Best Triple Threat Ever?

[PureHatred]

My buddy in the service finally saw Wrestlemani XX and after weeks of hearing it called "the best WM Main Event ever" or sometimes "the best match ever" (by the WWE announce team, of course) he said that he though the match was great, but it wasn't even the best Triple Threat ever.

Between the two of us and his drug dealer roommate we came up with Low Ki vs 'American Dragon' Bryan Danielson vs Christopher Daniels at the first RoH show as our pick.

Incredible & innovative spots, a clean ending, awesome work rate, and there's a lot of times where all three men are interacting with each other instead of the usual "one guy is down so now its one-on-one for 5 minutes." The spot where Dragon has Daniels in a standing sharpshooter and hits a Northern lights suplex on Low Ki simultaneously made me mark out. So did Low Ki's Twisting Phoenx and Daniels was his usual self. Just one of the best matches I've ever seen.

So what are your picks for best Triple Threat Ever?

[Supermark101]

I always liked the original Triple Threat
Sabu vs. Terry Funk vs. Shane Douglas

[Wondermouse]

My buddy in the service finally saw Wrestlemani XX and after weeks of hearing it called "the best WM Main Event ever" or sometimes "the best match ever" (by the WWE announce team, of course) he said that he though the match was great, but it wasn't even the best Triple Threat ever.

Between the two of us and his drug dealer roommate we came up with Low Ki vs 'American Dragon' Bryan Danielson vs Christopher Daniels at the first RoH show as our pick.

Incredible & innovative spots, a clean ending, awesome work rate, and there's a lot of times where all three men are interacting with each other instead of the usual "one guy is down so now its one-on-one for 5 minutes." The spot where Dragon has Daniels in a standing sharpshooter and hits a Northern lights suplex on Low Ki simultaneously made me mark out. So did Low Ki's Twisting Phoenx and Daniels was his usual self. Just one of the best matches I've ever seen.

So what are your picks for best Triple Threat Ever?

I've got that match downloaded, anyone wants to get on Soulseek, PM me (I'm Varuna) and I'll add you to my list and let you download it.

The "Sharpshooter" was an Indian Deathlock, I think.

Daniels was down, Danielson's got an Indian Deathlock, Low-Ki comes in and hits 4 of his trademark stiff-ass-kicks, each time, Danielson falls and comes back up, which works, since when you've got an Indian Deathlock, you're supposed to fall and get back up.

Then Low-Ki goes for another one, Danielson catches him, and hits a northern-lights for a 2-count.

Earlier, both LK and BD were down. Daniels applied a boston crab to Danielson on top of Low-Ki, and slaps on a Camel Clutch on Low-Ki.

Towards the finish, BD's got his Cattle Mutilation hooked on Daniels. The way that works is Daniels is face first on the mat, BD basiically applies a full nelson, and flips over into a bridge.

Low-Ki hits a twisting phoenix right onto Danielson's stomach. Sick.

I won't ruin the match, but I will say it's my favorite match ever.

[The Mackem]

I liked it near the start when Low Ki and Danielson have a kicking contest on Daniels' back.

Poor Christopher Daniels :(

[Cactus Sid]

Christoper Daniels is the man :cool:

Also, that match is definetly my favourite Triple Threat match ever, just amazing.

[ericbisch]

one of my favourite triple threat matches was the one at vengence 2002 with undertaker,angle and rocky

[Goldbird]

i preferred the triple threat match involving lesnar, angle and big show. That was quite solid and funny.

[big_bluto]

one of my favourite triple threat matches was the one at vengence 2002 with undertaker,angle and rocky

I remember that match. Undertaker and Rock went at it for the entire match and every so often, one would stop and twat Angle, and then they'd pick up where it left off.
Didn't Angle win that in the end?

[Evil Vito]

I remember that match. Undertaker and Rock went at it for the entire match and every so often, one would stop and twat Angle, and then they'd pick up where it left off.
Didn't Angle win that in the end?

<font color=goldenrod>No, The Rock won.

My favorite is the RoH one with Low Ki, American Dragon, and Christopher Daniels</font>

[Splaya]

Rock, Shamrock, Foley inside a steel cage

[Moongoose Mcqueen]

Rock, Shamrock, Foley inside a steel cage
Thats a good one, so was WMXX
I like, Angle vs Benoit vs Jericho, 2 fall Triple Threat for IC and Euro titles at WM2000.

[targo_the_sho_stopa]

one of my favourite triple threat matches was the one at vengence 2002 with undertaker,angle and rocky
:y: :yes:

[Funky Fly]

I liked it near the start when Low Ki and Danielson have a kicking contest on Daniels' back.

Poor Christopher Daniels :(
Yeah, that part was the man.

Low-Ki: THAT'S NOT HOW YOU DO IT! *ultra stiff kick*

American Dragon: OH YEAH? *ultra stiff kick*

Daniels: OH GOD, PLEASE STOP! :'(

It was something like that. Daniels was in tears. :lol:

[blake639raw]

Off the top of my head, I would actually say the one from WMXX, with Angle/Benoit/Jericho from WM2000 in second.

[mitch_h]

Yea I was going to say the Low Ki vs American Dragon vs Christopher Daniels match as well.

I liked London vs Styles vs Low Ki as well, and Lynn vs Low Ki vs Styles was good. Best of the best tournaments usually produce some pretty innovative triple threat matches although I can't think of any right now.

[Savio]

HHH, SCSA and Mick foley.

[Fox]

The WM 2000 Triple Threat match was sub-par, at best.

I've always been in love with the Chris Benoit vs. Diamond Dallas Page vs. Raven United States Championship Raven's Rules match from Uncensored 1997. That match was brutal and it went all over the place, not to mention DDP won it with a Diamond Cutter off the top rope through a table.

Of course, there are the countless triple threat cruiserweight matches from Nitros and Thunders, and those were some of the best matches I ever saw.

