MRC is a bit late, so by the decree of TM, I will get the ball rolling here.
TLC and Hell in a Cell are two matches that can define a career, much less feud. They are both saved for the most extreme of circumstances. When the match is a "one-fall contest" the arena can't hold them. The No-DQ match isn't conclusive, and no one can keep the guys apart. The only step left is one of the WWE's two supergimmicks. Hell in a Cell, or course is an extended steel cage, which serves to isolate everyone from the match. No one leaves the cage until a conclusive winner is declared. TLC is a no holds barred match with weapons provided. Which one is the ultimate feud ender? We'll examine that as we move through this post.
TLC is an exciting match. It certainly lends itself to exciting spots and hard impacts. Theoretically, there are three different ways to end. Ladder match style; by grabbing the belts, table match style; by sending an opponent through a table, or with a pin fall. The WWE hasn't truly explored all of the possibilities. That being said, the match can turn into a giant spotfest, devoid of story telling. In a blow off to a feud, storytelling is very important. There has been so much invested in a feud by the time it reaches this point that if the match lacks psychology, then the feud, and the moment, feel wasted.
Hell in a Cell, on the other hand, usually comes after an intense feud involving weapons, interference, and Lord knows what else. Hell in a Cell isolates the two (or four or six) combatants in a structure that keeps the fighting confined. No one can get in or, in most situations, out. The cage is a weapon, and more often than not, there are other weapons around the ring. Hell in a Cell is a perfect way to end a feud in that everything that happened up until that point is gone. The two men, and their hatred is isolated within the demonic structure.
I feel that Hell in a Cell is superior in that anyone in the WWE can participate. TLC limits its competitors. The Undertaker tried as he might in his last appearance, and he did a good job, but still looked like a fish out of water. In a HiaC match, he is right at home. If he fights someone smaller than him, then smaller guy has the underdog card to play, which always adds to story or the match. If the guy is bigger, or as big, then the Undertaker gets to use the cage to his advantage. The cell actually tells half of the story in those matches. It makes for a better blow-off in that there is no danger of the loss of psychology. TLC, on the hand, puts excitement over investment. Sure, the match is fun to watch, but after fans have put three months, six months, or even more into a feud, the blow-off needs to signify an ending, and a spot fest devoid of psychology does not do that.
The best TLC matches were the first ones. They had multiple tag teams, allowing for a better pacing of the spots. Multiple combinations of athletes were used. TLC was the forerunning to MitB. They just lost the teams. A one on one TLC just isn't what the match was designed for.
I'll be honest with you FTS, if I had of been early, a rarity for me, Hell In A Cell would have been my choice as well. Not to saythat I have been dealt any less of an interesting card. When looking at both matches, it's clear to see that these matches will stand the test of time against anything else, and the mere mention of their names (except in 2009 when you have entire PPV's dedicated to them) was usually enough to send shivers down a fans spine. I won't dilly dally around the matter. You have pretty much stated what each match entails, and the benefits of each. Quite bluntly, I'm going to put to you why I think TLC is a better cap off for a feud.
A. Storytelling
Now I know you may be thinking, I got this in the bag yo. There's no way the picture of pure hatred in a demonic structure could possibly be inferior to a glorified ladder match in terms of storytelling, but hear me out. You said yourself that the story is usually based upon the hatred being isolated in a cage. The problem with this is, the modern feud. Not many feuds nowadays can testament to having that level of hatred. For their to be a real sense of need for this gimmick match, their needs to be tangible hatred in the air before the match, tangible desperation that nothing else will work. It was evident in No Way Out 2000, with Cactus Jack and HHH. It was evident in HBK vs HHH Badd Blood '04. But therein lies the problem. There are so many that took place that don't convey this. Usually taking place closer to modern day. Taker vs Batista at Survivor Series '07 was built up all year, since Mania in fact, but one would be hard pressed to say their match was based on pure hatred. The same with Armageddon '99
The fact of the matter is, some feuds can not handle the pressures of the cell. most feuds today, even high profile ones, would benefit more from a TLC match than from a Hell In a Cell match. John Cena vs Randy Orton is a great example. Yeah we get it, they dislike each other, but the fact of the matter is, we can't see the tangible hate. Most of the story is based upon one thing, the WWE title. And if you want imagery, if you want storytelling ans symbolism, what better represents the hunt for the title and climbing of the ladder than a TLC match. This was used to perfection in the CM Punk vs Jeff Hardy match we recently saw. That they both wanted the top spot and kept fighting each other for that gold.I think that the storytelling that TLC seems to lack would be less noticable if it were HHH and Taker having this as their signature matches rather than Edge and Hardy.
B. Limitations
I want to briefly touch upon Torrie Wilson. I would also like to briefly touch upon what you said concerning the TLC match and it being limiting to some wrestlers. I agree that seeing Big Show in a TLC match would be odd and unfitting, but I also believe that it is these limitation which make up some of the charm of the match. Instead of being exclusive to the faster high fliers, I think it more aptly represents a challenge. Whereas HiAC just represents how much you want to hurt the other guy, the TLC match is more focused on how badly you want to win, and how far you are willing to go to do so. Whether it's putting someone through stacked tables or suicide diving off the ladder, when you have guys like Cena and Flair who aren't known for their extreme prowess, it really tells a story of how desperately they want that belt.
Unforgiven 06' is a particularly great example. It shows how Cena wants Edge and that WWE title so badly, he's willing to risk it all, and more importantly, come outside his comfort zone to have his one chance at gold. Whereas Steel Cage matches are all the vogue on Raw and Smackdown, seeing a superstar scale a ladder, reaching for gold is a rarity and a timeless image.
