Which is worse?
 

Gimmick matches with guys who can't wrestle or stupid unrealistic end-of-match stipulations like "loser loses his girlfriend"?

No poll coming.

If the second type of match has great wrestlers in it, I don't see a problem...so I guess I would say stupid gimmick matches with bad wrestlers is worse. Who would say otherwise?

Also, the 'Love Her or Leave Her' match at Summerslam 99 was amazing...and it had frickin' Shane McMahon and Test.

...I don't understand the premise behind this thread.

You want us to mention bad gimmick matches, or debate about the ones you mentioned?

Stupid gimmick matches with bad wrestlers. Both are pretty bad, but Id rather watch the gimmick match then two dudes fighting over the rights a chick who herself has a choice.

OP reminded me of when Test & Scott Steiner had a years worth of matches w/ the same stip - winner gets Stacy Keibler. Definitely worse than crappy gimmick matches.

What if the two dudes fighting over the chick are Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle? You still would rater see Kennel From Hell?

Hmm... Could they be fighting in the Kennel from Hell?

If I'm not mistaken:

OPTION A: A stupid gimmick match with bad wrestlers

OPTION B: An unrealistic stipulation match, wrestlers may vary

Why on earth would anyone prefer option A?

"I need my wrestling to be as realistic as possible!"

Yeah, OK. It's professional wrestling, guys.

Because they love a good train wreck.

I'd love another "Buried Alive Match". I like those.

"Casket Matches", not so much.

Also, I think it's sad that the "Hell in a Cell" match has been devalued so much. It used to be awesome, but now it's almost like a regular Steel Cage Match.

But option B still has the potential to be a five star match...just with a stupid stipulation. If Chris Jericho and Shawn Michaels are having a blood feud over a fucking ham sandwich, it doesn't really matter to me as long as the match is good.

It's kind of philosophical...if you have two amazing wrestlers in a match booked by Russo and the winner gets to be King of the Wieners while the loser has to wear a pink dress for three months, it kind of ruins it for me.

Mind you, I ended up like Perry Saturn in a dress...

:shifty:

Russo probably booked the ridiculous gimmick match, too.

Some of you are plainly telling me that you'd rather see guys who suck wrestle in some ridiculous environment as opposed to two guys who are amazing wrestle over something 'unrealistic' like a 'woman'.

I really don't see how fighting over a woman is ridiculous or unrealistic. People have been doing it for years. Sure in real life, the woman has a say in it, but there's a certain level of belief that you just HAVE to suspend to even be a wrestling fan. This is a silly thread, and you are all making me sick.

Ill take me some Khali/ Bob Holly in a Chamber of Horrors Match.

Loser wears a tampon to the PPV.

This.

I'm just saying that if two bad wrestlers have a gimmick match, they have the potential to entertain more than they would having a regular crappy match. So there is potential for good or at least improvement.

If you have Jericho and Bryan Danielson feuding over who is the better dancer and their stipulation is that the loser can never dance again, it takes away from the match. Watching it you lose the ability to truly understand the motivation involved. It's a throw-away.

Are amazing wrestlers sometimes able to overcome stupid angles and still have 5 star matches? Yeah, though I can't think of one right now.

Name some more of these 'stupid stipulations' you're referring to. Most of them here have been completely made up. There's never been a 'loser wears a tampon to the PPV match'.

Edge and Booker T's shampoo commercial, Pillman and Goldust loser wears a dress, Shane and Test love her or leave her...all decent to good matches.

Not a huge fan of Clox's promotion, are you?

What was hilarious about the Punjabi Prison match?

This one meets both A and B:

Viagra on a pole.

Option A is worse clearly. A crap stipulation match with good wrestlers should still be a good match. Just with a shitty ending.

Remind me the details, please?

THANK YOU

Rights to the Harlem Heat name and the letter 'T':
WCW SuperBrawl 2000, Big T v Booker

Ladder match for Custody of Dominick

Oh, Sixx, Kidman and Shane Douglas apparently wanted to fuck someone so they had a match about it and the winner got a bottle of pills to fuck the chick, I think.

Thats really retarded. So the guy who wins admits that hes got problems getting it up ?
Rofl.

I read it as date rape pills, not viagra.

Anyway, Booker T had been a part of Harlem Heat for a loooooooooong time, and it really meant a lot to him. Some new guy thinks he's a big shot and tries to take it all from him. What's wrong with that?

Also, that ladder match was fucking amazing.

That last one...I'd have to know more about.

I completely understand your side of this ABT, one look at CZW shows the extreme end of my first subject. However, my point is simply that I want my matches with my beloved wrestlers to mean something. I'm not against comedy matches with silly stips when they're called for, however, having a totally stupid end-of-match stip can ruin a good thing. The Rey-Eddie match was technically a great match but, god, was the stip awful. Completely unneeded and for me it lessened the match.

I get hung up on shit sometimes, not always but, sometimes.

That stipulation, feud, and match were all amazing. You're a silly boy.

If only all custody disputes could be resolved in ladder matches or in a steel cage.

