War Games

[silverwraith720]

Real simple question. Was there any logical reason for using 2 rings in the War Games matches? I never actually got to see any of those matches, but I'm just wondering if it created any particularly memorable moments, or would it work equally well with just one ring?

 

[Rammsteinerteen]

There was two rings because there was too much wrestlers to fit into one. WCW was smart not to cramp these wrestlers in one ring. As a lot of people saw in TNA BFG 2010, Fortune vs. EV2 WarGames match sucked ass for a simple reason. None of the wrestlers got to do many moves. I saw a few finishers performed, but other than that, it was just a brawl. They didn't have too much room to do a lot of moves, but whereas, in WCW, they had a lot of space. Dave Meltzer even gave two WarGame matches 5 stars. It's because it was suspenseful, and it wasn't cluttered.

 

[triple_b2k]

the best one I saw was the NWO vs Arn, Flair, Sting and Luger. Funny thing is by the time the last wrestlers entered, a lot of guys were laying down or getting beat up in the corner. It's not like the Rumble where everyone is standing. A LOT of the action (from what I recall in this match) happened mostly in one ring. the second ring was used sometimes (like when flair refused to enter the other one and taunted hogan till he came over). it's necessary when a lot of action is happening but most action happens when a new guy enters, the minute or so before that is usually slower action.
is it needed? an arguement could be used that it could happen in 1 ring based on the wrestlers coming in every few minutes and the slower paced action in the middle of the match. however the second ring can become very useful near the end.
p.s. I've only seen 1 War Games and that was the one mentioned. I don't know how it was used in other events.

 

[bigpawpa27]

Like one of the posters stated there was a logical reason to have two rings when you did that match. If you ever get your hands on Ric Flair's DVD there is an older War Games match on that DVD. That would be a good example from an old school wrestling stand point as to how useful the second ring was in that type of match.

 

[TUFFY54]

The two rings made it look cool and different. It also help keep overcrowding down. However, War Games could certainly be done in Hell in a Cell. The room on the floor outside the ring could compensate for the lack of a second ring.

More importantly, I want to address something that always bugs me on here. How the hell can you make a thread about War Games, then say you have never seen one, or say that you only saw one? Anyone who posts on these forums knows how to use YouTube. Every single WarGames match is on there. Take ten minutes to watch clips of a few diffrent matches of gods sake!

 

[DexVendetta88]

Aside from overcrowding the ring, another purpose for having 2 rings in a traditional WarGames match is for strategic purposes in the first portion of the match when wrestlers come out at alternating intervals between the teams. Usually in WarGames, there will be one team with a man advantage throughout the match. For example: Team A has earned the man advantage for the WarGames. This means that team A can hadicap team B during the first portion of the match when the alternating intervals are happening. During the match, lets say team A has 3 guys currently in the match, and team B only has 2. During this time, 2 members from team A can handicap 1 of the 2 members from team B in 1 ring, and the 3rd member from team A isolates the other team B member in the other ring. I explained it as best as I could, but I say the way to truly understand the concept of WarGames is to actually watch any of the old school ones prior to 1996 because they were fought under the traditional rules.

 

[samboc]

I have seen every War Games from the start and they were always one of my favorite events of the year. I even got to see it live the year it was Dusty Sting and the L.O.D. vs The Horsemen at a house show. Overcrowding was part of the reason for 2 rings but you also have to remember that this was billed as the match beyond. That means it had to look totally different from your normal cage and they didn't have money at the start of it to build crazy cages like the tower of doom they built later.

As far as great moments that came from there being two cages the only one I really remember was Sting diving over both sets of ropes to get to Flair not sure what year it was though and it wouldn't be nearly as spectacular nowadays as it was then because we are used to huge highspots.

I loved War Games even the bad ones but I don't feel they would work very well.. The reason is back then we had the Horseman or even more recently the NWO and all the baby faces were totally united against them. I even remember back in the day when Sting and Luger came out to the same music. I really see nobody to unite against anymore. Fortune is trying but TNA holds them back and in WWE stables start feuding with each other from day one so they never seem like a true threat. Also back in the day they took War Games on the road as a house show and the guys had time to practice the match. I doubt anyone will put up a War Games for a modern day house show. This gave guys time to practice and figure out good things to do in there.

 

[GameUniverse]

My favorite spot was when I think it was Brian Pillman got stuck between the two rings and put between both sets of ropes. His opponents then just beat the crap out of him because he had no where to go. That was awesome.

