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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

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]

Originally Posted by ericbisch 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]

Originally Posted by big_bluto 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?

No, The Rock won.

My favorite is the RoH one with Low Ki, American Dragon, and Christopher Daniels

[Splaya]

Rock, Shamrock, Foley inside a steel cage

[Moongoose Mcqueen]

Originally Posted by splaya 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]

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

Originally Posted by The Mackem 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by ericbisch 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]

Originally Posted by Big Vito 22 No, The Rock won. My favorite is the RoH one with Low Ki, American Dragon, and Christopher Daniels

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]

Originally Posted by ericbisch 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

Originally Posted by 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.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by What Would Kevin Do? 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?]

Originally Posted by The CyNick 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]

Originally Posted by What Would Kevin Do? 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.