Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just don't get it.

Why is there a no disqualification rule in a No Holds Barred Match? I thought No Holds Barred meant you could choke your opponent, fish hooking, eye rakes et cetera were all legal, but no weapons allowed. It is just the holds that are legal, but weapons aren't. That is what I thought.

Referees are constantly throwing matches away without anyone winning. So why does the referee not throw away matches in a triple threat match when someone is using a weapon or otherwise breaking the rules of a normal match? If someone is hitting another one else with a chair in a triple threat match, and the referee sees it, then I would asume he would call the match off with no Winner - Thus preventing the wrestlers from going amock.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,713 Posts
No holds barred, no disqualification and extreme rules are all interchangeable...so much that when WWE has those polls where the fans can pick the stipulation, every option is the exact same match but with a different name. And while WWE doesn't do this, it's also the same as an unsanctioned match, which I recall a time or two from the early 90s when I first got into wrestling.


As for the referee not throwing away a triple threat match when somebody breaks the rules, it doesn't make sense to. Put it to you like this: if it's AJ Styles vs. John Cena vs. Dean Ambrose and AJ Styles uses a chair in the middle of the match, throwing the match out punishes Cena and Ambrose, who were victims in this. The only logical solution would be to disqualify the offender from the match, instead of the offender AND the two that were offended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
But then what about a normal title match, where the champion is being disqualified on purpose? That would harm the challenger but not himself. It would make sense in my World to throw the match away, if someone is breaking the rules in a triple threat match. I mean, the challengers would fight for the champion to not take the easy way out - just as they would in a normal title match. The challengers won't gain anything for breaking the rules, and the champion could risk being stripped off of the title for taking the easy way out.

I just don't get, why there is no disqualification in a triple threat match.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,713 Posts
But then what about a normal title match, where the champion is being disqualified on purpose? That would harm the challenger but not himself. It would make sense in my World to throw the match away, if someone is breaking the rules in a triple threat match. I mean, the challengers would fight for the champion to not take the easy way out - just as they would in a normal title match. The challengers won't gain anything for breaking the rules, and the champion could risk being stripped off of the title for taking the easy way out.

I just don't get, why there is no disqualification in a triple threat match.
You're ignoring the significant difference between the two matches.

In a singles match, if the champion gets intentionally disqualified or counted out, the challenger is announced as the winner, which in theory, keeps him in title contention because he has a claim: he, technically, has a victory over the champion. Now, for storyline purposes, the champion getting himself intentionally disqualified or counted out is a source of heel heat, which is the entire reason for that finish. Ideally, it builds up interest in a return, specifically one designed where the heel's back is against the wall and he's put in a position where, now, he actually has to win. Perfect example is Randy Orton at No Way Out '08 and the next ngiht on RAW.

But, in a triple threat match, if the champion gets intentionally disqualified or counted out, by throwing the match out, nobody is announced as the winner, which in theory, means neither man is in the title picture because everybody lost. Nobody has a claim now. But, for storyline purposes, by not having disqualifications, the champion can do something that under any other circumstance would be a disqualification and get much needed heel heat by taking advantage of the rules because, despite it not technically being cheating, it's a win that could still be deemed as cowardly. Perfect example is AJ Styles a few weeks ago at No Mercy.


Long story short, it's not about what makes the most sense. It's about what gets the most heat. The only purpose for disqualifications in singles matches for the title and lack of disqualifications in a triple threat match for the title is to get heat on the heel champion. And that's impossible, specifically in a triple threat match, when you take away that cowardly advantage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
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. 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.

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.

I don't know if my logical thinking is completely off. What do you think of my thinking?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
892 Posts
Surely it is clear that breaking up a pin is an illegal act.. If Triple Threat Matches went so that you couldn't break up a pin it would be over fairly quickly and have little drama... So it has to be no DQ as a standard surely.

I echo the thoughts of others above though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
892 Posts
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. 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.

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.

I don't know if my logical thinking is completely off. What do you think of my thinking?
I think you are attributing the words in those match stipulations as being exactly what they are and they aren't. A No Holds Barred should be a 'anything goes' match because when was the last time someone got DQ'd because of an eye rake or choking? If singles matches ended because of those type of things then a No Holds Barred match may have meaning. But those 'holds' are never used to DQ someone anyway.

Same with the Extreme Rules Match. It would simply not make sense to let someone smash the other person on the noggin with a chair but the minute he grabs a choke he is DQd. It would work the other way round (if the above was in place).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
It slightly confused me as a kid watching wrestling why it wasn't a DQ in tag matches when the non-legal tag team member would be aloud to enter the ring at any time to break up a pin attempt without punishment
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,713 Posts
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.
No.

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.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top