Triple threat title matches

[farlance]

I've always had this ugh feeling before the past few Wrestlemanias when they

have announced triple threat matches for one of the titles. Maybe because

there was a one on one contest that I had high hopes on seeing, or I just

didn't think it would be as entertaining. With the world title picture looking like

its gonna be Cena Big Show and Edge, I dunno I dont picture that as a

Wrestlemania caliber match, and would rather see a one on one match with

either Cena or Big Show. What do other people feel about these triple threat

matches, good or bad thing? does at add or take away from the excitement?

 

[Phoenix]

I think Triple Threat or Fatal Fourway matches have some potential to be great, but when it's lessed used, I think in the last 10 WMs, a World title match was contended between 4 Triple Threat/Fatal Fourway Matches. They were:

WM 16 - Triple H vs. The Rock vs. Big Show vs. Mick Foley
The match was completely overshadowed by the Triple Threat Match for the IC and European Title match that was earlier on the card. You knew there would only be Rock and Triple H as the last two guys, but it fell badly, purely because everyone wanted The Rock to win and they had to wait another month to see him win it.

WM20 - Triple H vs. Chris Benoit vs. Shawn Michaels
A tainted match because of recent times, but named as one of the best main events of Wrestlemania history, very little I could name wrong about it. The match was perfectly done

WM22 - Kurt Angle vs. Rey Mysterio vs. Randy Orton
Rushed, too short, nothing special. Kurt Angle made a great performance but it was overshadowed by the fact Rey only won because of Eddie's passing. Even WWE didn't think it as important as Cena vs. Triple H

WM24 - John Cena vs. Randy Orton vs. Triple H
A pretty good encounter of the three top Raw members of last year, again, because Edge vs. Undertaker was the main event, it couldn't be considered as great. But there was a good flow to the match and also they provided an outcome that people didn't expect but also one that was right to end it, Randy Orton winning. Only it was tainted by Backlash with a Fatal Fourway counter which had Triple H win, that was the Backlash on Orton's momentum.

Unless something happens about the WHC title this year, I think having another Triple Threat Title is only because creative is being too lazy to create more Wrestlemania type matches, a great feud, a decent one-on-one encounter, it's just to fill the slots and get as much of the roster in. I feel Triple Threat matches should happen, but when they should be used effectively for the storyline purpose. I think Triple Threats are more for the 'B' type PPVs or Summerslam.

They can work sometimes, but not always, it needs to have flow. Just not a big fan of seeing a guy go out of the ring for 5 mins so two guys slug it out and then they switch.

 

[WrestlingHistorian]

The bigget show of the year should be reserved for one on one contests between the two top contenders for the titles, not a stupid 3 way or 4 way match, that takes the drama out of it and lessens the meaning of the title bout. WWE needs to make sure that Cena defeats Big Show and takes back his #1 contendership before WrestleMania, otherwise the fans wont be into the match and the show will have a B-PPV feel to it. Cena -vs- Edge for the World's Championship should be the main event at WM25 still, bet on it.

 

[ulimate123]

I am definately starting to see a lot of Triple threat and fatal four way matches in the present and its getting quite annoying. And its not only happening at WM, its happening at nearly every PPV now. Wrestling, especially at WM should stay traditional and thats one-on-one matches.

 

[farlance]

I guess for a triple threat to work it has to have a shocking conclusion or something. I have to admit the Benoit HHH HBK triple threat lived up to be one of the best mania matches and leat years match between Cena HHH and Orton, I didn't care for the idea at first but how it ended definitely made up for it, The one with Angle Orton and Mysterio...I would have rather seen an Angle VS Orton one on one, but Mysterio had to get the belt somehow. With this years WM id still rather see Show vs Edge or Cena Vs Edge, either one dont care, before a triple threat between the 3....puke.

 

[Splinter]

What do other people feel about these triple threat matches, good or bad thing? does at add or take away from the excitement?

i like triple threat matches, although they tend to suck if they are made to short, like less than 15 minutes. as example khali vs. rey vs. batista, although that was not at mania. if the wrestlers work longer triple threat matches, they are usually great to watch.

 

[Queers and Steers]

well i think its fine especially in this case because it makes it seem like for Cena to win he will have to overcome a giant obstacle!!!!! plus unlike most people i like the big show but i will admit he ha been really vboring since his return. they need to have him act like a monster. or at least be a li8l more serious bc all of the smiling and stuff isnt cool. i miss when smackdown would go off after the angry giant chokeslammed the crap outta somebody and is screaming while thrusting his hand in the air!! and Cena vs Edge would be great one on one. but when show eants to b hes great on the mic and in the ring. he can talk unlike Andre and khali and he doesn't move nearly as slow i think they actually have him act like the big show i use to know and love

 

[Dragonslayer]

Well basically I like Triple Threat matches, especially if the participants are all decent in-ring performers (see HBK/HHH/Benoit at WM20 as an example), since in such a constellation, there's just so much more possible in terms of cooperation, different finishing moves/sitations and how they can be solved/broken up again by the third man, more possible surprises without the need to have someone interfere from the outside (see Cena/HHH/Orton) etc...

However, as pure drama is concerned, no triple threat can ever have that same "showdown"-feeling that a pure one-on-one encounter has. It really doesn't matter if that encounter is a regular match, or a Last Man Standing, HIAC or other gimmick match... the essential thing about the supposed showdown, especially at Wrestlemania, is that the build-up to that event has to be as personal and as dramatic as possible... and that really works best when you have only one hero, and only one villain, so you know just exactly who you (are supposed to) support and who not. With a third man involved, people might start thinking: "Well, actually I would've wanted X to win, but now that Y is involved as well, I'm also pulling a bit for him...", and I guess that in such a situation, the emotional involvement just isn't as deep anymore as it would've been in a classic "duel" situation, where you just KNOW that this guy HAS to win, and that guy HAS to lose, or else you'd be mightily pissed hehe.

