Paper often doesn't work like it should. Sports have showed this many times before, and as has the wrestling world. Honestly, to make me say I Quit, would be a HELL of a lot harder than simply knocking me out. Paper would say, that to knock a man out for 10 seconds, is rather simple. As we all know what the human spirit is capable of.
But the interesting point is that the I Quit match needs a conscience person to say the words, you say knocking out a person is easier, well naturally it would be and the way anyone finds it easier to win is to strike the first punch and carry the momentum from there. Most of our everyday fights from boxing to computer games rely on you winning via knockout, a popular use which gives the sense of superiority.
Wrestling solely relies on pins, submissions and countouts, they are restricted in how much they can take their opponent apart. The moment you say you can win by beating your opponent to a pulp gets a fire burning and going, getting them to go and submit is restricting how much they can do to be affective in beating your opponent, so it's proven on paper and beyond why winning via knockout gets a bigger boost to anyone's morale compare to someone who's knocked out.
With a cause, we can achieve anything. Small, colonies in the American Revolution, took on and beat the massive British forces. They were out supplied, and out manned. But, they had a cause, and refused to say I Quit look where were at today.
So were the Spartans and every other small nation/colony that goes to war. War isn't just about quitting, it's about superiority, the most effective way to win is by eliminating your opponents. General and troops are not going to wait for someone to quit, they're waiting for someone to be removed by their own hand. War is about annihilation, where stragety is involved, armies don't care about mind games because they are built to win through blood, sweat and tears.
If you really want to argue Usage and Effectiveness, than you would realise that an I Quit match is the most useful, and effective. As there have been many Last Man Standing matches throughout the years that have ended in a no decision. When neither man could answer the count, the most recent I can recall, being The Undertaker vs Batista. Out of the 28 documented I Quit matches, there is not a single no contest in the history of an I Quit match.
Well using the Undertaker/Batista example may have been a good choice, but if you look more closer at that feud, after Wrestlemania, they booked it as a feud where neither man was better than the other. You had that cage match where they drew amongst others. The only time where a Last Man Standing is used to continue a feud is where it is fought to a no contest but when it is used to end a feud, a winner stands tall.
Naturally I Quit matches are not set to be a match where it ends in a draw, but yet there have been some examples where matches like that or similiar have ended without a legit person quitting, Mankind was knocked out and was screwed out of a match as well as Austin passing out on Bret Hart. Yes I know the Austin/Hart match is a Submission match, but given Submission matches and I Quit matches are the same thing, it can be added as a match where neither man quit.
You said it's most useful when it's barely been used as much as a Last Man Standing match, if it was as useful as a LMS match, it would have been used more often, but it has not.
Thats silly, and we both know it. The I Quit match is used so little, because for one, its only been around since 1985. For two, the matches that have been used for the stipulation of I quit, have been mostly brutal, and bloody. Hell, the last I Quit match litterally showed torture, while Randy handcuffed Cena making him defensless, and beating him senseless with a kendo stick, trying to torture the word I Quit out of him.
Wait, what? You're saying because it was only around since 1985, it's been used so little?!
WWE started using it in 1995 and they've had more Hell in a Cell matches in lesser time, so that's not an excuse to say why I Quit Matches have been less around, it's because they don't work as effectively. To my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Last Man Standing Match came as early as 1999, and yet has seen more in a decade than an I Quit Match because it was more effective to end fueds.
Interestingly, a submission hold like the STF, Crippler Crossface, Sharpshooter is also a form of torture, you're trying to force your opponent to quit through pain. It's something we see in regular matches each and every week. But while Orton may have tortured Cena by other means, it doesn't help every few seconds that a ref shoves a mike into Cena's face to see if he quits, he could just do it like does normally when a submission hold is applied.
You're incorrect. There have been at least 3 Last Man Standing Matches. Randy Orton vs Triple H June 22nd on the no commerical edition of RAW. Forthermore, this match did not end this feud. The feud went on to be finished at Night of Champions.
Ok, my error, I forgot about Raw and was thinking of the PPVs. Well naturally the feud wouldn't end because they named the PPV match before the Last Man Standing match was named to take place as I recall, so of course it didn't end the feud, it was a match to give the ratings a boost for Raw that week. They could have used an I Quit match, but wait, they didn't!
The feud would have lasted longer, had Randy Orton not been injured. Thats hardly a usable example.
Well if you look at how long the feud had gone on by, you could tell this was this would have ended regardless of if Orton got injured or not, they had been going on since Wrestlemania and they wouldn't have had Orton lose a third PPV in a row had he lost the LMS without the injury.
John Cena lost this match, because of a cheapshot by The Big Show. A cheapshot can not end an I Quit match. The match is deciesive cheap blows can not make you lose the match. Its not until you admit, with your own mouth, that your opponent is better than you. Theres a definete winner, no matter the case. Whereas in a match such as this, The Big Show came out, chokeslamming Cena through the spotlight. Edge might have won, but there was CERTAINLY room for another match, as the feud was left in a cliff hanger.
Yet so many times when a submission move has been applied in a Last Man Standing match, they tapped out anyhow, admitting they're weak to their opponent, but again, if they admit that, then surely the LMS would end? Clearly if they valued Quitting as a better option, they would include it in the stipulation of an LMS, but it's about beating your opponent until they can't even stand, nothing to hold them back. Yet how many impressive moments can you think of with an I Quit match? In comparison to the cheap shot moment you described, it made the match have a great spot to end it. You also forget that Cena and Edge had to end that night because of the draft taking effect straight after, they wanted to feud to end big and the LMS provided, cheap shot or not, it added to the fact that Edge still got over the top company man.
