One of the things that has been annoying me (albiet in a minor way) lately is the use of old wrestling terms that are rendered meaningless. One of the biggest ones that has gotten to me is the way "No Holds Barred" and "No Disqualification" have become synonyms.
A "No Holds Barred" match made sense during the Kayfabe era when there were certain moves that were deemed "so dangerous" that you were barred from using them. A good example is the piledriver. In many organizations that move was barred. Meaning you would be disqualified if you performed it. Similarly, in the mid-90's WCW had an "over the top" rule, where it was illegal to throw a guy over the top rope to the floor. A "No Holds Barred" match simply meant that these "dangerous" moves were allowed and you wouldn't be disqualified. Things like foreign objects or hitting the referee would still get you disqualified.
A "No DQ" match needs no explanation. It's anything goes.
I personally think it would help if they brought back the idea of certain moves not being allowed. It helps create the realistic environment that this is sport. Then, the "No Holds Barred" match would make sense and it would be substantially different than a "NO DQ" Match. When building programs, it gives you more options where you are consistently elevating the risk between the competitors illustrating how deep the grudge is.
Normal Match --> No Holds Barred --> No DQ
It also helps make the larger moves more impactful. When you see fewer people doing the big moves it makes them more powerful when you do see them. It's the biggest thing I hate about some indy feds. Guys are just jumping around doing flips that it renders all those spots completely meaningless.
Thoughts?
A "No Holds Barred" match made sense during the Kayfabe era when there were certain moves that were deemed "so dangerous" that you were barred from using them. A good example is the piledriver. In many organizations that move was barred. Meaning you would be disqualified if you performed it. Similarly, in the mid-90's WCW had an "over the top" rule, where it was illegal to throw a guy over the top rope to the floor. A "No Holds Barred" match simply meant that these "dangerous" moves were allowed and you wouldn't be disqualified. Things like foreign objects or hitting the referee would still get you disqualified.
A "No DQ" match needs no explanation. It's anything goes.
I personally think it would help if they brought back the idea of certain moves not being allowed. It helps create the realistic environment that this is sport. Then, the "No Holds Barred" match would make sense and it would be substantially different than a "NO DQ" Match. When building programs, it gives you more options where you are consistently elevating the risk between the competitors illustrating how deep the grudge is.
Normal Match --> No Holds Barred --> No DQ
It also helps make the larger moves more impactful. When you see fewer people doing the big moves it makes them more powerful when you do see them. It's the biggest thing I hate about some indy feds. Guys are just jumping around doing flips that it renders all those spots completely meaningless.
Thoughts?