[Aussie Skier]

one of my favourite triple threat matches was the one at vengence 2002 with undertaker,angle and rocky

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHm what a pisser!!!!
At the start, when taker and rock are trash talking, and angle is trying to get involved, but cant get their attention!

LMAO!!!

awesome match too

[Aussie Skier]

<font color=goldenrod>No, The Rock won.

My favorite is the RoH one with Low Ki, American Dragon, and Christopher Daniels</font>

i'm pretty sure angle stole it.

[Ferocious]

Personal favourite was the Shamrock vs Mankind vs The Rock Triple Threat Cage Match, It had a couple of great moments.

1 Shamrock held Mankind in an abdominal stretch, Rock comes in behind and puts an abdominal stretch on Shamrock for a Double Abdominal stretch.

2 The finish was superb. Mankind lays out Rock and Shamrock, goes to make the escape over the top but on his way down the outside The Rock gets the pin on Shamrock for the win.

3 Also Mankinds missed elbow off the top of the cage

[Rob]

Wrestlemania XX by a mile.

[OssMan]

one of my favourite triple threat matches was the one at vengence 2002 with undertaker,angle and rocky You mean the triple threat with the botched finishers. Undertaker chokeslammed Angle like three feet high and Angle still sold it. Then Angle Angle-slammed Undertaker, but he didn't even slam him, just dropped him down, and Taker still sold it.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Triple Threat wise, I'll go with American Dragon, Low Ki, and Christopher Daniels. If you want to count triple threats though, I'm going to say either Tajiri Vs Super Crazy Vs Little Guido, or Tajiri Vs Supercrazy Vs Jerry Lynn.

[thuganomicalcrippler]

WrestleManiaXX, for the simple reason that Chris Benoit won.

[The CyNick]

I think its hard to compare a match from ROH or even ECW to a WWE match. A match from ROH has to appeal to what like 500 people, whereas a WWE event like Wrestlemania has to appeal to 20,000 people in an arena and millions on PPV. So the fact that the Mania match stands up against matches from ROH to me means that its far superior because it was on a show that did so much business. Plus the match itself was really really good.

[Rob]

If you believed the star ratings from the 500 members of the trenchcoat mafia who attend those shows, WrestleMania X7 and Canadian Stampede wouldn't even make the top 20 best pro wrestling events ever.

[Sin Harvest]

Two Triple Threat's stand out in my mind:

Two-Fall Triple Threat Intercontinental/European Championship match: Kurt Angle -vs- Chris Benoit -vs- Chris Jericho from WrestleMania 2000
World Heavyweight Championship Triple Threat match: Triple H -vs- Shawn Michaels -vs- Chris Benoit from WrestleMania XX

[Loose Cannon]

If you believed the star ratings from the 500 members of the trenchcoat mafia who attend those shows, WrestleMania X7 and Canadian Stampede wouldn't even make the top 20 best pro wrestling events ever.
:rofl:

[What Would Kevin Do?]

I think its hard to compare a match from ROH or even ECW to a WWE match. A match from ROH has to appeal to what like 500 people, whereas a WWE event like Wrestlemania has to appeal to 20,000 people in an arena and millions on PPV. So the fact that the Mania match stands up against matches from ROH to me means that its far superior because it was on a show that did so much business. Plus the match itself was really really good.

A wrestling match is a wrestling match. There are some people who are not going to like a specific match. I can watch the WM triple threat, and I can watch the above mentioned ROH triple threat, and I can say the RoH match was better. How many tickets they sell, or how many people that are watching has no effect on the match quality of the match itself. The only thing it alters is that more people may see the WM match, so it's likely to have more critics. To say that one match is better than another due to one match having more critics that say the match is good is ludacrious. By that logic, the majority of WWE matches are better than the majority of indy matches in America.

[The CyNick]

A wrestling match is a wrestling match. There are some people who are not going to like a specific match. I can watch the WM triple threat, and I can watch the above mentioned ROH triple threat, and I can say the RoH match was better. How many tickets they sell, or how many people that are watching has no effect on the match quality of the match itself. The only thing it alters is that more people may see the WM match, so it's likely to have more critics. To say that one match is better than another due to one match having more critics that say the match is good is ludacrious. By that logic, the majority of WWE matches are better than the majority of indy matches in America.

Well they are better.

Its kinda like what Rob touched on. Generally when you read a report form an ROH show, every match is above 3 1/2 stars, which is totally inaccurate. Dont get me worng, they have some cats who can work, but the people who rate the matches tend to be ROH feinds who are hardly objective. Oh and they are also supporters of a pedophile, but thats not really relevant for this discussion, just shows what kind of people we're dealing with.

In terms of rating a match, its all personal opinion. One thing I hate about wrestling journalists is when they talk about star ratings for matches. To me that makes no sense. What one fan finds entertaining can be totally different from what another fan likes. So all you're getting is an opinion based on that person's likes and dislikes.

There is no set criteria for what makes a good wrestling match, so the only tangible thing to go by is how much money the people draw who are in the match. Everything else is just personal opinion and means jack.

[PureHatred]

The triple threat match in question happened at a RoH show in 200. Literally years before there was any mention of Feinstein's perversion. So you bringing it up isn't just irrelevant, its stupid.

And based on this post, the only wrestling that anyone should be discussing as being of any quality is WWE. Because no matter who they have booked, they make more on their house shows than most indy companies will, which means they're better. Because money is the only tangible way to measure quality.

So do you base your opinions of music on record sales? Or movies on box office revenue? Because to me, directly equating profit to value is a little simple-minded.

[mitch_h]

Yea I don't know if i'm misinterpreting Cynicks post. In order for the triple threat match at ROH to be better than any WWE triple threat match it would have to draw more? If i'm not mistaken that was ROH first show, this isn't a company that has been around for 20 years. It's like your equating a good match to good marketing.