I don't want to talk too much, so i'll wait patiently for your rebuttal. sorry for being late, once again
I'll be honest with you FTS, if I had of been early, a rarity for me, Hell In A Cell would have been my choice as well. Not to saythat I have been dealt any less of an interesting card. When looking at both matches, it's clear to see that these matches will stand the test of time against anything else, and the mere mention of their names (except in 2009 when you have entire PPV's dedicated to them) was usually enough to send shivers down a fans spine. I won't dilly dally around the matter. You have pretty much stated what each match entails, and the benefits of each. Quite bluntly, I'm going to put to you why I think TLC is a better cap off for a feud.
Now I know you may be thinking, I got this in the bag yo. There's no way the picture of pure hatred in a demonic structure could possibly be inferior to a glorified ladder match in terms of storytelling, but hear me out.[/quote]
I will, but I mean....come on!!!!
You said yourself that the story is usually based upon the hatred being isolated in a cage. The problem with this is, the modern feud. Not many feuds nowadays can testament to having that level of hatred. For their to be a real sense of need for this gimmick match, their needs to be tangible hatred in the air before the match, tangible desperation that nothing else will work.
A TLC match should be the same way. The problem is, in a TLC match, both guys spend so much time laying around between spots that it goes from a battle of hatred to a battle or attrition. At the end of a TLC, the winner survived. At the end of a HiaC, you get more a feeling of finality, and the winner defeated his opponent.
It was evident in No Way Out 2000, with Cactus Jack and HHH. It was evident in HBK vs HHH Badd Blood '04. But therein lies the problem. There are so many that took place that don't convey this. Usually taking place closer to modern day. Taker vs Batista at Survivor Series '07 was built up all year, since Mania in fact, but one would be hard pressed to say their match was based on pure hatred. The same with Armageddon '99
OK, you're about to mention Orton/Cena, so I will look to DX and Legacy. First of all, look at how the matches went. There was a straight up match, but that didn't settle anything. At the next PPV, there was a gimmick match, and all that did was piss both teams off a little more. At this point, there is nothing left. A ladder match wouldn't settle anything about who is better. It settles who was coherent at the right time. A HiaC settles a match. The image of the cage gives the viewer a feeling that no one is leaving until the matter is settled.
How would a TLC match work. Even if the object was a pinfall, do you see any of those guys diving off the ladder? Of course not. The ladder is just a prop. Plus, with no belt to hang, the ending is just going to be the same with a mess in the ring. HiaC's versatility makes it better. It is the better blowoff to a feud because instead of one iconic image with a person on a ladder, the iconic image is part of the match, a weapon, and the source of the drama.
The fact of the matter is, some feuds can not handle the pressures of the cell. most feuds today, even high profile ones, would benefit more from a TLC match than from a Hell In a Cell match. John Cena vs Randy Orton is a great example. Yeah we get it, they dislike each other, but the fact of the matter is, we can't see the tangible hate. Most of the story is based upon one thing, the WWE title.
I completely disagree. This is a two year feud, that has been through injuries, title changes, and all kinds of violence. Ascending a ladder is more of an image for one who is finally grabbing the brass ring. Jeff Hardy should have won his first title in a ladder match. For two established stars, HiaC is the best way to settle a back and forth feud. The two have traded titles, not it is time to settle the matter. HiaC settles is better.
And if you want imagery, if you want storytelling ans symbolism, what better represents the hunt for the title and climbing of the ladder than a TLC match.
One man standing over the other inside of a cage. That is the image of finality. I think a TLC match is the perfect gimmick to lead up to HiaC. It says, OK, you got to the top of the ladder, but you can't pin me. Pinning someone is the ultimate statement of victory. How is the feud finished if one guy has his arms wrapped in the ropes while the other guy climbs the ladder? How is a fued finished if someone misses a dive and knocks the wind out of himself and can't recover while the other guy climbs?
This was used to perfection in the CM Punk vs Jeff Hardy match we recently saw. That they both wanted the top spot and kept fighting each other for that gold.I think that the storytelling that TLC seems to lack would be less noticable if it were HHH and Taker having this as their signature matches rather than Edge and Hardy.
But, that's just one feud. And the story built up to that. It didn't even feel like the end of the feud. It wasn't the end of the feud. After a ladder match, you feel the feud can keep going. HiaC shows the ultimate finality of a feud.
I would also like to briefly touch upon what you said concerning the TLC match and it being limiting to some wrestlers. I agree that seeing Big Show in a TLC match would be odd and unfitting, but I also believe that it is these limitation which make up some of the charm of the match. Instead of being exclusive to the faster high fliers, I think it more aptly represents a challenge. Whereas HiAC just represents how much you want to hurt the other guy,
Stop right here. Isn't that feeling of anger enough to sell that a feud was ending? A TLC match is more like athletic competition whereas HiaC is about pain and finishing someone.
the TLC match is more focused on how badly you want to win, and how far you are willing to go to do so. Whether it's putting someone through stacked tables or suicide diving off the ladder, when you have guys like Cena and Flair who aren't known for their extreme prowess, it really tells a story of how desperately they want that belt.
And besides, every match shows how far someone is willing to go to win. Even in the I Quit match, Cena acted that part. The difference is that HiaC shows fans that there is nothing left. No one is getting in or out till that match is finished. I feel that that is a superior method to end a feud.
Unforgiven 06' is a particularly great example. It shows how Cena wants Edge and that WWE title so badly, he's willing to risk it all, and more importantly, come outside his comfort zone to have his one chance at gold. Whereas Steel Cage matches are all the vogue on Raw and Smackdown, seeing a superstar scale a ladder, reaching for gold is a rarity and a timeless image.
