A Question about Stipulation Matches - Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums
Reply

Old 08-06-2010, 06:31 PM   #1 (permalink)
Forum Lurker
 
SabresBuffalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 160
SabresBuffalo
Default A Question about Stipulation Matches

I was reading The Death of WCW, and I was intrigued by what they had to say about gimmick/stipulation matches:

Quote:
"Mr. Russo was fond of stipulation matches. It's too bad he had no clue about the point of putting a stipulation on a match; instead, he just added stipulations for the stake of stipulations, and they never meant anything."
It got me wondering: why is it that such stipulation matches in WCW were considered meaningless, yet in the WWE, stipulations are added to a match when two guys fight, and it's considered to be more meaningful than for those in WCW?

For instance, Kane and Shane McMahon had two stipulation matches in the fall of 2003 (Last Man Standing, Ambulance), and those matches were met with high anticipation, something you didn't see for WCW stipulations.

Ditto for Batista and Triple H in 2005- they had three PPV matches, culminating in the Hell in a Cell match of 2005.

What is it that made stipulations in WWF/E different than WCW stipulations?

Is it the caliber of guys fighting? The meaningfulness of the rivalry? The type of stipulation?

Was
SabresBuffalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 08-06-2010, 06:35 PM   #2 (permalink)
Yelled at by SCOTT STEINER
 
philip3831's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,764
philip3831 should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsphilip3831 should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsphilip3831 should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsphilip3831 should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsphilip3831 should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: A Question about Stipulation Matches

I think the stipulation is referring more to something like a retirement match instead of a gimmick match.
philip3831 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 06:42 PM   #3 (permalink)
BLUE IS BACK
 
Hiplop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Slightly better than you
Posts: 9,617
Hiplop Hiplop Hiplop Hiplop Hiplop Hiplop Hiplop Hiplop Hiplop Hiplop Hiplop
Default Re: A Question about Stipulation Matches

because what russo did was he would have a major stipulation match every week sometimes more than one a week. the fans got used to the gimmicks to the point where they didnt make a difference
__________________


what a BABE
Hiplop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 06:44 PM   #4 (permalink)
Thinks Batista is a talentless ....
 
Thumbinthebum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10,490
Thumbinthebum Thumbinthebum Thumbinthebum Thumbinthebum Thumbinthebum Thumbinthebum Thumbinthebum Thumbinthebum Thumbinthebum Thumbinthebum Thumbinthebum
Default Re: A Question about Stipulation Matches

It all comes down to the circumstances. The stipulations (which were gimmicks really) in the Kane/Shane matches came about because Kane gave a tombstone to Linda and then repeatedly attacked Shane in a vicious manner when he tied to seek a measure of revenge, even trying to set him on fire. This made the feud so personnal that the match gimmicks necassary.

In WCW, these gimmcks were over-used and throwaway, meaning that people quickly stopped caring. If you look at the way TNA use gimmicks today you'll understand the problem.
__________________
The Ultimate Dragon



Bryan Danielson
Thumbinthebum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 06:45 PM   #5 (permalink)
Winning World titles, Custom Made Clothes
 
just1988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bolton, England
Posts: 15,640
just1988 has posts worth readingjust1988 has posts worth readingjust1988 has posts worth readingjust1988 has posts worth readingjust1988 has posts worth readingjust1988 has posts worth readingjust1988 has posts worth readingjust1988 has posts worth readingjust1988 has posts worth readingjust1988 has posts worth readingjust1988 has posts worth reading
Default Re: A Question about Stipulation Matches

Basically you have to build a fued up so that it means something, take the example of Bret & Owen Hart.


They started off as brothers and best of friends, then they had a little falling out at Survivor Series '93. Then they start to patch things up and become best buddies again and have a tag-team title shot at the Royal Rumble '94 against the Quebecers. The Harts lose the match and then Owen turns on Bret after the match, by attacking the leg that Bret had injured during the match. Owen then is shown on the big screen laying into his selfish brother Bret.



They start to build the storyline up that Bret wants Owen to calm down, but Owen doesn't want to. Owen's sick of living in the shaddow of his older/more succesful brother Bret. So tensions come to a head and the match it set for Wrestlemania 10, Bret Vs Owen 1 on 1. Owen wins the match cleanly with a sneaky victory roll pin beating his brother Bret, who then goes on to win the World title later on in that ppv against Yokozuna.



So now Owen is going round telling everyone that he should be champion because he beat Bret (the new champion) last night (before bret won the title). So they go onto the next PPV and they build Owen up by having him win King of the Ring and they continue to build up Bret by having him beat Diesel.



Then somewhere in the meantime Owen is winning matches with the help of the Anvil who's helping Owen cheat. So when Owen & Bret get their match booked, they want to settle their score once and for all. So it's decided to help keep outside interfearance out they're gunna make it a cage match for the world title Bret Vs. Owen. Only one man can win and there's no way to cheat, mano y mano.



Then Bret wins the match and Owen has no excuse because Bret beat him fair and sqaure, so it was the end of the fued (it would still run under the surface but Owen was no longer a contender to Bret's title).

You see how they built this story up over 4 pay-per-views, 9 months of work to build from the original dispute to the blow-off cage match, all the fans wanted to know who's the better man and who'll come out on top. Now imagine how much different it would of been if at the Royal Rumble after their first little dispute Bret had said "Hey Owen, I want to beat the crap out of you for what you did at the Survivor Series, so I wanna face you one on one at the Royal Rumble in a cage". Sure that still would of been fun to watch, but it wouldn't of meant half as much as their actual Summerslam match ended up being cos now you have theoreticly the top 2 guys in the company, the world champ vs. the king of the ring, Bret was the older brother but Owen held a clean victory over him.
__________________

COME ON IN, ADD, FOLLOW AND SUBSCRIBE


Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/anwar.thinks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/anwar_thinks

Last edited by just1988 : 08-06-2010 at 06:52 PM.
just1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 06:46 PM   #6 (permalink)
Undergoing a gimmick change.
 
