Pointless Stipulations and Controversial Calls

[TheOneBigWill]

This thread is basically directed at any Wrestling Company over the years, be it W.W.F.(E), W.C.W., N.W.A., T.N.A., E.C.W. or anything else.. the objective of this thread is to discuss anything throughout the history of time regarding any type of stipulations, be them to a match, Superstar, company or otherwise, that you may have felt were pointless or really had no place.. as well as Controversial calls that's happened resulting in either something major, or minor, that you have an opinion on.

You can obviously discuss what other people feel are controversial calls, adding your own opinions to their thoughts as well. I'll start by giving a couple examples.

Summerslam 1997: This entire Pay per view was surrounded by tons of stipulations and ended with a controversial decision. We'll start from beginning and work our way to the end.

First you have the Goldust/Brian Pillman match, in which if Pillman lost, he'd have to wear a dress. I believe it could've been "loser wears a dress" but never the less, that loser was Pillman. Now, to me this is utterly pointless. A month later a rematch occured in which if Pillman won, Marlena would be his slave for 30 days. That stipulation served a purpose.. but Pillman, or Goldust for that matter, ending up in a dress.. doesn't serve any purpose what-so-ever. Especially for limitless period it was marked for. (Pillman would continue to wear the dress until he lost a match)

After his, you had the British Bulldog defending his European title against Ken Shamrock. Now, the Bulldog stated if he lost the title, he'd eat a can of dog food. Pointless? Yes. Stupid? Absolutely. I think the W.W.F. ran this entire show on corny stipulations. What is the point of a guy who's gimmick has the term "dog" in it, have anything to do with possibly making the man eat a can of dog food? Outside of embarassing, it's just stupid.

Moving on, Steve Austin stated that if he didn't defeat Owen Hart and win the Intercontinental Championship, he'd kiss Owen's ass. Now this stipulation wasn't stupid, but because of how Austin got injured, it made the entire thing look 100% fake. I mean, Austin could BARELY move, and Owen tripped backwards, then proceeded to stay down for the 3 count. This match, more than any other in the history of wrestling to me.. is stupid, it's showing how fake and pre-agreed the business is. But overall, at least the stipulation Austin put forth was thought out and had some point to it.. considering the amount of embarassment it would've had. Arguably better than eating a can of puppy-chow.

Finally, my biggest issue with this p.p.v. was the Main Event stipulations. Bret Hart had stated if he didn't win the World Heavyweight Championship from the Undertaker, he'd only wrestle in Canada from there on out. Now this wasn't the only stip. of the match, but before I move on, I want to point out that in this stip. it instantly showed almost everyone who's logically smart enough to think it through, that Bret wouldn't of lost this match. I can't stand stipulations that decide the outcome of what could be a great match-up.

Now, on the other side of that match was Shawn Michaels being the special referee. His stipulation was that if he showed ANY favortism toward the Undertaker, or any hatred toward Bret Hart, he'd never wrestle in the U.S. again either, and only in Canada. This is where I'm a bit dumbfounded at how non-existant this stipulation went from the p.p.v. to the following night on Raw.

You see, the controversial call at the end of this match, was Bret Hart spitting in H.B.K.'s face, resulting in H.B.K. showing EXTREME amounts of hatred toward Bret Hart, by attempting to blast him back with a Steel Chair. But because Hart won the match, that suddenly means the stip. doesn't effect H.B.K.? I think that's stupid.. they should've cleared it up a bit in saying IF Hart loses because of Michaels.. not If Michaels shows any favortism or hatred.. because he obviously showed hatred toward Bret, and in that with the attempted chair shot, it would've been considered or rather should've been considered favorism on the part of the Undertaker.

People can argue.. "Well, he spit in the man's face." But the fact is, Shawn was there to be an official.. so be that official, call for the bell and DQ the guy for doing what he did.. don't attempt to blast him with a chair.

At any rate, that's that Pay per view covered in Stupid Stipulations and Controversial Calls. Moving on to some other examples..

Referee Mistakes: This could be chalked up to anything, but the one issue I have more than anything else is stupid officiating. One minute you have an official willingly allowing a Wrestler to hit someone outside the ring with a Chair, and they warn them about it. Next you have a wrestler accidentally drop a guy on his nuts, on the top rope, and he's DQed for it. Such was the case in a match-up in 2004, with Chris Jericho v. Edge on Raw.

Are creative writers and story-tellers so simple minded that they have to result to these types of hypocritical finishes?

At any rate, those are just two examples of what this thread is designed for. I can come up with tons of Controversial Calls that could've went any number of ways but didn't. As well as tons of stupid stipulations with no meaning or purpose behind them, other than to ask you "why'd they do that" so many years later.