But we're not talking about which match makes a better title match. We're talking about blowing off a feud. The ladder match doesn't signal finality the same way HiaC does. The symbol of the ladder is of ascension. The symbol of the cage is domination. I think on pure symbolism, the cage wins.
A TLC match should be the same way. The problem is, in a TLC match, both guys spend so much time laying around between spots that it goes from a battle of hatred to a battle or attrition. At the end of a TLC, the winner survived. At the end of a HiaC, you get more a feeling of finality, and the winner defeated his opponent.
In terms of guys just lying around, you can't accuse a TLC match of having this without looking at Hell In A Cell matches. The most recent one of Undertaker vs Edge at SummerSlam 07 showed the same symptoms you're talking about. Taker lied down while Edge set up a ladder and a table, which seemed to drag on for ages. I think the issue can't be attributed to the match itself, rather than the pacing. you can't blame the TLC match for it anymore than you can blame the HiAC for it.
OK, you're about to mention Orton/Cena, so I will look to DX and Legacy. First of all, look at how the matches went. There was a straight up match, but that didn't settle anything. At the next PPV, there was a gimmick match, and all that did was piss both teams off a little more. At this point, there is nothing left. A ladder match wouldn't settle anything about who is better. It settles who was coherent at the right time. A HiaC settles a match. The image of the cage gives the viewer a feeling that no one is leaving until the matter is settled.
But the problem I have with this is the current devaluation of the meaning of Hell In a Cell. Not that this won't happen in December with TLC, but this feud would not nearly be bloody or violent enough to warrant this sort of match. I still don't believe that this feud needed this match, and a steel cage could have done pretty much the same job. And here it is, the big debate, the elephant in the room. We have a glorified steel cage with weapons, against a glorified ladder match with weapons.
How would a TLC match work. Even if the object was a pinfall, do you see any of those guys diving off the ladder? Of course not. The ladder is just a prop. Plus, with no belt to hang, the ending is just going to be the same with a mess in the ring. HiaC's versatility makes it better.
Mainly, the thing that makes it better than a steel cage are one of two things. Firstly, it has weapons in it. This would be no different to a TLC mind you, and also, the prospect of going to the top. This has been quickly dashed with he change in shape of the Cell. So really, the only thing that is unique about this match is that you have a bit of room to move on the outside of the ring.
any truly exciting spots that are fresh, a hard task considering that HBK and Taker tore the house down in '97 with just the cage and a chair, can be generally attributed to introducing weapons. The main weapons that get people excited? A ladder and some tables. These are staples of the TLC match (hence the name), that need to be used in the HiAC to spice it up. Of course, this may lose its lustre when you have a whole fucking PPV devoted to it. A debate for another day.
completely disagree. This is a two year feud, that has been through injuries, title changes, and all kinds of violence. Ascending a ladder is more of an image for one who is finally grabbing the brass ring. Jeff Hardy should have won his first title in a ladder match. For two established stars, HiaC is the best way to settle a back and forth feud. The two have traded titles, not it is time to settle the matter. HiaC settles is better.
I would have agreed with you in 2007. After such a personal and violent feud, the Cell seemed the only option, and rumour has it of course that this was the original plan, for Orton and Cena to settle it in the Cell. But 2 years on, this feud has lost all its spark from two years ago. The previous feud has nary even been mentioned, and many of the moments, such as Cena's dad being punted, are forgotten.
This new feud is just your generic "I want your title, I'm better than you" feud. which sucks, but adds to my point, this feud doesn't need the Cell. it's as if it were taking place between two different superstars, because no history has been unearthed, and Orton has changed his character since then. Since this is the case, the Title seems to be the most important thing, not revenge or hatred. In this case, a TLC match would be much more ideal.
One man standing over the other inside of a cage. That is the image of finality. I think a TLC match is the perfect gimmick to lead up to HiaC. It says, OK, you got to the top of the ladder, but you can't pin me. Pinning someone is the ultimate statement of victory. How is the feud finished if one guy has his arms wrapped in the ropes while the other guy climbs the ladder? How is a fued finished if someone misses a dive and knocks the wind out of himself and can't recover while the other guy climbs?
While i understand what you're saying, it all depends on how the booking is set. Someones arm tied in the ropes, yes I did see Wrestlemania X, and saw the finish. Those are your standard ladder matches. But in TLC matches, the finishes are usually a tad more final than this. Someone being driven through a stack of tables, or being trapped under the ladder is much more powerful a finish than what you said.
But, that's just one feud. And the story built up to that. It didn't even feel like the end of the feud. It wasn't the end of the feud. After a ladder match, you feel the feud can keep going. HiaC shows the ultimate finality of a feud.
That match could have easily been the swansong of Jeff Hardy. It only didn't seem like the finish because the WWE didn't book it that way. If they wanted to, they could have had him disappear from there and just leave it, with Punk saying he crushed Hardy into the dust after that. It was only because they had a Cage match the following week that it didn't seem like an end.
Because of this, the Hell In A Cell certainly looks better, because it's had some good booking. It has been selected by the WWE as the way to finish the feuds. But this does not automatically make it the best way to end a feud, and I think TLC has just as much merit as the Cell.
Stop right here. Isn't that feeling of anger enough to sell that a feud was ending? A TLC match is more like athletic competition whereas HiaC is about pain and finishing someone.