So as for Wrestlemania - I honestly would prefer one-on-one encounters, especially at WM. I really would have no problem with any sort of gimmick match (well, at least those gimmicks that add to the drama factor, like LMS, Ironman, HIAC or 3 Stages of Hell), but it should really underline that showdown-factor. On other, "smaller" PPVs I guess Triple Threats for the title are pretty fine and a good way to spice things up every now and then. But if you want to create a feud that really means something (see HHH/Orton right now - there would be no point in randomly introducing a third man to that program), you need to focus on the conflict between two individuals, since it's the most elementary thing people can relate to, especially if personal reasons are behind that conflict (again, HHH/Orton) instead of just a "desire to become champion" or such. That is why I personally really feel that the HHH/Orton match will be the better one at WM, not necessarily from a purely in-ring point of view, but simply because the storyline is more personal, and gets people more easily and deeply involved. I expect Cena and Edge (and whoever else, if a third man remains in that angle) to do a great job, but essentially, this angle is about nothing else than Edge somehow "cheating" himself to a title win in the EC, which of course is a "heelish" action, and of course the former champion will be pissed by that action - but it is in no way even halfway as meaningful as the personal conflict that is the basis for the Orton/HHH feud.

So my vote should be clear - definitely one-on-one, especially if you have a decent build-up and storyline to go with it. Triple Threats can be a nice change of pace, but should be second choice, especially for Wrestlemania.

 

[WrestlingHistorian]

Well basically I like Triple Threat matches, especially if the participants are all decent in-ring performers (see HBK/HHH/Benoit at WM20 as an example), since in such a constellation, there's just so much more possible in terms of cooperation, different finishing moves/sitations and how they can be solved/broken up again by the third man, more possible surprises without the need to have someone interfere from the outside (see Cena/HHH/Orton) etc...

However, as pure drama is concerned, no triple threat can ever have that same "showdown"-feeling that a pure one-on-one encounter has. It really doesn't matter if that encounter is a regular match, or a Last Man Standing, HIAC or other gimmick match... the essential thing about the supposed showdown, especially at Wrestlemania, is that the build-up to that event has to be as personal and as dramatic as possible... and that really works best when you have only one hero, and only one villain, so you know just exactly who you (are supposed to) support and who not. With a third man involved, people might start thinking: "Well, actually I would've wanted X to win, but now that Y is involved as well, I'm also pulling a bit for him...", and I guess that in such a situation, the emotional involvement just isn't as deep anymore as it would've been in a classic "duel" situation, where you just KNOW that this guy HAS to win, and that guy HAS to lose, or else you'd be mightily pissed hehe.

So as for Wrestlemania - I honestly would prefer one-on-one encounters, especially at WM. I really would have no problem with any sort of gimmick match (well, at least those gimmicks that add to the drama factor, like LMS, Ironman, HIAC or 3 Stages of Hell), but it should really underline that showdown-factor. On other, "smaller" PPVs I guess Triple Threats for the title are pretty fine and a good way to spice things up every now and then. But if you want to create a feud that really means something (see HHH/Orton right now - there would be no point in randomly introducing a third man to that program), you need to focus on the conflict between two individuals, since it's the most elementary thing people can relate to, especially if personal reasons are behind that conflict (again, HHH/Orton) instead of just a "desire to become champion" or such. That is why I personally really feel that the HHH/Orton match will be the better one at WM, not necessarily from a purely in-ring point of view, but simply because the storyline is more personal, and gets people more easily and deeply involved. I expect Cena and Edge (and whoever else, if a third man remains in that angle) to do a great job, but essentially, this angle is about nothing else than Edge somehow "cheating" himself to a title win in the EC, which of course is a "heelish" action, and of course the former champion will be pissed by that action - but it is in no way even halfway as meaningful as the personal conflict that is the basis for the Orton/HHH feud.

So my vote should be clear - definitely one-on-one, especially if you have a decent build-up and storyline to go with it. Triple Threats can be a nice change of pace, but should be second choice, especially for Wrestlemania.

I agree with most of this statement. While triple threat bouts can be fun, they should be saved for Raw/Smackdown main events and B-PPV's, but definatly not WrestleMania.

 

[Scott Free]

I think triple threat matches are just another way to sell a screwjob finish, where the champ can lose the title and actually never get pinned. Worse one I've seen was the C.M. Punk deal, he wasn't even in the match.
I prefer one on one and possibly with a clean finish.

 

[Rated R Fan]

The reason why I don't like triple threat matches is because of the fact that they end in the same way every time. One person does his finisher to another and then the third person takes out the one that did his finisher and wins the match.

 

[TwistofRKO]

In regards to Cena/Edge/Big Show, will we see anything unique here? Or will it be the exact same type of thing we just seen to close out Raw? I think it's safe to say we won't see a mind-blowing match with little to remember of it post-Mania. It doesn't carry a reason for all three to compete, as the story is built around two people, so there's already a big hit there.

Triple Threat title matches can be great, but they usually bomb, although the last one was done very well.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I'm getting tired of the triple threat matches for the main fact that it's just basically alternating one-on-one matches with a wrestler being thrown out of the ring for a while (ex. HHH/Benoit/HBK). I think Big Show/Cena/Edge will be the same way too.

 

[Benjamin]

HBK vs HHH vs Benoit = Classic


might be also the most underrated match of all the times