Please explain everything you write and detail your posts. Don't just say something without explaining your own opinions on it as well. Thank You.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I personally am sickened by how they use the DQ rule in WWE at the moment. The ref's must not have a fucking clue what they're supposed to do these days.

A few years ago, it could be excused that some ref's adhered to the DQ rule, and others didn't bother. You could understand Earl Hebner not calling for a DQ after a chair shot on the outside during the main event of a PPV because you'd think the senior ref was using his discretion not to disappoint the fans. Big Show/Taker v X-Pac/Kane at Summerslam '99. X-PAc delivers a 2nd blatant low blow on Taker and Hebner's looking right at him (again) and he just pulls a face that says 'Man that's gotta hurt' and the match continues. If a guy brought a chair in the ring, there were occassions where the ref would grab the weapon from them (granted he'd turn his back and another weapon was used, but still...), or at least try and talk the guy out of cheating. Now though, if you so much as fold the chair up you get DQ'd. If a wrestler wouldn't break the 5 count on a hold or stomping in the corner, the ref would physically drag the wrestler off of his opponent. Now a 5 count DQ seems to be the most frequent ending to a match in WWE. We've even seen title matches end that way, which is the last thing fans want to see. They want a difinitive end to every match

The worst example has got to be NWO when Orton slapped the ref. WTF was that about? Ok he assaulted the official, fine. It's not like he RKO'd the guy. If i were Mike Chioda i'd probably think, 'Hhhmmmm Orton obviously doesn't think he's going to beat Cena, i'll keep the match going and make sure he loses the title. Slap me in the face will he, that f'n little etc, etc, etc.' Instead Chioda (kayfabe) thought 'How dare you! I'll exact my revenge by making sure you leave Champion.' Clever, reeeaaalll clever. Quite different from Hebner getting smacked in the face, and deciding to purposely fast count and screw the champ.

Again, in the past if a ref got knocked out, purposely by a wrestler, another one would run down and replace him. Now that ref blatantly saw what happened otherwise he wouldn't have had to run down to take his place right? Are we supposed to believe that the ref's locker room is like the fire department? When there's a downed referee, an alarm rings and one of them puts down his cup of tea, quickly throws on his striped shirt and sprints to the ring, no questions asked? Of course not. But then, the ref's are always cocking up and these aren't new refs either. They start 10 counts when pin falls are all that matter. They count to 5 for rope breaks when there's no DQs. They kept counting pin falls during the Scramble matches when the current champ made a pinfall. Hell, we've even seen refs IN THE RING DURING LADDER MATCHES!!!! WHY ARE YOU IN THE RING DUMBASS? ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CALL FOR THE BELL WHEN THE BELT IS PULLED FROM THE HOOK! YOU COULD SIT AT THE FUCKING ANNOUNCE TABLE THE WHOLE TIME, YOU COULD GO TO THE BAR, GRAB A BEER AND THEN TEXT THE TIME KEEPER, OR HELL, JUST ASSUME THAT THE TIME KEEPER IS WATCHING THE FUCKING MATCH AND REALISES WHEN IT'S OVER FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, AND NOT EVEN BOTHER BEING THERE! WHAT'S NEXT? REF'S ISSUING A 5 COUNT DURING THE ROYAL RUMBLE???? JESUS!!!!!

The Unsactioned match at Unforgiven is the worst. Marty Elias should have the nickname of 'the match stopper' because that's 2 HBK/Y2J matches he's stopped for no reason. IT'S AN UNSANCTIONED MATCH FOOL, HBK CAN SKIN HIM ALIVE IF HE WANTS TO BEFORE HE PINS HIM, AND YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO SHIT ABOUT IT!!!!

(takes a slow, deep breath)

As for stipulations, how many different ways can they say 'No DQ' match these days? Hardcore matches, No Holds Barred matches, Street Fights, Bar Room Brawls, Unsactioned matches. They're the same fucking match with 6 different names.

Why bother calling it a TLC match, you can still use tables and chairs in ladder matches for god's sake it's just guaranteed that they'll be used in a TLC match, rules are exactly the same.

Kennel From Hell match....... Do i need to say anything else about the pointlessness of this stipulation? We still see it to this day in the form of the Punjabi Prison, but thankfully there's not dog shit everywhere afterwards.

Seriously, is a little common sense too much to ask for? It's sad when the only people who seem to kow the rules are the ring announcers and the commentators, and on top of that we've got stipulations coming out the wazoo and there's no differece between them.