In the realm of professional wrestling, how the fuck else would you do it? Should it have gone down like Little People's Court? It was an innovative angle, and it wasn't so silly that you couldn't get emotionally drawn in.

Everyone is different. Accept that. I didn't like it.

I understand that everyone is different. I don't understand preferring a Punjabi Prison match over Mysterio/Guererro.

The Mountie going to jail after he lost to the Bossman was one of the greatest moments of my childhood. So all of you who are poopooing stipulations can fuck off.

Mysterio putting his mask on the line led to fantastic matches with Punk and Jericho.

Angle and Edge - hair match

Cena vs. Barrett was fucking great. And it was edge of your seat exciting because if Cena lost he joined Nexus. Come the fuck on, people.

Bret Hart and Jerry Lawler had a great feud revolving around foot kissing.

Well, you're comparing extremes though. How about Rotten VS. Balls Mahoney in ECW compared to one of those matches that Abyss had for Hogan's HOF Ring? Well, bad example...

Sandman VS. Sabu in Stairway to Hell VS. Kidman VS. Shane Douglas in the Viagra on a Pole match.

And yes, I realize that Sabu can be considered a good to great wrestler and is considered by many to have been a great high flier (not to mention myself), however many of his matches were garbage and more than a little of the reason that so many look so fondly back upon Sabu is because of Heyman's booking and editing out of all the botches and boring parts on Hardcore TV.

Kidman was at the time a great wrestler, so was Shane Douglas, and the end-of-match stipulation made for a crappy match.

I think Mask and hair matches are fine.

You're arguing that a match that's guaranteed to be crappy is preferable to a match that may be good or may be bad. Are you retarded?

Every match that added another man kissing Vince McMahon's ass is a travesty.

That's not what I'm arguing. You'd know that if you read the thread title along with my previous posts.

A crappy stipulation can still lead to better things, Saturn did alright after wearing a dress.

I dunno. Whatever.

You guys are dumb and I hate you.

That is not what you wrote in your livejournal today. Stop having a period and join in the conversation like you normally do. WTF MAN?!

I've given several examples of why you're wrong and I'm right. I thought you loved facts, gay boy.

I'm glad somebody else is on my page here.

That was essentially what you were saying, though.

A crappy match with crappy wrestlers is better than a match with crappy stipulations, whether the wrestlers are good or not. That's what you're saying, right?

I'm spinning it as, when the potential for tarnishing someone's legacy is greater than the potential for two lesser performers to screw up a match, I would rather watch the two lesser performers rather than suffer the heart-ache.

Two amazing wrestlers not being able to live up to their potential seems a greater sin than allowing two fat guys to hit each other with chairs for a while.

Also I didn't say the gimmick was necessarily stupid, street fights and ECW "rules" can be fun to watch.

What were the exact stipulations for viagra on a pole match?

It's like if Edward Norton did Big Momma's House, I'd rather watch Bob Sagget play Norton's role in Fight Club than watch Norton degrade himself to play in a fat-suit and fart a lot.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nvz4hvHr2f0?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nvz4hvHr2f0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

This is Ed Norton playing Big Momma...

My lord, you are reaching now. Sigh....

Which would you rather watch, though? Also, name one silly stipulation match that tarnished a great workers legacy that wasn't intended to do so (i.e. Saturn in a dress was a punishment).

Whoah. I started watchin' it on youtube and the commentators said

"If you get the bottle of viagra, you can use it on your opponent".

WHAT THE FUCK

Ed Norton would never take a role like Big Momma, but just for the sake of your side, let's say he did. He would have still been the most amazing Big Momma of all time.

Also, sticking Saget in Fight Club doesn't add up for your argument. You were talking about bad workers in bad matches. Fight Club is not a 'bad match'. You'd need to do something like Bob Saget in Daddy Day Camp...which he may have actually been in, for all I know.

Well, Norton once put on a retarded (and fat) suit and made it work.

I wasn't talking about bad workers in bad matches. I was talking about bad workers in gimmick matches.

Incredible Hulk?

Well option A could theoretically be good too on an individual basis, I mean I enjoy Kozlov and Ezekiel Jackson matches whereas most people probably don't, but how many people would enjoy a dog collar match between the two of them?

Or even if you have a match that is straight up awful you could get something so unintentionally hilarious that you may end up enjoying it.

So Fight Club is a 'gimmick movie' then?

I fear Wrestlecrap has poisoned some of your brains.

I'm not saying I'd rather see Nathan Jones and Heidenreich in a ladder match over your Jericho HBK ham sandwich match, I'm just saying it may not be all bad.

But which would you RATHER see?

CLOSE THE THREAD

It was Stevie Ray trying to take the name though, not the new guy. Ahmed was just the replacement for Booker.

The one with a Canadian obviously.

I meant Death to Smoochy.

Dunno, I liked it.

Even still, not a bad premise. It's sort of like divorce court on Thursday Night Thunder.

Great movie.

Hopefully they are more Robert Rhoode than Val Venis though.

Oh don't get me wrong I enjoyed it, I was simply nitpicking your post is all.

I too loved Death to Smoochy, own it as well.