[blazegod99]

Originally Posted by KingCal

Like Kurt Angle's match structuring, those 2 matches MAKE NO SENSE .

Both of those matches were entertaining, intense, had great psychology... most of Angle's matches weren't psychology fests, but were entertaining and classic in their own right....

I can't help but wonder what matches you feel are classics if those two "make no sense"

[Gamblor]

I still have Cena/Umaga as the best LMS ever, with Jericho/HHH a very close second.

[Callamus]

Both the Austin and HBK matches were a mess imo. Its like they didn't know what kind of match they wanted to wrestle. Is it about hate and revenge? Winning? Showing off? They kinda tried to do different things during the same match and none of it fit together or made sense and it ended up just... a mess lol. I like the HBK match more because despite its problems I still marked the fuck out for HBK's return and victory .

[Brye]

Originally Posted by Obis

I still have Cena/Umaga as the best LMS ever, with Jericho/HHH a very close second.

I agree.

I know someone who won't though.

[Callamus]

Originally Posted by Brye

I agree.

I know someone who won't though.

*waves*

Damn, not a great night for me in here. Everyone loving matches I find many, MANY faults with .

[WOOLCOCK]

Entertaining doesn't make for an automatically great match. Austin and HHH wrestled a completely tameless and tepid opening fall, complete with moves and sequences which resembled your average WWF match at the time. It should have been a wild and uncontrolled brawl, rather than tame and ineffective bodypart work. Personally I think the 2/3 falls format killed it tbh, since it forced them to basically plot around each fall and meant that they had to overcompensate in the second fall for the lackluster opening, which is a shame because many Lucha brawls have occurred under a 2/3 falls format and worked perfectly.

HHH/HBK is just hurt by Michaels being bi-polar, half the time they're trying to convince me he's past his prime and giving me cause for concern to see if he can win the match, the next minute he's a bloody psycho trying to murder HHH. I've said it before on here when talking about the match, but they essentially worked the beginning of a feud and a feud ender into two halfs of a match. If the whole match had been about HBK making his comeback the sole focus of the match and winning only for HHH to then do the post-match assault, then I most likely would have enjoyed it more. And of course them then having some blood soaked epic a few months later with Michaels now being entirely focused on hurting HHH, rather than trying to prove he still had it in him could have made for a good match (though Bad Blood 2004 doesn't give me great confidence that a drawn out bloody 'EPIC' between them would have been up to much).

I can see why both matches have their fans, but both are incredibly flawed in their execution. And as for Angle, he doesn't necessarily 'suck', but rather he alienates a certain section of fans who watch matches for performances, character work and smartly worked matches. I have no qualms with the popularity he receives for his work, even if I think a lot of his incredibly flawed. What infuriates me more is that people cannot process the idea he may have faults and issues which divide wrestling fans, you don't have to agree with these so called issues but to try and pretend they don't exist serves little purpose on a discussion forum.

If people love Angle, super. Good for you because he's obviously meeting your requirements for a 'good match', for others however will vary as what impresses most can irritate others, and therefore there's always going to be debates about wrestlers whether they be Flair, Austin, Funk, Lawler, Eddie, Mysterio, Cena, Angle, HHH, HBK etc because no two fans are the same.

Originally Posted by KingCal

*waves*

Damn, not a great night for me in here. Everyone loving matches I find many, MANY faults with .

Hi.

[blazegod99]

Originally Posted by KingCal

Both the Austin and HBK matches were a mess imo. Its like they didn't know what kind of match they wanted to wrestle. Is it about hate and revenge? Winning? Showing off? They kinda tried to do different things during the same match and none of it fit together or made sense and it ended up just... a mess lol. I like the HBK match more because despite its problems I still marked the fuck out for HBK's return and victory .

I'm confused on how people judge matches. I'm guessing guys are looking too deep into it maybe?

The HBK/HHH match started from the concept of the friend who had rose to the top once the guy who "carried" him left the company due to injury. When HBK returns, he was there to be support for HHH, but HHH didnt want HBK to take his spotlight, thus giving him the pedigree and taking him out. HBK's road back to Summerslam was about gaining his revenge against HHH for taking him out. The biggest question in that match was whether or not HBK could keep up with HHH, since he'd been 4 years removed from the ring. When you go into the fact that it was "unsanctioned" and a street fight, it further drives home the point of the fact that this would be a brutal brawl, bloody, etc..... HBK's showing off in the match? Just a reminder that's he still as good as he was before, thus answering the question of whether he still had it. Him winning proved that he was still as good as he always was, and he's gained revenge over the friend who was, in many ways, still jealous of him. HHH's attack at the end just provided HHH with the last laugh. The action in this match was fast paced, to the point, the psychology was great, and I can't see how someone says this match makes no sense.

Austin/HHH is a different story though. The whole idea was just a blowoff to the feud. It was designed to show the brutal nature of this feud and the ending to a year plus long rivalry. The 3 Stages of Hell was a match where both guys were supposed to take each other out, make each other pay for the years of hell amongst each other. The match was hard htting

[Clique]

Originally Posted by blazegod99

I'm confused on how people judge matches. I'm guessing guys are looking too deep into it maybe?

At the end of the day, it's all personal preference.

[blazegod99]

Originally Posted by Clique

At the end of the day, it's all personal preference.

I guess that's the case. But I think people are looking far too into wrestling lol. It's more about entertainment and putting the best show possible in this business. I've been a fan for 20 plus years and talked with thousands of wrestling fans, especially through our radio podcast(www.blogtalkradio.com/wrestlingheads) and this is the FIRST place I've ever heard people talk about these particular wrestlers and these matches as being extremely flawed.

Im just curious as to what matches people think AREN'T flawed?

[WOOLCOCK]

Its not about thinking too deep in the slightest, whilst some people watch purely for the characters and the entertainment others watch for entirely different reasons. People see classic matches from the territory days and see the brilliance in storytelling and simplistic wrestling and then struggle to comprehend how modern day matches have evolved into something entirely different.

Citing flaws in both matches doesn't make them flawed, it just serves to demonstrate the difference in opinion in what people constitute to be a great match. What I enjoy you may well find boring, simplistic, un-entertaining and no matter how much I disagree with you I cannot conclusively illustrate you to be wrong.

The key is to accept these opinions and argue why what we consider flaws you consider to be beneficial to the match, rather than attempting to comprehend how someone can form this particular opinion.

Just my two cents.