A good point. How can you cap off a feud that isn't based on a title with a TLC match. Well, it hasn't been tried yet, but I believe a bell could be just as effective. Get up these and ring the bell. But it's a different mystique than a normal ladder match. With a normal ladder match, you can tie up your opponent and scamper away to ring the bell. But then again, how is a Hell In a Cell different for any regular match. you don't even have to leave the ring, or use weapons. It's the atmosphere, of course. The wrestlers know that they can use the cage to maim their opponents, and in TLC, the wrestlers know they can use the three most deadly weapons in WWE, Tables Ladder and Chairs to utterly destroy their opponent for good. And theyre readily supplied around the ring.
And besides, every match shows how far someone is willing to go to win. Even in the I Quit match, Cena acted that part. The difference is that HiaC shows fans that there is nothing left. No one is getting in or out till that match is finished. I feel that that is a superior method to end a feud.
The "no getting in and out" tagline is certainly good. but then so is "I will outlast you because I am the best" tagline for a Last Man Standing Match. So is the "I've beaten you, made you bleed, so when I climb that ladder and tower above you, I will finally be The Man" tagline for a TLC match. It's all a matter of marketing, and TLC suffered poorly from that when it was shown as simply a spot-fest during the Attitude Era. HiAC has had great booking (well...that Kennel From Hell thing...) and as a result, can show fans there is nothing left. TLC could do that I'm sure if given the right build up and having Taker or HHH in all/most of them.
But we're not talking about which match makes a better title match. We're talking about blowing off a feud. The ladder match doesn't signal finality the same way HiaC does. The symbol of the ladder is of ascension. The symbol of the cage is domination. I think on pure symbolism, the cage wins.
Domination can just as easily be a symbol for the TLC match. Standing over a beaten bloody opponent, title in hand on top of a ladder is pretty symbolic of domination.
You could have put that statement anywhere in my post.
In terms of guys just lying around, you can't accuse a TLC match of having this without looking at Hell In A Cell matches. The most recent one of Undertaker vs Edge at SummerSlam 07 showed the same symptoms you're talking about. Taker lied down while Edge set up a ladder and a table, which seemed to drag on for ages. I think the issue can't be attributed to the match itself, rather than the pacing. you can't blame the TLC match for it anymore than you can blame the HiAC for it.
A TLC match will have three or four breaks in it because both guys just attempted suicide. A HiaC match might have one spot where there is no action. Usually when both guys fall through the cage. And I'm sorry, someone going through a cage>someone falling of a ladder. I've falled off of ladders.
But the problem I have with this is the current devaluation of the meaning of Hell In a Cell. Not that this won't happen in December with TLC, but this feud would not nearly be bloody or violent enough to warrant this sort of match. I still don't believe that this feud needed this match, and a steel cage could have done pretty much the same job. And here it is, the big debate, the elephant in the room. We have a glorified steel cage with weapons, against a glorified ladder match with weapons.
But it's not a glorified cage match. For one, tell me one thing you can do in a TLC that you can't do in a ladder match? All they do differently is pull the ladder tables and chairs out from under the ring for you. A HiaC is different than a cage match. For one, the area around the ring is in play. Secondly, the roof of the cage adds to the match. Third, you don't win by escaping. You have to win the match. There is no escaping to win, there is no climbing to win. You have to finish your opponent, which is symbolic of finishing a feud.
Mainly, the thing that makes it better than a steel cage are one of two things. Firstly, it has weapons in it. This would be no different to a TLC mind you, and also, the prospect of going to the top. This has been quickly dashed with he change in shape of the Cell. So really, the only thing that is unique about this match is that you have a bit of room to move on the outside of the ring.
And the way you win. A HiaC is a different match than a cage match. A TLC is the same, with props prepared instead of hidden.
any truly exciting spots that are fresh, a hard task considering that HBK and Taker tore the house down in '97 with just the cage and a chair, can be generally attributed to introducing weapons. The main weapons that get people excited? A ladder and some tables. These are staples of the TLC match (hence the name), that need to be used in the HiAC to spice it up. Of course, this may lose its lustre when you have a whole fucking PPV devoted to it. A debate for another day.
The trademark weapon of HiaC is the sledgehammer. And, with the room around the ring, you can still grab a table. No one needs to set them up for you.
I would have agreed with you in 2007. After such a personal and violent feud, the Cell seemed the only option, and rumour has it of course that this was the original plan, for Orton and Cena to settle it in the Cell. But 2 years on, this feud has lost all its spark from two years ago. The previous feud has nary even been mentioned, and many of the moments, such as Cena's dad being punted, are forgotten.
This feud hasn't lost it's spark. The I Quit match was intense as hell. And there are three weeks to make it more intense. There are three weeks to build to it. This HiaC has the unique aspect of being the purpose of the PPV. Instead of using the feud to build the cage, they're using the cage to build the feud. This only further illustrates the versatility of the cage.
This new feud is just your generic "I want your title, I'm better than you" feud. which sucks, but adds to my point, this feud doesn't need the Cell. it's as if it were taking place between two different superstars, because no history has been unearthed, and Orton has changed his character since then. Since this is the case, the Title seems to be the most important thing, not revenge or hatred. In this case, a TLC match would be much more ideal.
I think that on a week to week basis, these two hate each other. I would feel insulted if the WWE kept shoving the idea that these two don't like each other down my throat. Now, it's a level of hate beyond hurting each other. Now it's about dominating each other. A HiaC winner looks far more dominant than a TLC winner.
While i understand what you're saying, it all depends on how the booking is set. Someones arm tied in the ropes, yes I did see Wrestlemania X, and saw the finish. Those are your standard ladder matches. But in TLC matches, the finishes are usually a tad more final than this. Someone being driven through a stack of tables, or being trapped under the ladder is much more powerful a finish than what you said.