Just like any critic who reviews a movie or an album they are not stating facts just their own perspective. They are probably reflecting it on the pace, psychology, flow how clean the match is.

Although I do know what you mean aout how there are ROH fiends who think Slyk Wagner Brown vs John Hope is better than Angle vs Eddie. However I think the triple threat match between American Dragon vs Daniels vs Styles is an outstanding match and not the some indy mark creaming himself over nothing... and I say this as indy mark myself.

[Wondermouse]

CyNick, other people have covered your drawing arguments, so I'll skip that. Your cheap shot's unwarranted. Firstly, the whole perveted-justice thing reeks of entrapment, setting up a victim and doing their damnedest to bust anyone they can, possibly even people who wouldn't have actively sought out sexual experience with an underaged person on their on. Secondly guys like Steve Austin, Ric Flair, Dustin Rhodes, Booker T, and other not so great characters are/were raking in tons of money. How much worse is a child molestation that never occured than armed robbery, sexual harrassment, or domestic abuse?

And before anyone gives me shit, I'm a sexual abuse victim.

[PureHatred]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mitch_h again

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Well they are better.


There is no set criteria for what makes a good wrestling match, so the only tangible thing to go by is how much money the people draw who are in the match. Everything else is just personal opinion and means jack.

So Lesnar Vs Godlberg is a better match than say Kawada Vs Misawa, or Super Crazy Vs Eddie Guerrero? The problem with saying money is the only tangible way to measure a match isn't fair, because many companies don't have the exposure that WWE does. And you can't say if the wrestlers were talented, they would hire them, because there are more talented people working the indy scene then some of the people wwe employs. If I'm trying to decide whether or not to watch a match, I'll look at reviews and ask for opinions. While opinions vary from person to person, true wrestling fans have certain things they look for in a match, and those things transcend money, drawing capability, and mic skills.

In fact, that's probably the problem with wrestling today, because at some point someone thought the drawing power of a match is a better indicator of a good match than an actual good match.

[The CyNick]

Look I'm not saying the match in question wasn't good, all I'm saying is that opinions on match quality really mean nothing, because as I mentioned everyone's opinion is going to be totally different and there is no way to distinguish between a great match and a match that is horrible. Its all arbitrary opinion.

Whoever asked about record sales and movie grossings, yes that is the only way to acturately judge a CD/movie. Again, like a wrestling match, people will all have opinions on what makes a good mive, but again its meaningless because one man's trash is another man's tresure. I can say I loved "xyz" match, but what does that mean? Who cares what I think, the only thing that really matters is dollars and cents.

The point with ROH fans is that they are for the most part non-objective when it comes to the ROH product. They think all ROH matches are the greatest, even though 90% of the guys on their shows will never draw a dime in the business. So, for the most part I dont take their opinions to matter for much.

As for the "cheap shot" thing, I dont see how a man getting caught going to meet an underaged boy is a cheap shot on my part, but like I said ROH fans are a unique bunch. And yes molesting kids is by far the worst thing a person can do short of killing someone. Pedophiles should be burned at the stake, and anyone who puts money in the pocket of a pedophile isn't much better.

[PureHatred]

Man, you really are cynical.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Like I said, wrestling fans that are not total marks generally have things they look for in a match. If someone is a wrestling fan, and not biased, they can distinguish between a good match and a bad match, not only overall, but on various levels of wrestling, intensity, psychology, etc. To say that opinions on quality means nothing is almost like saying wrestling fans really don't know a thing about wrestling.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Also, there is a such thing as WWE fans who are non-objective. It's not like a WWE fan has never been bias.

[The CyNick]

So Lesnar Vs Godlberg is a better match than say Kawada Vs Misawa, or Super Crazy Vs Eddie Guerrero? The problem with saying money is the only tangible way to measure a match isn't fair, because many companies don't have the exposure that WWE does. And you can't say if the wrestlers were talented, they would hire them, because there are more talented people working the indy scene then some of the people wwe employs. If I'm trying to decide whether or not to watch a match, I'll look at reviews and ask for opinions. While opinions vary from person to person, true wrestling fans have certain things they look for in a match, and those things transcend money, drawing capability, and mic skills.

In fact, that's probably the problem with wrestling today, because at some point someone thought the drawing power of a match is a better indicator of a good match than an actual good match.

Well Lesnar-Goldberg was on a show that really didn't have a draw, Wrestlemania XX was the draw, not anything specific on the show, but thats not the point.

Again all I'm saying is that judging a wrestling match is meaningless to me.

For example, most people will say Lance Storm is a better wrestler than Hulk Hogan. But if you were to start a wrestling promotion who would you rather have? BTW, the correct answer is Hulk Hogan. Wrestling isn't just about actual wrestling, its about drawing money. ECW had tons of matches that most people would say were "great", but what happened to that company? Hulk Hogan-The Rock at Mania X8 was a horrible match by most journalist standards, but the thing drew 850,000 buys on PPV. So you can have your "4 3/4 star match" with American Dragon and whoever that probably lost the company money, but I'll take Hogan-Rock making millions of dollars every day of the week.

And in terms of guys on the indy scene, this is another thing that bothers me. If they were really all that great, the WWE would have or will pick them up. People go crazy for these guys who jump around and do their matches on shows like ROH, but can they do the same thing when they are catering to an audience of millions instead of hundreds? Its a different thing completely. Yes some of them are talented (take AJ Styles for example), but even a guy like AJ couldn't hold most of the WWE rosters' jock straps. But ask an ROH fan, and they'll say Styles is the best worker in the world. People need to keep stuff in perspective.

[The CyNick]

Like I said, wrestling fans that are not total marks generally have things they look for in a match. If someone is a wrestling fan, and not biased, they can distinguish between a good match and a bad match, not only overall, but on various levels of wrestling, intensity, psychology, etc. To say that opinions on quality means nothing is almost like saying wrestling fans really don't know a thing about wrestling.

