Originally posted by bigredmachine29I would just like to know how the most memorable HIAC, Taker vs. Mankind, gets a one star rating. While it didn't have great mat work, it was the most astounding match I have ever seen. The risks Foley took in this match were insane.
Most importantly, I am sure that I am not the only one whose jaw dropped when Foley flew off the cell, and stayed dropped until the end of the match. Like many people said, this was the most merorable HIAC, and that alone warrants a better rating.
It wasn't a good wrestling match. It wasn't even a good spotfest. It's memorable because of two bumps. The Triple Cage Match from WCW had a huge bump too. That didn't make it a good match either.
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. - The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I'm just saying that however lackluster the rest of the match was, those two spots made it amazing and memorable.
Also, how can you say it wasn't a good spotfest? You're saying that Foley being thrown off the cell, chokeslammed through the cell, Slammed on tacks, and chokeslammed on tacks dont make for a good spotfest?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you might give the Eugene-Johnny Nitro match from Raw last week one star, not Foley-Undertaker. I'm not saying it deserved five stars, but it was unbelievable to watch, even if only the first time.
The thing is this: The first Cell told a story. It had a solid beginning, middle and end. Foley's last Cell told a story, too. KOTR's Cell didn't. It was two guys, a cell and some spots. Nevermind that Undertaker was never the world's greatest in-ring storyteller. We've had two great Cell bouts (Foley/HHH and Taker/HBK), three or four fairly decent ones (HHH/Y2J, 6-Man, Brock/Taker, Foley/Taker) and a few crap-ass ones (the rest). The key thing to notice is that there's a HHH match in each category. The other key thing to notice is that HBK & HHH are both in the "great" category, but the matches were 7 and 4 years ago.
2004 CALGARY FLAMES: 42-30-7-3 in 82 games for 94 points in the regular season 15-11 in 26 games in the playoffs 2004 Western Conference Champions
Originally posted by JMShapiroThe * is just a "oh look at me making a PROFOUND statement about this famous match, feel the profundity."
You're probably right, but, IIRC, Scott wrote a rather long diatribe explaining the * in his rant of the PPV, which I'm sure can be dug out from somewhere in the 411 Archives.
If you really believe there was NO story to tell in the second Hell in A Cell match, then you obviously do not know what a story is. Following are a list of stories told in the Hell in a Cell at King of the Ring 98.
*The Hell in a Cell match is a career-ending life threatening event
*The Hell in a Cell has no rules, thus the match continued and the door was chain locked despite the near death of one of the participants
*The Undertaker was becoming sadistic, enjoying others pain. He threw Foley off the cell, through the cell and still came down to beat him some more --- and he was the FACE!
*Mankind has an unmatched pain threshhold. The man fell 15 feet through a table onto concrete, through the cage onto the mat and still almost won the match with the Mandible Claw. He possibly even enjoys the pain.
*The ongoing hatred between Mankind and the Undertaker knows no boundaries and they will not be through with each other until one or the other is completely incapacitated.
*The Undertaker is a sinister and very dangerous man in this particular match (Building on a story that started with Michaels and they finally capitilized with against Brock)
I just looked at this Monday's rant from Keith (I don't normally read his stuff because of idiotic things like this) and he gave Lita/Gail Kim * from RAW.
Now, regardless of workrate, regardless of anything else please justify to me why the Mankind/Undertaker Hell in a Cell match is no better than Gail Kim and Lita from RAW.
Originally posted by JMShapiroThe * is just a "oh look at me making a PROFOUND statement about this famous match, feel the profundity."
You're probably right, but, IIRC, Scott wrote a rather long diatribe explaining the * in his rant of the PPV, which I'm sure can be dug out from somewhere in the 411 Archives.
Originally posted by Scott KeithOkay, now for the major criticisms and why this is NOT a ****3/4 MOTYC.