But still, it's someone being trapped and unable to get to the ladder in time. It doesn't show dominance. When blowing off a feud, the winner needs to be dominant in the end.
That match could have easily been the swansong of Jeff Hardy. It only didn't seem like the finish because the WWE didn't book it that way. If they wanted to, they could have had him disappear from there and just leave it, with Punk saying he crushed Hardy into the dust after that. It was only because they had a Cage match the following week that it didn't seem like an end.
But the cage match seemed final. Furthermore, CM Punk didn't look like he vanquished Hardy after that match. It looked like he beat him, not ended him.
Because of this, the Hell In A Cell certainly looks better, because it's had some good booking. It has been selected by the WWE as the way to finish the feuds. But this does not automatically make it the best way to end a feud, and I think TLC has just as much merit as the Cell.
But if the company think HiaC is the way to end a feud.
HiaC is booked better as a blowoff because it is a better blow off. I love TLC matches, but they don't tell the story of the feud. They don't show dominance. They show opportunity.
Stop right here. Isn't that feeling of anger enough to sell that a feud was ending? A TLC match is more like athletic competition whereas HiaC is about pain and finishing someone.
It's just a different sense of anger. TLC seems like a sense of competitiveness, not murderous rage. Murderous rage...FTW!!!
A good point. How can you cap off a feud that isn't based on a title with a TLC match. Well, it hasn't been tried yet, but I believe a bell could be just as effective. Get up these and ring the bell. But it's a different mystique than a normal ladder match. With a normal ladder match, you can tie up your opponent and scamper away to ring the bell.
Fine, is ringing a bell as final feeling as standing over a man who has had his face grated like cheese and his body beaten to a lump? My whole point boils down to two prinicples.
One, the feeling of finality is greater in HiaC. There is nowhere else to go. You are in a match in which there is no escape, and no entry. Two men are in a ring, inside of a cage, and they are going to stay there until the issue is solved. In a TLC match, there can be interference, someone could be handcuffed to the ropes while the other guy climbs, and there is room to further the feud. After HiaC, the feud is done.
Two, when ending a feud, the match needs to recap the struggle both men have gone through. There needs to be a flow where someone dominates, someone counters, someone else counter, etc. The match mirrors a back and forth feud with narrow escapes and solid beatings and victories. A TLC match is big spot....rest.....chair, fall of ladder......rest..........hit with ladder....rest.....table spot.........both guys hurt.....rest. It doesn't tell a story. HiaC gives you a fight scene from Rocky. TLC gives you a fight scene from Crank. Both are good on their own, but the former is iconic, the latter just furthers the movie.
But then again, how is a Hell In a Cell different for any regular match. you don't even have to leave the ring, or use weapons. It's the atmosphere, of course. The wrestlers know that they can use the cage to maim their opponents, and in TLC, the wrestlers know they can use the three most deadly weapons in WWE, Tables Ladder and Chairs to utterly destroy their opponent for good. And theyre readily supplied around the ring.
It is the atmosphere. The atmosphere is everything. This is what I have been trying to get across. The cage brings an atmosphere to the arena. The walk to the ring is like a "dead man walking" death row scene. In a TLC you get excited, while in a HiaC, you get reticent.
The "no getting in and out" tagline is certainly good. but then so is "I will outlast you because I am the best" tagline for a Last Man Standing Match. So is the "I've beaten you, made you bleed, so when I climb that ladder and tower above you, I will finally be The Man" tagline for a TLC match. It's all a matter of marketing, and TLC suffered poorly from that when it was shown as simply a spot-fest during the Attitude Era. HiAC has had great booking (well...that Kennel From Hell thing...) and as a result, can show fans there is nothing left. TLC could do that I'm sure if given the right build up and having Taker or HHH in all/most of them.
But see, here your talking about circumstances, and those circumstances haven't really been discovered in current context. TLC is a solid gimmick to set up a HiaC, but on its own, just does not seem like a blow off match to me. HiaC works every time.
Domination can just as easily be a symbol for the TLC match. Standing over a beaten bloody opponent, title in hand on top of a ladder is pretty symbolic of domination.
If only it ended that way. It ends with two guys on the ladder at the end of the match, with one guy falling off. It is circumstances, opportunity, and a little bit of luck. That seems like enough to enrage one guy to want something a little more, like a cell, maybe a cell full of hell, I got it Hell in a Cell!!!!!
Trying to find that one of Edge spearing Jeff Hardy. I will, promise
I must say, man from the southern part of the USA, I may be late all the time, but once someone can get me going I can't seem to stop. Lets do this shall we?
A TLC match will have three or four breaks in it because both guys just attempted suicide. A HiaC match might have one spot where there is no action. Usually when both guys fall through the cage. And I'm sorry, someone going through a cage>someone falling of a ladder. I've falled off of ladders.
Firstly, the spots in a TLC are usually much more high impact, thus leading to a longer rest period thus leading to a bigger feeling of "Holy Shit, these guys wanna MURDER each other". And isnt that what it boils down to? You can say "wow these guys want to take each other to hell" and thats all very well and good. The anticipation is great. But all you might see is some face grinding and cage interraction. Nothing special outside of your regular cage match. A TLC match, you know you are going to see something crazy. And it is in this that we see TLC is the better choice.