I dont believe match quality is all that important to the average fan, otherwise why was Hulk Hogan a success or Goldberg or a lot of other guys who aren't Benoit, Angle or Guerrero?

[What Would Kevin Do?]

You know, I had a nice long response written up to debate this, but screw it. You're looking at quality in terms of money... Money does no make a good match... What happened to people wrestling because they love to do it??? Goldberg maked a million dollars in one year, and he doesn't even like to wrestle. Screw that. You know who I respect? I respect the guys on the indy scene who have talent, but will never make it big. The guys who bust there ass for minimum wage, and actually go out and try to impress the crowd. When was the last time Goldberg tried to impress a crowd???

CyNick, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but if your perception of wrestling as money making business has blinded you to quality, maybe you should go back and figure out why you were watching it in the first place. As I've said numerous times in this thread, wrestling fans know what they want in a match... Sure, they're going to markout for Hogan coming back, for Steve Austin, for HBK winning a world title, but sometimes sheer drawing power isn't enough. If I go to a WWE event because there are going to be big names there, and they stink the place up in the ring, I'm not going to be happy, in fact, I'm going to be pretty pissed off.

So here's an idea for you. You don't trust the journalists, you don't think wrestling fans can properly judge if a match is good or not? Watch the matches yourself. Be your own judge. If you still think quality depends souly on money, fine, that's your opinion, and like you said above, most opinions don't mean shit :)

[What Would Kevin Do?]

I dont believe match quality is all that important to the average fan, otherwise why was Hulk Hogan a success or Goldberg or a lot of other guys who aren't Benoit, Angle or Guerrero?

I think it has to do a lot with what they've seen... Currently in WWE, there is an average of 1 to 3 good matches per ppv. Some of those matches can be considered great... Still, that leaves a potential of 4 to 6 matches that are mediocre or less. It's a lowering of expectations, and it leaves the fans looking for something else besides match quality to justify what they're watching...

Now in theory, if a company could put on 5 to 6 good matches a card, people would grow used to that kind of quality. Therefore, if that quality dropped, they would realize it. A lot of WWE fans have accepted the style and don't seek other wrestling. Therefore, when they see someone like Goldberg, they are only really comparing him to others in the company, and other matches in that company.

I can basically gurantee that if you take a wrestling fan who is actually a true wrestling fan, and not a sports entertainment fan, and sit him down in front of a good RoH match, or a good NWA-TNA match, or a good Japanese or Luche Libre match, they will appreciate it. I agree, every company has bad matches, and every company has spot fests, and I am not bias, and I will not claim all RoH matches are gold, because they are not. I will say that ringwise though, the best RoH match can compete with the best WWE match, because any wrestling match, in quality, should be able to compete with any other wrestling match.

[The CyNick]

Hey I love a great wrestling match more than most, but I'm objective enough to realize that what I like in a wrestling match really means nothing. I'm not blinded by money, I just recognize that in a worked environment thats the only way to judge whats better.

[The CyNick]

I think it has to do a lot with what they've seen... Currently in WWE, there is an average of 1 to 3 good matches per ppv. Some of those matches can be considered great... Still, that leaves a potential of 4 to 6 matches that are mediocre or less. It's a lowering of expectations, and it leaves the fans looking for something else besides match quality to justify what they're watching...

Now in theory, if a company could put on 5 to 6 good matches a card, people would grow used to that kind of quality. Therefore, if that quality dropped, they would realize it. A lot of WWE fans have accepted the style and don't seek other wrestling. Therefore, when they see someone like Goldberg, they are only really comparing him to others in the company, and other matches in that company.

I can basically gurantee that if you take a wrestling fan who is actually a true wrestling fan, and not a sports entertainment fan, and sit him down in front of a good RoH match, or a good NWA-TNA match, or a good Japanese or Luche Libre match, they will appreciate it. I agree, every company has bad matches, and every company has spot fests, and I am not bias, and I will not claim all RoH matches are gold, because they are not. I will say that ringwise though, the best RoH match can compete with the best WWE match, because any wrestling match, in quality, should be able to compete with any other wrestling match.

Fair enough, but thats why ROH and other indy only draw a few hundred people to their shows. There are only so many die hard wrestling fans out there. The vast majority of people see wrestling like they see other TV shows or movies, and dont worry about the quality of matches and so on. All they want to see is "Goldberg kick someones ass" and they are happy.

And there we go again talking about ring work, which again is subjective, Ive heard people say Kurt Angle's matches suck. I couldn't understand that thinking because I think his matches rule, but again its all opinion, its all meaningless.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

What is the money judging though??? Money can judge which company is having more success. Money can judge how many people saw the match. Money however cannot judge the quality of the match, especially when the people pay in advance before they see the match. Furthermore, great wrestling doesn't equal a great company. Money and exposure equals a great company.

It's pretty much a vicious circle because to get exposure, you need money, and to get money, you need exposure. It's easier to get exposure, but it's a very long process.

I'm curious though, if a fairly large amount of diverse wrestling fans could sit down and come up with a criteria for what makes a match good, do you then think that criteria could be effectively uses to judge matches?

[What Would Kevin Do?]

I'll agree that there may be only so many die hard wrestling fans.

I'll also agree that in ring work can be subjective, even though many people have the same ideals. Personally though, I don't believe that money is a justified way to judge the quality of the match. Just because you can measure it doesn't mean it's valid. Take movies for example. People can judge them, but it's all opinion. However, to say one movie is better than another movie based on nothing else but ticket sales isn't an accurate way to judge a movie...

I will go as far to say that there is no accurate way, due to subjectiveness, to judge the quality of a wrestling match. However, there is no way I'll agree that money is an indicator of quality.