 

[jpfizzle]

My contribution actually comes from one of my faverite matches and a match many consider to be the making of Stone Cold Steve Austin. A match so important that it not only saw Bret Hart begin a heel turn, but Steve Austin turn face. It happened at Wrestlemania 13 and with a big name like Bret Hart and a young up and comer Steve Austin the match was always going to be a classic, what I've never understood is why have Ken Shamrock as the special guest referee????

He doesn't add anything to the action during the match at all, just a minor altercation with Bret Hart way after the bell.

When I mull over why on earth Shamrock was included in the match in the first place I can think of just one legitimate reason, so that he was on the card. A shame really that they couldn't find anything else for him as he is an exceptional talent.

 

[takerfan95]

ok for me this is THE WORST STIPULATION Ever.


KING OF THE MOUNTAIN

first of all, who on gods green earth would event think of having someone climb a ladder and put the title on the rung. heres what i think is wrong with it:

1. that was just tna trying so hard to not be like wwe that they didn't notice that they pretty much came up with a super gimmicky reversed ladder match.

2. if you were in the match, after you got the belt, wouldent you just walk away instead of going back to fight more.

3. Abyss is a Monster ok. do you possobly think that he would just be like "ok i got pinned let me go into this red box thingy and not compleatly murder the guy who pinned me and everybody else and the ref who counted the pinfall. no i'll just go with the box."

4. mike tenay explains the rules for 10 minutes during the match. by the time he's done, the match is pretty much over

5. because Tna wil NEVER be wwe

oh its real, its damn real​

 

[DeadmanInc.]

If I recall correctly, Jerry the King and Bret Hart had a "Kiss my Foot" match, where the loser had to kiss the other's foot. The build up included Jerry keeping his feet as dirty as possible, and in the end, Bret Hart made him kiss his own foot. It was such a stupid stipulation and feud. But hey, it's better than the McMahon Kiss-My-Ass club stuff we've seen in the 2000's.

As for controversial calls, there has been a lot of overuse with the DQ rule. Back in the 90's, refs would remove countouts or DQs in main event matches so that the fans would get a clear, decisive winner. One that comes to mind was Austin/Undertaker where they were brawling out in the crowd. Both men obviously would have been counted out, but Hebner removed countouts so that there would be a clear winner.

Today, the DQ rule is used as a cheap way to extend a feud and give us the same repetitive matches. Like the above poster said, Orton getting DQ'd for slapping the ref really pissed me off. I'm glad that Orton ended up retaining at WM as a result of the DQ at No Way Out but it could have been handled differently.

Another dumb call was when JBL was DQ'd for breaking Cena's STFU. Since when has saving your Tag Partner resulted in a DQ?

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

I hate any stipulation that involves retiring or something like "if he doesnt win he'll quit the company" or "if he loses this is his last shot at the title ever". Things like that because it completely spoils the outcome of the match. If you have a match say between Cena and some older wrestler like say an HBK and its a retirement match you pretty much are certain that Cena is gonna win. There are certain instances where it works but 9 times out of 10 when you have stipulations like that you know who the winner is gonna be, which sucks.

 

[DeadmanInc.]

I hate any stipulation that involves retiring or something like "if he doesnt win he'll quit the company" or "if he loses this is his last shot at the title ever". Things like that because it completely spoils the outcome of the match. If you have a match say between Cena and some older wrestler like say an HBK and its a retirement match you pretty much are certain that Cena is gonna win. There are certain instances where it works but 9 times out of 10 when you have stipulations like that you know who the winner is gonna be, which sucks.

I forgot about those stipulations too. The "last chance" stipulation has been really overused with Batista and Edge. If I recall correctly, Batista lost his "last chance" against Edge in 2007, then lost again to Edge in another "last chance" match this year at Night of Champions. How many "last chances" is Batista going to get?

The whole Ric Flair angle was really predictable too. What was the point of having Mr. Kennedy and MVP job to Ric Flair when it was obvious that Flair wasn't going to lose to them? The only time, besides WM, that I thought Flair could possibly lose was when he faced Triple H on RAW. Otherwise, it was another predictable "loser leaves town" angle.

 

[Father:_Polley]

I hate the inconsistency in refereeing. I think it's worse during tag wrestling, especially when a team gets DQ'ed for a double team, when pretty much EVERY tag match in the history of wrestling has involved the second guy in some way. Yet on occasions it seems as if the other guy even coming into the ring is enough for the DQ.

As far as stupid stips are concerned, loser never gets a title shot again is pointless. Your average fan will expect the man who has to leave to win. Otherwise, they'll just leave the company and go to somewhere they can get the title.

However, we're going for the stupidest stipulation ever...TNA takes this with the reverse battle royale. I mean if you had to get into the ring first...why would you fight with anyone, why not go straight for the ring? This is a little pointless really. Different concept, but it fails shockingly

 

[Dragonslayer]

I just got the Rock-DVD set, and am now about halfway through on the material, and I couldn't help but shake my head at some of the stuff that went down in the oh-so-glorified Attitude era...