The spots and carnage in the match make this the better choice. The splintered tables and dented chairs paint a brutal picture far better than the cell and a blade job. What the superstars so in a TLC match far more solidifies it as "the finishing blow" than the Cell. And I know you used that silly "What if you fall off the cage" excuse. But few are crazy enough to do that, Mick Foley, HBK and Rikishi, god bless em. This of course has been eliminated since the cage shape has been changed, and the very idea of it has been scratched, as the cage is ridiculously high.
But the faithful Ladder Spot through 4 tables will always be there.
But it's not a glorified cage match. For one, tell me one thing you can do in a TLC that you can't do in a ladder match? All they do differently is pull the ladder tables and chairs out from under the ring for you. A HiaC is different than a cage match. For one, the area around the ring is in play. Secondly, the roof of the cage adds to the match. Third, you don't win by escaping. You have to win the match. There is no escaping to win, there is no climbing to win. You have to finish your opponent, which is symbolic of finishing a feud.
You can pin people in a Cage match too nowadays. The fact of the amtter is, TLC matches are justm ore brutal than Ladder matches. just in the way you say HiAC matches are more brutal than your standard cage.
And the way you win. A HiaC is a different match than a cage match. A TLC is the same, with props prepared instead of hidden.
This is NOT the trademark weapon. It's HHH's weapon. He uses it. Who said that the announce table couldn't be used in a TLC match. Everything that is present in a Hell in A Cell match is present in a TLC match, except that tall cage.
I skipped most of the debate on Orton/Cena, as lets face it, it would just split the path on this debate. and as angry as it would make some people, i'll just cut it out.
HiaC is booked better as a blowoff because it is a better blow off. I love TLC matches, but they don't tell the story of the feud. They don't show dominance. They show opportunity.
TLC II told the story of 3 teams bringing their signature weapons to try and outdo each other on the biggest stage of them all. Ric Flair vs Edge told the story of the Old Veteran trying to be keep up with the Champ. Stories!! You see?
It's just a different sense of anger. TLC seems like a sense of competitiveness, not murderous rage. Murderous rage...FTW!!!
Can't argue with that. Murderous Rage IS FTW. Even Cena likes it.
One, the feeling of finality is greater in HiaC. There is nowhere else to go. You are in a match in which there is no escape, and no entry. Two men are in a ring, inside of a cage, and they are going to stay there until the issue is solved. In a TLC match, there can be interference, someone could be handcuffed to the ropes while the other guy climbs, and there is room to further the feud. After HiaC, the feud is done.
But this is again all circumstantial. The Hell in A Cell is only final if it is booked that way. But Survivor Series '07 wasn't. It was booked that Taker got screwed and then a triple threat match took place the next month. There is just as much room to further a feud after a Hell In a Cell than in a TLC. And once again, we come down to the selective booking issue. This is why its hard to judge each objectively on past matches, seeing as they have all suffered or benefited in one way or another.
if we were looking at this debate from a purely straightforward standpoint we'd get "Oh in Hell In a Cell, you have a Cage and you have to pin him" and TLC would be "Yeah, climb a ladder after beating that guy up". Either way, you are looking at a tough choice.
Two, when ending a feud, the match needs to recap the struggle both men have gone through. There needs to be a flow where someone dominates, someone counters, someone else counter, etc. The match mirrors a back and forth feud with narrow escapes and solid beatings and victories. A TLC match is big spot....rest.....chair, fall of ladder......rest..........hit with ladder....rest.....table spot.........both guys hurt.....rest. It doesn't tell a story. HiaC gives you a fight scene from Rocky. TLC gives you a fight scene from Crank. Both are good on their own, but the former is iconic, the latter just furthers the movie.
This is a well written paragraph no doubt, however, there are a few problems with it pertaining to the "big spot" comment. I personally think this has less to do with the match and more to do with the performers. the type of guys usually thrown into these matches are Edge or Jeff Hardy. That's pretty much it, and they have to work with whomever comes there way. I am reluctant to blame the spotlike quality of the matches on Hardy or Edge, but I ask you. Would two great storytellers in the ring fare the same?
The Hell In a Cell is usually reserved for guys like HHH and Taker. It fits Taker's gimmick really well, and HHH is a veteran of these matches. But if they were put into the situation of a TLC match, would you think the match would have suicide dives followed by 2 miunte rests? Its the same in that the Michaels vs Razor Ladder Match was nothing like the Hardy vs Edge Ladder match.
It is the atmosphere. The atmosphere is everything. This is what I have been trying to get across. The cage brings an atmosphere to the arena. The walk to the ring is like a "dead man walking" death row scene. In a TLC you get excited, while in a HiaC, you get reticent.
But by the time the feud is almost ready to be done, the Cage should be in the background. The most important thing should be the two guys standing in the middle of the ring, and their hatred for each other, or how badly they need to beat each other. This becomes a major problem when you have the Cell. It overpowers the feud itself, it's an entity onto itself. This isn't a good thing however. If you want to cap off the feud, you want every emotion and all the attention to be on those two guys final chapter in a saga, not on the Cage.
TLC matches can achieve the brutal spots of the Cage, without taking too much away from the atmosphere of the battle.
But see, here your talking about circumstances, and those circumstances haven't really been discovered in current context. TLC is a solid gimmick to set up a HiaC, but on its own, just does not seem like a blow off match to me. HiaC works every time.
The only reason it works everytime is because the WWE makes it so. If they substituted a TLC match for a HiAC match, and said, ok this is it, the final confrontation. Then after that match, they dissappeared or started fighting other people, then it would seem just as final to you. It's justthe way WWE WANT you to portray it.
If only it ended that way. It ends with two guys on the ladder at the end of the match, with one guy falling off. It is circumstances, opportunity, and a little bit of luck. That seems like enough to enrage one guy to want something a little more, like a cell, maybe a cell full of hell, I got it Hell in a Cell!!!!!