[The CyNick]

No, and thats the point, you cant "judge" a wrestling match in terms of quality. I mean in theory you could get 100 fans to watch a match and give their opinion, but even then you have to consider what type of fans are judging.

For example, if you were to do the judging on a forum like this one, matches like Benoit-Angle would get most of the votes. But, I bet if you talked to a bunch of casual fans they might say Hogan-Andre was the greatest match of all time. So who is right? Well Andre-Hogan made a lot more money than Angle-Benoit did, so to me thats the only real way to judge a match.

I mean in theory if you could get the right cross section of fans to make up a criteria it would work, but I dont think thats posisble. Going back to Andre-Hogan, most people who liked that match probably didn't like it for the match itself, but rather because of the hype and because Hogan slammed Andre and beat him, thats all they would care about. The other 11 minutes or so they could care less about. So how do you factor that line of thinking into making a criteria for good matches?

In terms of exposure and money, WCW had both and they were a horrible company for some time before being purchased. If a company was good enough, they would be able to get TV, they would grow a fanbase and continue to prosper. Companies like ROH will never get that because they cater to such a small percentage of people.

[The CyNick]

I will go as far to say that there is no accurate way, due to subjectiveness, to judge the quality of a wrestling match. However, there is no way I'll agree that money is an indicator of quality.


And I'm not saying money is a good way to judge quality either, but as you said (and now agree with what I'm saying) its the only way to judge because any other measure of quality is meaningless.

[Sensei Of Mattitude]

I was at XX and I didnt think the Triple Threat was all that great. Maybe it was because I wanted Shawn to win and I was somewhat blinded by my loyalites to the Heartbreak Kid or maybe I just have to watch it on DVD.

Oh by the way, if anyone remembers.... I was the kid that held up the Pete "Rose 14" sign during the Hall of Fame ceremony. Green Eagles Jersey and red Phillies cap. Just to let you know.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Getting on tv isn't that simple. Very few channels are going to pick up a wrestling promotion when A. wrestling isn't "in" right now, and B. most indy feds are regional.

And once again, one match doesn't make money. First and foremost, people pay in advance to watch. You can say that Hogan vs Andre may have drawn better than Angle vs Benoit, but not that it was a better match. There are other things you have to take into account. For example, wrestlings popularity then as opposed to now, the other matches on the card, etc. If Angle Vs Benoit was on a card, and the rest of the card was nobodies, and WWE was charging 50 bucks to watch it, chances are, it wouldn't draw well. However, if the coach Vs Jim ross was on a card that was totally stacked besides that match, people would probably order the ppv for the other matches. If the latter made more money than the former, does that mean the Coach and Jim Ross are better than Angle and Benoit....

And yes, I know there are people who will order wwe ppv regardless.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

And I'm not saying money is a good way to judge quality either, but as you said (and now agree with what I'm saying) its the only way to judge because any other measure of quality is meaningless.

Money is not a judge of quality because the money is given before the match. Money is a judge of the companies quality, and possibly the drawing ability of the wrestlers... However you can't use something that takes place before the match as a way to judge the quality of something that hasn't happened.

Furthermore, even if you could use money to judge the quality of a match ( which once again, you can't, because money is a factor BEFORE the match happens) you said yourself it's not a good way. Since judging a match by money is inaccurate, it's creating an erroneous image of the match... Even if opinion is subjective, I would trust a subjective analysis before I consult a method that erroneously judges a match.

[BasicThuganomics]

This is one of the only times I've seen someone get in an argument with CyNick and me not agree with what CyNick is saying.


Maybe this topic would have been better if it had said "Favorite Triple Threat Match ever?"

[Rob]

CyNick, other people have covered your drawing arguments, so I'll skip that. Your cheap shot's unwarranted. Firstly, the whole perveted-justice thing reeks of entrapment, setting up a victim and doing their damnedest to bust anyone they can, possibly even people who wouldn't have actively sought out sexual experience with an underaged person on their on. Secondly guys like Steve Austin, Ric Flair, Dustin Rhodes, Booker T, and other not so great characters are/were raking in tons of money. How much worse is a child molestation that never occured than armed robbery, sexual harrassment, or domestic abuse?

And before anyone gives me shit, I'm a sexual abuse victim.

Feinstein is still a paedo. It can't be entrapment if the law aren't involved either. Child molestation is the worse thing in the world in my opinion. Hell some murders are justifiable in my book.

I'm sorry if you are a sexual abuse victim but that has nothing to do with what Feinstein did.

[Rob]

And for the record, if you think what happens in a wrestling move for move defines a what a great match is then you are very much mistaken.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

And for the record, if you think what happens in a wrestling move for move defines a what a great match is then you are very much mistaken.

Not sure if that was directed at me or not, but if it was, I never said that what happens move for move is the only thing that can make a great match. Then again, it doesn't matter, because according to this thread there are no great matches, just matches that a large amount of people have positive opinions on.

[Rob]

Not sure if that was directed at me or not, but if it was, I never said that what happens move for move is the only thing that can make a great match. Then again, it doesn't matter, because according to this thread there are no great matches, just matches that a large amount of people have positive opinions on.

It wasn't really directed at anyone specifically.

[BasicThuganomics]

I think that drawing power should be a factor in what makes a match great, but not the only factor. I mean as good as the ROH match might be (never seen it sorry) the fact that Benoit/HBK/HHH had like 20,000 people getting excited after a 5 hour show, and drew somthing like a million people worldwide is going to be more impresive than the ROH match. Those three men had to put on a match when they knew that nearly a million people would be watching them, and they pulled off a great match so I think that they had a more difficult job than the ROH match. But the fact that they drew more money and had more people watching isn't the only reason that would make the WMXX a better match by any means.