He also used the roof to leg scissor someone too. That was cool. He hung off the ceiling and caught someone's head and hung there choking them out.

 

[Subzdno8]

I was thinking about this thread, and the whole "War Games" concept. The War Games of today, in WWE, SHOULD BE THE WHOLE BASIS FOR THEIR PPV BRAGGING RIGHTS!!! Raw, and Smackdown get their five "brand" representatives, and at the PPV, "Randomly" select a represetative from each "brand" and.........SPIN THE ROULETTE WHEEL!!!!! The fans get awesome random matches, best 3 out of 5, and the winning "brand" gets their "bragging rights" for the year. What you all think about this???

P.S. If you are thinking: what if a "brand" sweeps the first 3 matches? Then what??? Well the answer to THAT is: We are talking wrestling, and WWE. THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN!!!!

 

[Honkey_Kong]

I was thinking about this thread, and the whole "War Games" concept. The War Games of today, in WWE, SHOULD BE THE WHOLE BASIS FOR THEIR PPV BRAGGING RIGHTS!!! Raw, and Smackdown get their five "brand" representatives, and at the PPV, "Randomly" select a represetative from each "brand" and.........SPIN THE ROULETTE WHEEL!!!!! The fans get awesome random matches, best 3 out of 5, and the winning "brand" gets their "bragging rights" for the year. What you all think about this???

P.S. If you are thinking: what if a "brand" sweeps the first 3 matches? Then what??? Well the answer to THAT is: We are talking wrestling, and WWE. THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN!!!!

That would work, I guess. I think the whole smackdown vs raw thing is rather played out. WWE needs more stables and they need to be united. Then a wargames would work better. Even their survivor series matches need to be built off of feuds and stables.

 

[CuddleBuns84]

It was a pretty cool event in my opinion. I was a kid when that was on. Hell, if I recalled the Big Show made his debut in WCW. He twisted Hogan's head like a bottle top. It scared the shit out of me when I was a kid.

Anyways, it was a good event. Hell, they didn't even need the world title to be on the line for that pay-per-view. The match was pretty decent. Only way to lose is to Surrender or Submit.

The two rings was a good idea. Since it was a normal tag match, it was a brawl in the ring. One ring wasn't enough for the guys.

Now the three ring concept in World War 3 was just pure craziness. They tried to do the whole... It's three times better then a rumble! Yes! I thought that was just lame.

 

[That Don Guy]

I was thinking about this thread, and the whole "War Games" concept. The War Games of today, in WWE, SHOULD BE THE WHOLE BASIS FOR THEIR PPV BRAGGING RIGHTS!!! Raw, and Smackdown get their five "brand" representatives, and at the PPV, "Randomly" select a represetative from each "brand" and.........SPIN THE ROULETTE WHEEL!!!!! The fans get awesome random matches, best 3 out of 5, and the winning "brand" gets their "bragging rights" for the year. What you all think about this???

P.S. If you are thinking: what if a "brand" sweeps the first 3 matches? Then what??? Well the answer to THAT is: We are talking wrestling, and WWE. THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN!!!!

Something like that did happen in WCW once. It was some sort of best-of-three-match "team" concept, and obviously it was set up so that the teams would split the first two matches, but, if I remember correctly, whoever was supposed to win the second match suffered a serious injury that required a quick finish where he lost (so his team was now behind 2-0).

As an alternative to the "best-of" format, do something similar to what was done at Survivor Series 1990 - have, say, four matches, with the Raw winners facing the SmackDown winners in an elimination tag match. What makes this interesting is (a) it's very likely that the match would be a handicap match, and (b) you have the opportunity for teammates to attack each other.

-- Don

 

[silverwraith720]

I know the WCW ring was 18'x18' so I can see how having 10 people in one ring would crowd that; however, WWE has 20'x20' rings, so would a 4 on 4 War Games work better with one WWE ring than 5 on 5 in two WCW rings? I'm not trying to bash on the idea of two rings, but to me it would make more sense with four rings even though that would be completely chaotic.

 

[That Don Guy]

The original WarGames cage was up against the ropes (except, of course, for the two sides of the rings that were next to each other). If WWE uses the Hell In A Cell cage, where you can be outside of the ring but still in the cage, then 4 on 4 shouldn't be a problem; they may even be able to get away with 5 on 5.

Speaking of WG - how many times did the heel team have five wrestlers, as opposed to four wrestlers and a manager (who, of course, was always the one to submit)? The only one I can think of is also the only one I remember the heels winning, and that's probably not a coincidence.

-- Don