Basicly, I was just trying to get the meaning of the difference between matches with similar names.
Am I completely off, when I say it would be logical if a No Holds Match COULD contain disqualification due to the use of weapons? I mean, No Holds Barred could mean eye rakes, choking et cetera are legal, but weapons aren't. In an extreme rules match, the use of chairs and other weapons are legal but no choking and hair pulling or eye raking.
The bold doesn't make sense at all, since an eye rake isn't a hold and in the context of you saying a "no holds barred" match should, logically, be one where normally illegal holds are now legal, the only "hold" that would seem to be effected is a "chokehold" , which happens in regular matches, anyway.
For clarification purposes, a "no holds barred" match basically means nothing is off limits; there are no restrictions. Now, that definition carries over into casual, non-wrestling related use of the term, specifically in regards to debates that's a way of saying "everything is fair play". Basically, it's a real-world term used in professional wrestling with the same definition it uses in the real-world.
Then in a street fight - you take the match out of the ring and into the streets. If there is a referee, then no weapons and illegal holds are allowed. But if there is no referee then anything goes until one can't continue.
The idea behind a street fight, initially, was that the competitors would wear regular clothes ("street clothes"), instead of wrestling gear and had no implication on the location of the match. Originally, that's what made it different from a "falls count anywhere" match, as falls still had to occur inside the ring during a street fight. Old school, some places would call it a street fight, some would call it a "come as you are match" or a "bunkhouse match". But, over time and in various companies, a street fight would pretty much be the same as a "falls count anywhere" match.
In an anything goes match, then that "anything" Means low blows, choking et cetera and no weapons (basicly a no holds barred match - "anything" (but foreign objects).
A person interferring in a match is considered in line of the use of weapons and/or foreign objects.
Then why would that be allowed but foreign objects aren't?
I don't know if my logical thinking is completely off. What do you think of my thinking?
I think you're overthinking things.