WWKD, you are absolutely right that money isn't a way to judge a match completely since money is handed out before the show. CyNick is stating that asking peoples opinions is pointless because people have different tastes, but I think that because there are different people with different tastes we should be asking for opinions. If more people are able to say that one match is better than the other than I think that is a good way of judging it. If a match is able to appeal to different people with different tastes, then IMO that shows the wrestlers involved put on a good match.

[Wondermouse]

Feinstein is still a paedo. It can't be entrapment if the law aren't involved either. Child molestation is the worse thing in the world in my opinion. Hell some murders are justifiable in my book.

I'm sorry if you are a sexual abuse victim but that has nothing to do with what Feinstein did.

Rob Feinstein is not a pedophile. Pedophilia is being sexually attracted to young children. From the conversation on PervertedJustice.com (http://www.perverted-justice.com/?archive=RFWrestling) the alleged target was 14-years old, and could pass for 18. How many times in the past 3 years have we heard jokes about the Olsen twins? Hillary Duff is being pushed down our throats - and she's fifteen! Is anyone who's attracted to Hillary Duff, dare I say it, a pedophile?

I meant that the situation was similar to entrapment, and, if the law were involved, Rob would have a case. I can't stand assholes who feel it's their duty to ruin people's lives by luring them into a trap just so they can feel better about themselves. The title of their website, Perverted Justice, is fitting.

And you're right. My sexual abuse case was very different. It was real, and I was actually a young child.

[John la Rock]

Wrestlemania XX. HHH/Benoit/HBK stole the show at the biggest PPV ever. I'd say it's by far the best triple threat ever.

[Rob]

Rob Feinstein is not a pedophile. Pedophilia is being sexually attracted to young children. From the conversation on PervertedJustice.com (http://www.perverted-justice.com/?archive=RFWrestling) the alleged target was 14-years old, and could pass for 18. How many times in the past 3 years have we heard jokes about the Olsen twins? Hillary Duff is being pushed down our throats - and she's fifteen! Is anyone who's attracted to Hillary Duff, dare I say it, a pedophile?

I meant that the situation was similar to entrapment, and, if the law were involved, Rob would have a case. I can't stand assholes who feel it's their duty to ruin people's lives by luring them into a trap just so they can feel better about themselves. The title of their website, Perverted Justice, is fitting.

Firstly, having sexual relations or intending on having relations with any underage person makes you a paedophile. Nothing about being attracted to them. I think Brooke Hogan and Hillary Duff are hot but I wouldn't think about going near them until they were of age. You can't help who you are attracted to. You can help who you have sex with.

Secondly, you can't stand people who lure others into traps? It wasn't a trap. Feinstein intended on having sex with a minor and he got caught. I hate it when people are paedophiles and when people defend their actions.

I have spoken enough about this in the past so check out older threads if you want my thoughts.

[The CyNick]

Thats some wild logic. So if someone were to try to have sex with the Olsen twins when they were underage it would be okay because they 'look older'? That makes no sense.

Anyway, I never said, or at least I didn't try to say that you can use money as a means to determine a quality wrestling match. Rather, what I was trying to say is that there is NO WAY to judge what a good wrestling match is. Again, everyone can have opinions, but they are just that, opinions, and are therefore meaningless. The point I was trying to make about money is that the only way to compare one match to another (again not necessarily talking about quality here) is to look at money drawn (inc ratings), everything else is meaningless. I'm not saying HHH/Benoit/HHH is a higher QUALITY match than an ROH match because it was on a $45 million show. I'm saying its impossible to say with any certainty that one is better than the other in terms of QUALITY. However, the Mania match was better in the sense that it actually drew money, or at least was part of a show that drew money. Whereas the ROH match likely lost money.

Again we can go back to the movie/CD arguement. I can say I like "x" muscian or "y" movie, but thats just an opinion. Someone else can say those movies were horrible. So you'll never get a clear cut answer on what is the "best movie" in terms of quality. The only thing you can use to compare movies/CDs/wrestling matches to one another is money drawn.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

You can't say one match drew more money than another. You can however say that one event drew more than another. People purchase whole events, not single matches :)

Now I'm nitpicking though, because besides that, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

[Wondermouse]

I made no judgment whatsoever about whether or not sex with the Olsen Twins, or Hillary Duff was alright.

I'm saying that society itself is pretty hypocritical; Rob's life is more or less ruined, while, on the next channel, Hillary Duff is an international sex symbol.

[BasicThuganomics]

Thats some wild logic. So if someone were to try to have sex with the Olsen twins when they were underage it would be okay because they 'look older'? That makes no sense.

Anyway, I never said, or at least I didn't try to say that you can use money as a means to determine a quality wrestling match. Rather, what I was trying to say is that there is NO WAY to judge what a good wrestling match is. Again, everyone can have opinions, but they are just that, opinions, and are therefore meaningless. The point I was trying to make about money is that the only way to compare one match to another (again not necessarily talking about quality here) is to look at money drawn (inc ratings), everything else is meaningless. I'm not saying HHH/Benoit/HHH is a higher QUALITY match than an ROH match because it was on a $45 million show. I'm saying its impossible to say with any certainty that one is better than the other in terms of QUALITY. However, the Mania match was better in the sense that it actually drew money, or at least was part of a show that drew money. Whereas the ROH match likely lost money.

Again we can go back to the movie/CD arguement. I can say I like "x" muscian or "y" movie, but thats just an opinion. Someone else can say those movies were horrible. So you'll never get a clear cut answer on what is the "best movie" in terms of quality. The only thing you can use to compare movies/CDs/wrestling matches to one another is money drawn.


Cynick you're so off about this. People's opinions are valid because when a diverse group of people can all agree that one match might have been better than the other, that says something.

[The CyNick]

You can't say one match drew more money than another. You can however say that one event drew more than another. People purchase whole events, not single matches :)

Now I'm nitpicking though, because besides that, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

Well, actually in a lot of cases people do pay for shows based on only one match. Wrestlemania III is a great example, Mania X-8 is another as was X-Seven and tons more. All of these shows had one clear main event that was used in advertising and therefore the success or failure of the show in terms of money made is on the heads of the people involved in the main event.

