ahead and climb over. I was never a fan of pinfall or submission being a way you could win cage matches. Why bother having them in the first place?

 

[Prax]

A cage match really has numerous different uses. It's meant to be a brutal match, which includes a steel mesh that could be used as a weapon, and an elevated platform from which high flying moves can be accomplished. Unfortunately, with the addition of matches like the Elimination Chamber and the Hell in a Cell, that aspect of it has become nearly obsolete.

It's also meant to keep people in the cage, and other people out, which was the way it was built for this past Sunday's match (even though that ended up being moot). In that sense, a cage is meant to enclose people inside it. Just like a cage in real life doesn't intend to challenge its captors to find a way to escape it. You don't put a bird in a cage, and then tell it to find a way out. It's meant to stay in the cage.

In the same fashion, I am totally for the pin/submission side of the argument. I find escape to be a cheap way to win a match, almost like a countout. It means that the person who's willing to escape over pinning his opponent doesn't think he can legitimately beat that person in a regular pin or submission scenario.

Escape makes for some exciting and high tension moments though, so I'm not the type that is totally against escape, but I'd have to lean towards pin/submission.

Frankly, I don't think cage matches belong anywhere near PPVs anymore, but exactly the reasoning I stated above.

 

[ABMorales787]

The Steel Cage has become the "light" feud ender. Meaning it can also be shown on TV. However having a pinfall/submission rule involved fuels the drama involved in the match. You can pin the opponent safe and sound in the ring, or humiliate them by just leaving them lying as you walk out. A perfect example of the walking out stipulation is the Matt Morgan/Hernandez match in which Hernandez won by slipping a win right under the cocky Matt Morgan who had many chances to win but didn't take them.

In WWE Hell In A Cell was incorporated in order to evolve the standard Steel Cage Match. Utilizing the cage WCW used for its regular Steel Cage Matches, but also adding a sense of ultraviolence and "true finality". If anything, that aspect truly failed. Miserably. The first Hell In A Cell match was Undertaker/Shawn Michaels. Did their feud end there? Royal Rumble says otherwise. Did it prevent outside interference? Kane says no.

When you look at a regular cage match it has the same flaws but used at different times. They are supposed to end a feud. On TV or on PPV, it usually means it ends there. However the whole "keeps them in and others out" becomes pointless lots of times.

* JBL/Eddie Guerrero: Kurt Angle interfered.

* John Cena/Sheamus: The Nexus interfered.

* Rock/Austin: Mr. McMahon and Triple H interfered. A lot.

There's a hell of a lot more. Point is that WWE has simply bastardized the meaning of a cage match or any variation. With a pinfall rule, at least if it ends that way, it means there was no outside influence to determine the victor. In which case the cage serves its purpose. Having a pinfall/submission is not redundant. It should end in pinfall, submission or escaping the cage. However, it should never end with outside interference, because that truly makes having the cage completely pointless. It was used in Money In The Bank to keep The Nexus out. How well did that serve?

 

[Davi323]

If you simply want to keep outside interference from happening, do a hell in a cell. The cage has an open top for a damn good reason.

Being able to pin or submit someone takes the fun out of a cage match. But, really, I wish I could come up with some awesome logical argument, but the best reason I have is that the Saturday Night's Main Event where Paul Orndorff and Hulk Hogan had a cage match wouldn't have had the ridiculously cool (even if highly edited for TV) ending where both their feet hit at the same time, a draw, then having the match get restarted. If it had simply been a pinfall/submission match, there wouldn't have been any controversy, thus, no fun.

 

[Eck]

I think they can be both actully. The cage originaly had the rules that u had to escape to win. But im gonna vote for pining and submission. It keeps outside interference out and it discribes whos the better manreally is. Or at least more so then escaping. With escaping we could have some one lik Vince Russo winning the title again just because the cage broke from a spear.