It could also end with a guy on a ladder being pushed out of the ring and onto a bed of 4 tables. But that was just one match. No wait, Cena FU'ed Edge through table off a ladder as well. Not every Cell has ended in an epic, final way. What about Survivor Series 07? Edge screws Taker and thats supposed to cap off his feud with Batista?
I must say, man from the southern part of the USA, I may be late all the time, but once someone can get me going I can't seem to stop. Lets do this shall we?
Firstly, the spots in a TLC are usually much more high impact, thus leading to a longer rest period thus leading to a bigger feeling of "Holy Shit, these guys wanna MURDER each other".
When I watch a TLC, I think they're trying to kill themselves, not each other.
And isnt that what it boils down to? You can say "wow these guys want to take each other to hell" and thats all very well and good. The anticipation is great. But all you might see is some face grinding and cage interraction. Nothing special outside of your regular cage match. A TLC match, you know you are going to see something crazy. And it is in this that we see TLC is the better choice.
But a TLC is just a regular ladder match. All they do is pull the props out early. Did they change the rules and make it illegal to use a chair in a ladder match?
The spots and carnage in the match make this the better choice. The splintered tables and dented chairs paint a brutal picture far better than the cell and a blade job. What the superstars so in a TLC match far more solidifies it as "the finishing blow" than the Cell. And I know you used that silly "What if you fall off the cage" excuse. But few are crazy enough to do that, Mick Foley, HBK and Rikishi, god bless em. This of course has been eliminated since the cage shape has been changed, and the very idea of it has been scratched, as the cage is ridiculously high.
See, I disagree. When you get to the end of a ladder match, there is some nice imagery, but all those images show what someone put himself through to win. In a HiaC, the image of one bloody man standing over another symbolizes the end. These two men just tried to kill each other, and if you are standing with your arm raised as the cage rises, then it just looks like you finished a situation. TLC, to me, just doesn't settle anything. No one dominated the other. One guy just got up one more time.
But the faithful Ladder Spot through 4 tables will always be there.
It's cool, don't get me wrong. It just doesn't signify the end of a feud the way that the long angle of a man in the cage with it rising does.
You can pin people in a Cage match too nowadays. The fact of the amtter is, TLC matches are justm ore brutal than Ladder matches. just in the way you say HiAC matches are more brutal than your standard cage.
There are more differences between HiaC and a cage match then there are between TLC and a ladder match. The differences in HiaC are actual rule differences. There is no escape. And, the idea that there is no escape implies that this is it.
You can pin people in a Cage match too nowadays. X2
Yeah, but the escape is still there. And, you can just walk out the door.
This is NOT the trademark weapon. It's HHH's weapon. He uses it. Who said that the announce table couldn't be used in a TLC match. Everything that is present in a Hell in A Cell match is present in a TLC match, except that tall cage.
And HHH and The Undertaker are the trademark HiaC competitors. The cage makes the match. Like I said when you see a TLC set up, you get excited, when you see a cell being lowered, you get nervous. WWE has sold it better, so they are partly to blame for the effect, but the atmosphere in a HiaC is jsut better for ending a feud.
I skipped most of the debate on Orton/Cena, as lets face it, it would just split the path on this debate. and as angry as it would make some people, i'll just cut it out.
I'll just say that an Orton/Cena TLC match would lead to another Orton/Cena match.
TLC II told the story of 3 teams bringing their signature weapons to try and outdo each other on the biggest stage of them all. Ric Flair vs Edge told the story of the Old Veteran trying to be keep up with the Champ. Stories!! You see?
But both of those are competition. Competition is the second phase of a feud. It starts with rivalry, they both want the same thing. The next match is competition, where they need to outdo each other. After that, there is hatred, and that must be settled in a cell. It keeps all other influences out and readies two men to destroy each other. TLC shows how they will hurt themselves to win, HiaC shows how they will hurt each other, which is a better ending to feud.
Can't argue with that. Murderous Rage IS FTW. Even Cena likes it.
Murderous rage is the last aspect in storytelling, right before the climax.
But this is again all circumstantial. The Hell in A Cell is only final if it is booked that way. But Survivor Series '07 wasn't. It was booked that Taker got screwed and then a triple threat match took place the next month. There is just as much room to further a feud after a Hell In a Cell than in a TLC. And once again, we come down to the selective booking issue. This is why its hard to judge each objectively on past matches, seeing as they have all suffered or benefited in one way or another.
But the Triple Threat moved Taker toward a different feud. It didn't further that one feud. My point here is that TLC sets up another match, being that there are so many ways to have a screwy finish. For HiaC to have a screwy finish, you need to add new characters and circumstances that violate the sanctity of the cell.
if we were looking at this debate from a purely straightforward standpoint we'd get "Oh in Hell In a Cell, you have a Cage and you have to pin him" and TLC would be "Yeah, climb a ladder after beating that guy up". Either way, you are looking at a tough choice.
They are both great matches, however, I truly feel that HiaC does a better job of symbolizing the end. Remember, we are telling a story. We need symbolism and metaphor. The symbolism of the ladder is ascension, or escalation, making it worse. The symbolism of the cage is redemption. No matter what has happened up until now, we are finishing this, and the cage isn't going anywhere until we do. HiaC just is a better storytelling element than TLC.
however, there are a few problems with it pertaining to the "big spot" comment. I personally think this has less to do with the match and more to do with the performers. the type of guys usually thrown into these matches are Edge or Jeff Hardy. That's pretty much it, and they have to work with whomever comes there way. I am reluctant to blame the spotlike quality of the matches on Hardy or Edge, but I ask you. Would two great storytellers in the ring fare the same?