I mean, of course guys like Austin and Rock were pretty entertaining; but some of the angles and storylines were just... silly.

As an example, I just watched the match of Triple H vs Rock at Backlash I think in 2000. It was all McMahon-Helmsley era, and Trips came to the ring with Vinnie Mac and Steph, and Shane McMahon. Aite. So Rock would be screwed big time here. No surprise there. Austin had been announced to be in Rock's corner, but Vinnie Mac said he wouldn't be there. Yeah right. In any case, the match goes underway, and some time down the road of course the McMahons start messing with Rock, with Shane making some fast counts for Trips, and then refusing to count at all for The Rock.

So then, Rock gets up, and just hits Shane with a fist and Shane goes over the top rope to the outside.
A few seconds afterwards, Trips and Rock are battling on the outside... and Shane is already up again. My question was now - why in the blue hell did Shane not simply DQ Rock for hitting him?! If they wanted to screw Rock out of the title in any way possible, why didn't they just provoke him to hit Shane, and then Shane would DQ him?! This would be most natural thing any ref would do. I mean, if Shane had stayed KOed for the rest of the match, just lying on the outside, it would have made sense. But instead, he got up - but instead of just DQing Rock for hitting him deliberately, he waited a) to get Rock Bottomed through the announcers table and b) for SCSA to "shatter the glass" and hit everyone over the head with a chair. Yeah. Really smart.

And generally, some storylines in the Attitude era weren't that great... I mean, I think the major appeal of that time truly came from the character and charisma of guys like HHH, Rock and Austin, who were a most welcome change from the comic gimmicks of earlier days... But some of the storylines were quite some "headshakers"... I mean, I never could understand this whole "Vince can't fire Austin" thing... As much fun as it was to see Austin kick his bosses ass all the time - I mean, at the end of the day, he still IS his boss, and the superior owner of all WWE, and EVERY boss can fire ANYONE for some reason. It was just kind of stupid, no matter how much fun.

And yeah - the reverse battle royale IS pretty stupid. People should just rush into the ring instead of fighting - some would eventually be slower than others of course; of course, you wouldn't have much of a "match" (but since the successful guys battle it out afterwards anyway, that doesn't matter too much) - but a dozen guys battling outside instead of just jumping the apron and getting into the ring in any way possible seems a little... numb-witted lol

 

[ndumelezi]

( this is part of agent of chaos's post)As for stipulations, how many different ways can they say 'No DQ' match these days? Hardcore matches, No Holds Barred matches, Street Fights, Bar Room Brawls, Unsactioned matches. They're the same match with 6 different names.

Why bother calling it a TLC match, you can still use tables and chairs in ladder matches for god's sake it's just guaranteed that they'll be used in a TLC match, rules are exactly the same.

(now me) I was going to say the exact same thing. But i want to take one of the concepts a bit further. I can't stand the different variations on street fight matches. Meaning that the street fight is always named after a city of one of the participants. really what is the difference between new york city street fight and a chicago street fight. Or any other city street fight. You can still use and do anything!! An old friend of mine is from a small town called hogs hallow nebraska if i remember right it has 800 people in the town. If she was a wrestler could we have a hogs hallow street fight match. I'm sure that would be intimidating!!!

 

[phat_inallthegoodplaces]

dragonslayer: title can't pass on a DQ.

ndumelezi: clearly you've never been to chicago.

Everyone else: anyone remember a couple weeks ago when "shiek abdul whatever" (davari) got his win over concequences creed by using the ropes for leverage, then the fans calling for a restart, so the ref restarted, then got involved after davari messed with him, eventually fighting back? i wanna see more of that with both TNA and WWE.

 

[Dragonslayer]

dragonslayer: title can't pass on a DQ.

LOL of course - the thing was, that in the match I was talking about, Triple H WAS the champion, so if Rock had gotten DQed, Trips would've won and kept his title in the easiest of ways - instead of having to fight Rock for another 20 minutes, only to ultimately lose due to interference by Austin.

That's why I think the spot with Rock hitting Shane was stupid... he either should've stayed KOed for the rest of the match (thus unable to make any call), or DQed Rock on the spot - especially in that match's setup which was supposed to be something like "Rock vs The World (The Corporation)" and everyone out to screw him at any cost... it's just dumb not to DQ Rock at the earliest chance possible. They could have had the decision reversed by Linda McMahon (who came on down later in the match with the fired Referee Earl Hebner anyway - another "logical" move), if anything. But not DQing Rock for right out deliberately punching Shane seems... unintelligent in that context lol.