- The actual moves done between the bumps were not well executed. The chokeslam through the cage was sloppy, with Mick basically falling backwards. UT did a pretty perfunctory tope, and then made the rookie mistake of blading in clear view of the camera. That's just sloppiness. Go back and watch Badd Blood (which is the next rant scheduled -- patience, friends, patience) and compare with Shawn's primo bladejob in mid-air.
- There was only a few actual wrestling moves done -- Legdrop, DDT, Mandible Claw, chokeslam, tombstone. UT-Shawn, the closest WWF match to compare with, had smaller bumps by Shawn, but more of them and more intense ones, with better wrestling and better brawling in between them.
- The chokeslam bump was an accident.
- Undertaker was working on a broken ankle and was very limited in his mobility.
Anyway, history has already judged this match as Match of the Year for 1998, but I thought Austin-Foley from Over the Edge was a better brawl, and Vince took just as good a bump at St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Foley bumping does not a match make, it just makes more money for the hospitals. My verdict: I'll be more generous than Herb and go *, but the "Holy shit" factor from first watching it is totally gone after numerous replays have killed the uniqueness of the original viewing.
I totally agree with Scott Keith's rating. Yes, the two big spots were great, and the tacks added to the brutality. But, in between, the match was technically a mess.
Oh, and why do we care so much about what Scott Keith rated a match? Hasn't Scott himself said numerous times that ratings are all subjective? Personally, I agree with Scott here. I've disagreed with him as well. Personally, I think he underrated the RVD/Lynn matches. But I can at least see where he's coming from and don't begrudge him for it. Ratings all determine on the viewer watching it. If you think Foley/Taker was a **** match, fine. Scott happens to think differently.
(edited by OMEGA on 10.6.04 1417)
The answer to WWE's financial problems...
Never 'Wiener of the Day', and is actually quite bitter about it.
I have to jump in here, because I have seen all of these matches and for my money, there is no best one. Sunday has the potential to be the best of the lot, but I am not holding my breath. Taker/Shawn is awesome for the storytelling ie Kane. It is also cool, because its the first time, we see it. The first time for anything is always the best one. I take issue with the HHH/Foley one, because you saw the ending a mile away. It had a good story, but you knew the outcome of the story minus the six-man cell, all the HHH ones have the same ending.
Taker/Brock was just brutal and it did more for Brock than anything else at that point which is a shame since their first match at No Mercy got booed out of the building. I do think for just sheer brutality this one and the first one got the message acroos, Hell in the Cell is a bitch. Taker's Cell matches not including Bossman have always been the best ones. He knows how to use that cage even at less than a 100%, which is no surprise since he built the damn thing.
Taker/Foley will always be remembered, no matter star you point in front of it. It did have a story or at least an accidential story which turned Taker heel and Foley face. I know it didn't happen over night, but it did cement Foley as a sympathatic character and probably got him a title, he never thought he'd see.
When we talk about matches, I do think we need to clarify what we are reviewing here. I know workrate is the measuring stick, the internet uses, but honestly workrate goes out the window when we have a clear image of something in our head and brings an emotion to us. The WWE is about images, Hogan bodyslaming Andre, Savage kissing Elizabeth, Shawn throwing Marty through the Barbershop window Foley being thrown off the cell, Benoit coming down from celebrating and seeing Eddie smiling. These are the images, that we will remember. Hell in the Cell has had a ton of these images probably more than any other match, thats why I love it. Unfortuantly, the only good image of the last four cell matches has been Brock bleeding holding the belt. They really need to cement this baby again.
While we're talking about the cell, does anyone remember during the Shawn/Taker match when there on top of the cell and a drop of blood drips onto the camera lens below and the camera man screams ''AH, SHIT!''. That has to be one of the funnier moments in wrestling history IMO.
I just saw something posted on 411 saying how GLAAD is pissed with the way the B&C wedding went down. Well, can you blame them? Why the hell did Vince go out of his way to try and create all this good publicity and then shoot himself in the foot?