In contrast last years Mania wasn't built around just one match, instead they built it on the 20th anniversary concept, so its tough to give one match all the credit. But like I said, with some of the others in the past it was clear which match was drawing the money.

[The CyNick]

Cynick you're so off about this. People's opinions are valid because when a diverse group of people can all agree that one match might have been better than the other, that says something.

It would only be valid if you could poll all the people (or at least a representative cross section of them) who paid for Wrestlemania XX and ask them "which was the best match on the show?". Any other method will be skewed.

Take here for example. Most of the people on this forum are marks for what we call workrate and would have went with either Benoit or Eddie's match as MOTN. But thats not a fair representation of the people who watched the show. I talked to a buddy of mine who watched the show, and his favorite part of the show was Undertaker's match. Now you might think thats insane (I know I did), but I'm sure a lot of people felt that way. Hell I'm sure a lot of people loved seeing Austin stun both Goldberg and Lesnar and therefore felt that was the best match. But on a forum like this, you'll never get a fair assessment of what the 'average' fans thinks about a show.

So just because 90% of the people on this forum feel one way about a match it doesn't mean squat, because like I said the people here are skewed in one direction. If there was an accurate way to get a fair opinion on matches I'd be willing to listen to the results, but I dont see how thats possible.

[Loose Cannon]

Yep, you're right CyNick/ Most of the people I know who are not "Internet fans" said that the best match of the night was Taker vs Kane.

[The CyNick]

Yep, you're right CyNick/ Most of the people I know who are not "Internet fans" said that the best match of the night was Taker vs Kane.

Well and you see most people would scoff at that and say those guys are morons, but thats why Mania did 850,000 buys and every other PPV this year will be lucky to do 300,000. People like us love guys like Benoit who work their asses off, but the reality is your average fan finds them boring and wont pay to see them.

[BasicThuganomics]

Well, actually in a lot of cases people do pay for shows based on only one match. Wrestlemania III is a great example, Mania X-8 is another as was X-Seven and tons more. All of these shows had one clear main event that was used in advertising and therefore the success or failure of the show in terms of money made is on the heads of the people involved in the main event.

In contrast last years Mania wasn't built around just one match, instead they built it on the 20th anniversary concept, so its tough to give one match all the credit. But like I said, with some of the others in the past it was clear which match was drawing the money.



Even if there is one match that is the most hyped, without a stacked undercard to support it, most people won't shell out 35 - 50 bucks for a PPV.

[BasicThuganomics]

It would only be valid if you could poll all the people (or at least a representative cross section of them) who paid for Wrestlemania XX and ask them "which was the best match on the show?". Any other method will be skewed.

Take here for example. Most of the people on this forum are marks for what we call workrate and would have went with either Benoit or Eddie's match as MOTN. But thats not a fair representation of the people who watched the show. I talked to a buddy of mine who watched the show, and his favorite part of the show was Undertaker's match. Now you might think thats insane (I know I did), but I'm sure a lot of people felt that way. Hell I'm sure a lot of people loved seeing Austin stun both Goldberg and Lesnar and therefore felt that was the best match. But on a forum like this, you'll never get a fair assessment of what the 'average' fans thinks about a show.

So just because 90% of the people on this forum feel one way about a match it doesn't mean squat, because like I said the people here are skewed in one direction. If there was an accurate way to get a fair opinion on matches I'd be willing to listen to the results, but I dont see how thats possible.


You're looking into this too much CyNick when you start talking about getting a representative cross section of the people who watched Mania. The point of this topic was obviously geared towards internet smarks in the first place since we're on the internet discussing it. The point of this topic isn't what is the definative best triple threat match ever, its to find out what people OPINIONS are. Since the point of this forum is to post opinions, I don't see how opinions are irrelevant. Just out of curiousity, ( i don't know if you posted it earlier in the thread or not) what is you're favorite triple threat match that you've seen? You don't have to prove it with buyrates and attendance, just your opinion....

[Rob]

Even if there is one match that is the most hyped, without a stacked undercard to support it, most people won't shell out 35 - 50 bucks for a PPV.

People buy boxing PPVs for one fight all the time.

[Rob]

Okay if you showed 100 people off the street the best match from the last ROH show and from Backlash, who do you think they could pick?

[BasicThuganomics]

People buy boxing PPVs for one fight all the time.

Wrestling and Boxing are two completely different things. Boxers fight how many time a year? While people see their favorite wrestlers perform once a week for the most part.

[The CyNick]

You're looking into this too much CyNick when you start talking about getting a representative cross section of the people who watched Mania. The point of this topic was obviously geared towards internet smarks in the first place since we're on the internet discussing it. The point of this topic isn't what is the definative best triple threat match ever, its to find out what people OPINIONS are. Since the point of this forum is to post opinions, I don't see how opinions are irrelevant. Just out of curiousity, ( i don't know if you posted it earlier in the thread or not) what is you're favorite triple threat match that you've seen? You don't have to prove it with buyrates and attendance, just your opinion....

I have no problem with the discussion, in fact in my first respornse in this thread I said that the Mania match was the best. I only started to talk about the irrelevance of opinions on matches in later replies when talking about money and other issues.

[The CyNick]

Even if there is one match that is the most hyped, without a stacked undercard to support it, most people won't shell out 35 - 50 bucks for a PPV.

I disagree.

Mania X8 looked pretty bad, Jerihco-HHH had a horrible build, Taker-Flair didn't look too appealing and Austin-Hall was trainwreck waiting to happen.

I believe anyone who ordered that show either did it because it was Mania or because of Rock-Hogan. I dont think a significant number of people went in saying "I gotta see how that whole Booker T-Edge shampoo deal ends".