Edge and Undertaker are great storytellers, and they told a great story. The story was about Edge taking advantage of an opportunity. Now, take that match one step further. Edge has taken opportunity after to opportunity to get cheap wins from Undertaker. Nothing is settled, and Taker is pissed. Bring in the Cell, and now Edge has to answer for his sins. The cage is judgment, the cage is redemption. Judgment and redemption are end of the story plot points and themes. Ascension and escalation are middle of the story themes.
The Hell In a Cell is usually reserved for guys like HHH and Taker. It fits Taker's gimmick really well, and HHH is a veteran of these matches. But if they were put into the situation of a TLC match, would you think the match would have suicide dives followed by 2 miunte rests? Its the same in that the Michaels vs Razor Ladder Match was nothing like the Hardy vs Edge Ladder match.
A Taker and HHH TLC match would be terrible, and there is a strong possibility that both men would be too hurt to climb that ladder. Then you would need HiaC to finish it.
But by the time the feud is almost ready to be done, the Cage should be in the background. The most important thing should be the two guys standing in the middle of the ring, and their hatred for each other, or how badly they need to beat each other. This becomes a major problem when you have the Cell. It overpowers the feud itself, it's an entity onto itself. This isn't a good thing however. If you want to cap off the feud, you want every emotion and all the attention to be on those two guys final chapter in a saga, not on the Cage.
I disagree. I think that the cage shows that none of the interference of dirty tricks from earlier in the conflict will be allowed. It is one on one, team on team, whatever, and the best man will win. It determines who the best man is. That is another theme from the end of stories, TV, and movies.
TLC matches can achieve the brutal spots of the Cage, without taking too much away from the atmosphere of the battle.
I don't think HiaC takes anything away from the battle, while I do think TLC has a tendency to take the flow out of a match with the required rest time.
The only reason it works everytime is because the WWE makes it so. If they substituted a TLC match for a HiAC match, and said, ok this is it, the final confrontation. Then after that match, they dissappeared or started fighting other people, then it would seem just as final to you. It's justthe way WWE WANT you to portray it.
I don't know. When the HiaC is over, you feel like the best man won. Sometimes, at the end of TLC, I think the man who fell in the right spot won.
It could also end with a guy on a ladder being pushed out of the ring and onto a bed of 4 tables. But that was just one match. No wait, Cena FU'ed Edge through table off a ladder as well. Not every Cell has ended in an epic, final way. What about Survivor Series 07? Edge screws Taker and thats supposed to cap off his feud with Batista?
But that's no better than the idea that Undertaker lying on the ground outside of the ring is supposed to signify that his feud with Edge is over. The point of pro wrestling is to beat your man in the ring. Edge's victory was no better than a count out win. It doesn't show dominance, it show opportunity. Opportunity is a middle of the story theme. Dominance is an end of the story theme.
More iconic than those two Hell In A Cell matches with this guy:
I want to do something a little bit different for my next post, FTS, and I hope you can follow in a similar vein. Usually when we reach post 9 we've strayed a bit from the path and the debate has disintergrated into "he said, she said", arguing with each others quotes. I'm just pulling some stuff together and should have my response up a bit later tonight.
Clarity Of Debate: MRC was a clean clear debating machine here.
Punctuality: FTS
Informative: you guys had a set amount of information at your leisure, but I am proud that you both broke out of the shell. FTS, you pounded some solid information in this debate and you deserve the points.
Emotionality: MRC. He did a great job, rebounding from being late.
Persuasion: Sorry that is was late being judged. I actually judged it earlier, then must not have hit send on my ipod. then I was doing it last night and my ipod battery died. So I got determined, and got down to it, just as FTS did himself in the debate. He won me over with his information, and the ability to push through his points. That is why he wins this debate.
Clarity: I like MRC pointing out how he is going about his plan of attack.
Point: Mantaur Rodeo Clown
Punctuality: FTS was on time.
Point: fromthesouth
Informative: Both were very informative, great information. I think FTS brought just a little bit extra to grab this point.
Point: fromthesouth
Emotionality: MRC is getting this point. Above all, it was his sarcasm with the John Cena pictures that got him this.
Point: Mantaur Rodeo Clown
Persuasion: I've always loved both matches, hold both in high regard in feuds. But FTS took this point. When you think HIAC, most of the time, you think someone is going to get fucked up, and the winner moves on.
Point: fromthesouth
CH David scores this fromthesouth 3, Mantaur Rodeo Clown 2.
Clarity Of Argument - I loved your layout, Mantaur Rodeo Clown. Good job.
Point: Mantaur Rodeo Clown
Punctuality - fromthesouth gets the point here.
Point: fromthesouth
Informative - Both of you guys did pretty good with the information. Mantaur Rodeo Clown loves pictures, and they usually pay off for him, but fromthesouth countered with pictures of his own. Further, he brought in more information that is easily verifiable on Wikipedia.
Point: fromthesouth
Emotionality - Another tough one here. Both guys are never overly passionate about their debates. I'll give the point to fromthesouth, as Mantaur Rodeo Clown's comedic efforts weren't as potent as they usually are (they would have worked wonders against a more condescending poster, though).
Point: fromthesouth
Persuasion - fromthesouth had a great argument here. Mantaur Rodeo Clown, you did a solid job as well. You had the more unenviable task, and you even admitted this in your opening post. Had you been on time, you probably would have won this debate, as it seems like you like the Hell In A Cell match very much.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