The I Quit match didn't end their fued, neither did the Last Man Standing. I don't see how this can be an example for either one of us. Whats the point in bringing up useless information?
Which proves the point that where neither match got the finisher of the biggest feud to start 1999. But the fact is, if the I Quit Match was a great feud finisher, then they wouldn't have called for the Last Man Standing match the following month, making it seen as a superior match. Neither may have ended the feud but if an I Quit match was used as a middle feud point match, it shows it's not made to end a feud when the LMS set up the end going into the follow night via the ladder match, that's how important the information is here.
Orton also defeated Triple H in a Last Man Standing match on June 22nd, which again, did not end their fued. The only reason why Orton is still fueding with Cena is because not olny was the I Quit match hurried into process, and missused, but also there is no other heel capable of taking Ortons place on RAW currently. Jericho is on SmackDown, and Miz/Swagger aren't main event caliber just yet.
That's your backup? Because Cena has no-one to feud with? As said before the LMS on June 22nd was booked AFTER the PPV match at Night of Champions was made, so it made it null and void. It was to give an entertaining match to give a boost a commercial free Raw and it worked. As for the Cena/Orton situation, it was never intended to end at Breaking Point, a good feud always lasts to the three month point. Whether or not the I Quit match was hurried or mis-used doesn't matter, this was a PPV that relies on Submission based matches, which the IQ Match is. They've booked Cena and Orton to finish in a Cell, if they felt the I Quit match wasn't a filler to get the fued to the next PPV, it wouldn't have been used. Hurried and mis-used doesn't excuse that it didn't end the feud because it's not effective as a feud finisher!
Then again, this can be used agaisnt you. How awesome did John Cena look once he made JBL and Orton say I Quit. How awesome did Jeff Hardy look when making his brother quit. In both cases, the winners were HUGE merchandise selling machines after their matches. Ratings went up.
Given that John Cena and Jeff Hardy were super over and merchandising sellers BEFORE any I Quit Matches took place, saying the I Quit Matches made them merchandise sellers is a real error there because Hardy was selling items from 2007 onwards when he returned and Cena was at least 8 months prior to his match with JBL took place and certainly long before he faced Orton. How often have you seen a face lose an I Quit Match? The only person that I have seen is Mysterio, who had to Quit because he needed to be written out for surgery reasons. Ratings wise, Raw was suffering when Jeff won his I Quit match, which is why they brought the guest host in, and after Cena won his match with Orton at Breaking Point, they had dropped in ratings from the week before, regardless of any NFL action, etc. If his won brought in the ratings, they certainly didn't work for Raw after Breaking Point which even had Trish Stratus on it!
Incorrect. The I Quit match proves a better ender. But, if it begins to be over used, and ends every other fued, such as the Last Man Standing match. It will be weakend, to the point of simply being an Ultimate Submission match.
Wait, what? You're saying if I Quit matches get over used they become an Ultimate Submission Match? A Submission version of an Iron Man match?
As said, it hasn't been proven to be a great or better feud ender because it's glorified version of a submission match which restricts the entertainment and build up factor in ending the feud, which a Last Man Standing can go beyond limits to give the cap off to a feud. Since it debuted, it's been the one successful way to end a feud after Hell in a Cell and Cage Matches.
Theres a diffrence in tapping with your hand, than admiting infront of the entire world that someone is beter than you, and you just can't go any further.
No it isn't. Submitting and Quitting are the same thing. You're tapping your hand saying you can't take it anymore he wins, much like what I Quit is doing. Submissions are what I Quit Matches are glorified versions of, in fact the early versions of an I Quit Match involved tapping instead of the microphone!
Makes no sense. Rey Mysterio had to admit with his mouth that he was worse than Chavo Gurrerro. He had to say this, and be humilitaed in front of the entire world. This put Chavo over themendously, making his name look more dominant as a heel. As for Triple H tapping out, it simply meant that he lost the match, to say I quit, is to say the person you're facing is better than you.
Read above about Submitting and Quitting.
It didn't actually benefit Chavo as much because all that happened was he got squashed by Benoit, won the Cruiserweight title 8 months later, lost it to Hornswoggle and lost the same match to Mysterio which buried him again. The I Quit match never benefitted Chavo at all, it just held off a way to put Mysterio back over.
Knocking your opponent makes it to the point of you simply knocked them out. I can hit you with a car and knock you out, but that still doesn't make you the better man. To verbally say I Quit, would mean that I admit you're better than me, and that I can no longer face you.
You just said because you knocked me out with a car, I wouldn't be the better man? Well of course not, you just knocked me out with a car, so of course I wouldn't be. You would be the better man because you got the better of me to take me out. Quitting doesn't always make the person better, if someone quits their job, it's because they think they can do better or had enough, doesn't mean the work is better than them. But in terms of wrestling, it is submitting, but when submissions are used regularly, it is where the I Quit Match loses its prestige, because it seen constantly through people submitting to a move. People tap, quit, all the time to put people over and it makes the loser weaker, being beaten because you couldn't out last your opponent makes you even weaker because he was better, stronger and could outlast anything and everything I give him. I can quit and come back tomorrow, I can get beat and be humiliated because I couldn't last. It's the way most competitive sports work.