[BasicThuganomics]

I have no problem with the discussion, in fact in my first respornse in this thread I said that the Mania match was the best. I only started to talk about the irrelevance of opinions on matches in later replies when talking about money and other issues.



Yeah but even in that post you talked about the business it drew, and not that you thought it was actually the best match in your opinion. So the Mania match would be your favorite triple threat match even if it hadn't drawn the way it did. And also according to you'r logic if I understand you the match itself didn't even draw much, the event drew, not just the actual match.

[BasicThuganomics]

I disagree.

Mania X8 looked pretty bad, Jerihco-HHH had a horrible build, Taker-Flair didn't look too appealing and Austin-Hall was trainwreck waiting to happen.

I believe anyone who ordered that show either did it because it was Mania or because of Rock-Hogan. I dont think a significant number of people went in saying "I gotta see how that whole Booker T-Edge shampoo deal ends".


I think tha Mania is what made people buy it, although Rock Hogan was a huge draw I'll admit. Wrestlemania always draws more than normal PPV's. For the most part, a stacked undercard is needed to get people to buy a PPV.

[The CyNick]

I think tha Mania is what made people buy it, although Rock Hogan was a huge draw I'll admit. Wrestlemania always draws more than normal PPV's. For the most part, a stacked undercard is needed to get people to buy a PPV.

I dont think you would argue that Mania X8 had a stronger undercard than XIX (Austin-Rock, HBK-Jericho, Angle-Lesnar, BT-HHH, Mysterio-Hardy) yet X8 outdrew XIX by about 300,000 buys. Why? Well obviously people cared more about the main event in 02, Hogan-Rock was a bigger draw than Hogan-McMahon. Even though Mania XIX got the highest buyrate for 2003, it wasn't by much, even though the card was stronger from top to bottom than many other Manias. To get the big numbers for Mania you need a main event that people will pay money to see. Note, Mania XX was the exception to the rule because that was a once every ten years deal which you cant do every year.

[The CyNick]

Yeah but even in that post you talked about the business it drew, and not that you thought it was actually the best match in your opinion. So the Mania match would be your favorite triple threat match even if it hadn't drawn the way it did. And also according to you'r logic if I understand you the match itself didn't even draw much, the event drew, not just the actual match.

Its not that the match didn't draw much, its just that no match on the card was positioned as the main draw in the advertising (Goldberg-Lesnar was pushed slightly harder than any other match, but not enough to give them full credit), so the only way to credit them is to say the top 5 matches sold the show equally. In which case HBK-HHH-Benoit was a huge draw, but it wasn't any more of a draw then say Angle-Guerrero or Lesnar-Goldberg, etc

In the ring, I really liked the Mania match, but who didn't? Can I say it was the best of all time, I dont know, it depends on the criteria for what is good, hence the debate.

[BasicThuganomics]

Its not that the match didn't draw much, its just that no match on the card was positioned as the main draw in the advertising (Goldberg-Lesnar was pushed slightly harder than any other match, but not enough to give them full credit), so the only way to credit them is to say the top 5 matches sold the show equally. In which case HBK-HHH-Benoit was a huge draw, but it wasn't any more of a draw then say Angle-Guerrero or Lesnar-Goldberg, etc

In the ring, I really liked the Mania match, but who didn't? Can I say it was the best of all time, I dont know, it depends on the criteria for what is good, hence the debate.

I was just asking your opinion, do you not have a personal favorite match that you enjoy that doesn't have anything to do with criteria other than your personal tastes

[What Would Kevin Do?]

In response to Rob's question about asking 100 people on the street, I'll say this. As I mentioned earlier, their wrestling knowledge will have a huge impact on their thoughts. If it's someone who has watched WWE all their lives, they'll probably say WWE... If it some who's never watched wrestling, it's a toss up. If it is someone who watches RoH, chances are they'll probably say RoH. Then you have to consider the wrestlers... If one match is a hoss match, and the other is a lightweight match, and the person your asking enjoys lightweight matches, he'll probably answer the lightweight one.

And CyNick, maybe individual matches can draw. Once again though, that has nothing to do with the match being good. If anything, a high draw means people think the match has potential to be good.

[The CyNick]

And CyNick, maybe individual matches can draw. Once again though, that has nothing to do with the match being good. If anything, a high draw means people think the match has potential to be good.

And once again, I din't say a match that draws is "good" in terms of quality.

[Heyman]

So what are your picks for best Triple Threat Ever?

I didn't see the WM-main-event this year, but I was pretty impressed with The Rock/Angle/Taker from a few years ago (at Vengeance).

[BasicThuganomics]

And once again, I din't say a match that draws is "good" in terms of quality.

But what do you think makes a match "good" in terms of quality?

[Innovator]

I didn't see the WM-main-event this year, but I was pretty impressed with The Rock/Angle/Taker from a few years ago (at Vengeance).
I liked the match, especially when they started nailing each other's finishers

[The CyNick]

But what do you think makes a match "good" in terms of quality?

For me, its so tough to qualify what I like in a match.

I hate to sound like an ass, but I like a good match.

For example, I liked Hogan vs Rock a lot, granted I was there live getting worked by Hogan, but it was far and away the best match Ive ever seen in terms of crowd support.

In the same breath I loved Angle-Benoit from Royal Rumble 2002, but for different reasons from Hogan-Rock, obviously.

I also loved Foley-Rock from Royal Rumble in 1999 (I Quit Match) and Foley vs HHH a year later. Both were brutal bloodbaths that made new stars.

Those are just a few examples of different matches that I enjoyed a great deal. But they are all different from one another, so I dont think I can sit here and say I like x, y and z in a match. I just know when I finish watching a match when its finished I can say "for me that was a good match".

I dont know if that answers anything, but thats the best I can do.

[ericbisch]

i am a big fan of juvi vs rey vs kidman at starrcade 98