Poppin' Fresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brummie, UK.
Posts: 2,268
Poppin' Fresh needs to take rep more seriousPoppin' Fresh needs to take rep more seriousPoppin' Fresh needs to take rep more seriousPoppin' Fresh needs to take rep more seriousPoppin' Fresh needs to take rep more seriousPoppin' Fresh needs to take rep more seriousPoppin' Fresh needs to take rep more serious
Default Re: A Question about Stipulation Matches

Basically, stipulations and gimmicks were used so much, on normal matches, it became an overkill... meaningless. Kind of like the WWE do now a days with there constant gimmick PPV's. When they'd build-up a feud, it was so much bigger and anticipated when a gimmick match (such as Hell In A Cell) was announced, because you knew the two guys really hated each other, and were going to tear each other apart.
__________________
.
Poppin' Fresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 06:50 PM   #7 (permalink)
Humbled
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: penrith, cumbria, UK
Posts: 5,667
P.Smith needs to make some friendsP.Smith needs to make some friendsP.Smith needs to make some friendsP.Smith needs to make some friendsP.Smith needs to make some friendsP.Smith needs to make some friendsP.Smith needs to make some friendsP.Smith needs to make some friendsP.Smith needs to make some friendsP.Smith needs to make some friendsP.Smith needs to make some friends
Default Re: A Question about Stipulation Matches

The WWE are starting to do the same thing on PPV.

Hell in a Cell, TLC, Breaking Point and Extreme rules all make stipulations seem meaningless.
P.Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 07:15 PM   #8 (permalink)
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
WWETopTen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 656
WWETopTen needs to take rep more seriousWWETopTen needs to take rep more seriousWWETopTen needs to take rep more seriousWWETopTen needs to take rep more seriousWWETopTen needs to take rep more seriousWWETopTen needs to take rep more seriousWWETopTen needs to take rep more serious
Default Re: A Question about Stipulation Matches

Folks. Some of you need to learn the difference between stipulation matches and gimmick matches. A traditional one on one match can be a stipulation match. Russo was overusing BOTH stipulations and gimmicks. Overusing stipulations is slightly dumber in my opinion. If guys are putting their careers on the line in retirement matches every damn week it all becomes pointless.
__________________
My Top Ten Favorite Wrestlers of All-Time
1. Stone Cold Steve Austin
2. The Rock
3. Undertaker
4. Kane
5. CM Punk
6. Shawn Michaels
7. Daniel Bryan
8. Goldberg
9. Triple H
10. Mick Foley

Those are my top ten and I really don't care who agrees or disagrees.
PS- I HATE SMARKS!
WWETopTen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 08:19 PM   #9 (permalink)
Challenging SCOTT STEINER's authority
 
Ph3n0m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Paisley, Scotland.
Posts: 4,807
Ph3n0m probably won't be missedPh3n0m probably won't be missedPh3n0m probably won't be missedPh3n0m probably won't be missedPh3n0m probably won't be missedPh3n0m probably won't be missedPh3n0m probably won't be missedPh3n0m probably won't be missedPh3n0m probably won't be missedPh3n0m probably won't be missedPh3n0m probably won't be missed
Default Re: A Question about Stipulation Matches

You are missing the whole point. It's not the stipulation that is the problem, but how and when it is used.

You don't see the relevance in a big three PPV match feud like HHH vs Batista ending in a brutal HIAC match?

Whereas the point the book is making is that Russo just loved adding stipulations to anything, without any meaning. See things like the "Piñata on a pole" match.
Ph3n0m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 10:26 PM   #10 (permalink)
GET MY BAGS
 
sharkboy22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 9,399
sharkboy22 sharkboy22 sharkboy22 sharkboy22 sharkboy22 sharkboy22 sharkboy22 sharkboy22 sharkboy22 sharkboy22 sharkboy22
Default Re: A Question about Stipulation Matches

Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresBuffalo View Post
I was reading The Death of WCW, and I was intrigued by what they had to say about gimmick/stipulation matches:



It got me wondering: why is it that such stipulation matches in WCW were considered meaningless, yet in the WWE, stipulations are added to a match when two guys fight, and it's considered to be more meaningful than for those in WCW?

For instance, Kane and Shane McMahon had two stipulation matches in the fall of 2003 (Last Man Standing, Ambulance), and those matches were met with high anticipation, something you didn't see for WCW stipulations.

Ditto for Batista and Triple H in 2005- they had three PPV matches, culminating in the Hell in a Cell match of 2005.

What is it that made stipulations in WWF/E different than WCW stipulations?

Is it the caliber of guys fighting? The meaningfulness of the rivalry? The type of stipulation?

Was
Never seen WCW but from what I recall from those WWE feuds ya mentioned, they were hot! They couldn't just be settled in a regular wrestling match. I guess Russo used to put guys who couldn't get over in stip matches. Or maybe he but guys who were in their first match of their program and made a stip already. I read that book as well, it's a great read. He also did mention some match for the tag titles where they won it by opening a box. There were like 4 boxes and 1 of them had the titles.
__________________
sharkboy22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums
Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Powered by vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios