Thoughts on the Iron Man Match

[Enigma 0]

I think a lot of you went in to this match to hate it. Its confusing to me - the WWE gives us WRESTLING - a whole damn show of WRESTLING and you bitch. If they gave us 100 skits, you'll bitch. If they give half and half, you bitch. Im no genius, but if i didnt enjoy ANYTHING any more id probably find something else to do at this point.

I went into this match unbelievably excited. I didn't read the spoilers for the first time since the Billy & Chuck Wedding and even cancelled a lot of plans I had with friends to stay home and watch this match.

 

And I was utterly disappointed.

[AnonymousBroccoli 0]

It seems like I'm in the middle class of fan here. The casual naturally won't like it, because it was too long and boring, and the hardcore want to tear it apart.

 

I really enjoyed the match, and the show as a whole. Accidentally ending up with a spoiler in my face wasn't much fun, but I think most people had the title change figured out anyhow.

 

As far as the legitimacy of the falls goes, you have to consider that in a typical match, there's only one fall to be had. So naturally, there's going to be a little more motivation to get yourself out of the situation. Whereas in an ironman, you have a limited freedom to say to yourself, "It's alright. I can rest for a minute, and get it back." With the superplex fall, consider this: A 6'4" 300 lb. dude brings you over and down to the mat, from 5 feet up on the ropes, after having wrestled for 45 minutes. Not to mention that whole ring breaking thing a few months ago. Sounds alright to me.

 

It may be a lot to ask after nearly an hour, but I think Kurt should have thrown in some other power moves in the last 2-3 minutes, while trying to get the tying fall. A fisherman's suplex, a single German with the pin, maybe a pile driver, or safe tiger or dragon suplex. Rolling Germans, while impressive, just don't get the crowd going. The last 20 seconds for the leglocked ankle lock was good, but it didn't seem like Angle was as desperate as he should have been for the rest of the finish.

 

The format of the show and its network hurt a little bit. The commercials were necessary, and I think they were spaced out well enough. Anything we missed was covered in replays, though they really should have shown the aforementioned Lesnar superplex as it happened. As much as Cole was selling the possibility of OT, I could just picture the head honchos of UPN affiliates thinking, "I'm not cutting into my news for this shit." The match airing in Raw's slot on Spike, with the legit possibility of an overrun might have helped.

 

The WrestleMania match let me down in the sense that it couldn't have lived up to its hype. Major injuries and Brock almost pulling a Foley IYH: Revenge of the Taker spot with the ring kept it from being really great in my eyes. I can appreciate and respect the effort and undoubtable suffering, but I don't have to love the match. This one lived up to my expectations. This is my favourite match of their feud to date, easily top 3 WWE MOTY, and top 5 that I've seen overall.

 

Since I'm not totally familiar with the apparent intricacies of the star ratings, on a scale where 2½ would be average, I'd easily give this a 4½-5/5.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

*sigh* It really doesn't matter anymore. This will probably win MOTY ahead of simply BETTER matches. Think about it - this is the fanbase that considered HHH/HBK and Taker/Jeff MOTYCs last year, and the Divas matches from InVasion and No Mercy MOTYCs two years ago.

 

Maybe I shouldn't post this link, considering it'll send some people here straight to a psychiatrist's chair. Oh, the hell with it.

 

"They.... they said such horrible things! I mean, I was ENTERTAINED by it! It was enough for me, shouldn't it be enough for EVERYONE?"

[CanadianChris 0]

I think a lot of you went in to this match to hate it.  Its confusing to me - the WWE gives us WRESTLING - a whole damn show of WRESTLING and you bitch.  If they gave us 100 skits, you'll bitch.  If they give half and half, you bitch.  Im no genius, but if i didnt enjoy ANYTHING any more id probably find something else to do at this point.

Not me. I actually rushed home so I could catch the start of this match, I was looking forward to it so much. The match was just a huge letdown. I was expecting a MOTY candidate, and we didn't get anything close to that...and this in a year where the field of MOTYCs is woefully thin.

 

It could have been so much better, and I'm not afraid to say so just because I might look like a jaded cynic.

[Jack_Bauer 0]

Match of the night was tag title match

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Neither team was particularly crisp in the tag title match. Not to say it wasn't good, but the match could have been better, IMO.

[iamsherm 0]

6)I appreciate the effort made by the WWE by giving us this Ironman match

This is where I chime in.

 

I have not seen the match, and probably never will, but I appreciate the effort as well. In an era of wrestling dominated by 3-5 minute matches and 20 minute interview sessions, it took BALLS to put this match on free TV. At the risk of stating the obvious there really was no telling how the audience would react to a 60 minute iron man match on a two hour show. If the ratings were good, then maybe the WWE will take that ball and run with it, but if not, then back to the drawing board. No harm done.

 

To quote Scott Keith, "thumbs WAY up." I hope they produce something fresh like this on consistent basis.

[The Tino Standard 0]

I'm kinda torn on this.

 

On the one hand, that match had SO much more potential. It seemed like the psychology was off and at times, they were holding back (injury related perhaps?).

 

I think holding back is a byproduct of not being sure how to pace yourself for a 60-minute match. Neither of those guys had wrestled that long before. I think back to when I ran cross country. I didn't know how to pace myself for races at first, but by senior year, I knew exactly when to kick it in and when to pace myself. I just wonder that if these guys got another crack at an Ironman Match if they wouldn't do some things different.

 

I'd rate that match last night 3 1/2 stars. 60 minutes, no outside interference, decisive finish and some semblence of a storyline (even if I didn't like what that story was), and some decent wrestling (not enough, but some nonetheless) = 3 1/2 for me.

 

So yeah, I had hoped for a lot more out of that match, especially after not reading the spoilers and just hearing "MOTY CANDIDATE!" a lot.

 

But I don't want to get too negative about that show at all. We got two title changes, an Ironman and an AWESOME tag title match... ON FREE TV. No bullshit promos in the ring, just a couple minimal skits backstage. That's a hell of a lot to get on a free show.

 

They just have to be careful with that because if people know they'll get shows that big in an "off month" for that brand (like this month, where SD has no PPV, but Raw does), then people might realize, "Hey, I don't need to buy a brand PPV because they'll deliver the same thing next month on free TV."

 

That's a fine line to walk.

[Guest Dynamite Kido]

I would give it ***1/4. I was definately entertained by it but found a few moments that were dry and boring. Overall, the match wasn't bad at all. I didn't like some of the finishes and the fact that Angle didn't defeat him decisively at all(or on any fall). If there would have been more WRESTLING involved, instead of the outside stuff the match would have gotten a better rating in my opinion.

[Guest thrall585]

This match gets no stars as an ironman wrestling match because overall it just sucked. However with all the outside stuff and brawling, it could be decent sports entertainment.

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

CanadianChris Posted on Sep 19 2003, 09:16 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE (nikowwf @ Sep 19 2003, 07:58 AM)

I think a lot of you went in to this match to hate it.  Its confusing to me - the WWE gives us WRESTLING - a whole damn show of WRESTLING and you bitch.  If they gave us 100 skits, you'll bitch.  If they give half and half, you bitch.  Im no genius, but if i didnt enjoy ANYTHING any more id probably find something else to do at this point. 

 

Not me. I actually rushed home so I could catch the start of this match, I was looking forward to it so much. The match was just a huge letdown. I was expecting a MOTY candidate, and we didn't get anything close to that...and this in a year where the field of MOTYCs is woefully thin.

 

ditto me on this. I woke up super early in the morning(like 6:30am) because I was so fucking excited at the prospect of seeing the first true Match Of The Decade Candidate from WWE.

 

God bless 'em for trying so hard, with a buildup that is obviously not the WWE norm, and the opportunity for just those two to settle it. Best match we're ever gonna get out of the "WWE Style"

[iliketurtles 0]

Hey, I was dissapointed in it...but I hope they get a 10.0 in ratings. It's certainly better then anything on Raw, and most of the undercard on Smackdown.

[Jack_Bauer 0]

i TOLD ya SK would give it ****

 

****1/4

 

Well, there ya go.

 

What an ass

[AndrewTS 0]

i TOLD ya SK would give it ****

 

****1/4

 

Well, there ya go.

 

What an ass

Plus, the rant was late because of...a Def Leppard concert.

 

What a wuss.

 

He says the weaknesses (which he does mention) brings down the ratings "a lot."--to ****1/4?!

 

Maybe he typoed and put an extra * in there.

Edited September 19, 2003 by AndrewTS

[Jack_Bauer 0]

Apparently, the last 30 minutes were excellent.

 

Eat me.

[Guest Retro Rob]

i TOLD ya SK would give it ****

 

****1/4

 

Well, there ya go.

 

What an ass

Same rating as the XIX match.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Could some explain to me how this was more than ***? Please, I beg of you. These guys get ** for competiting for 60 minutes, and * for the actual wrestling...or the lack thereof.

 

The first 10 minutes of Bret/Shawn in 96 was better than this.

[Internet Warfare 0]

There is no fucking way this is a MOTY canidate, it was **** at best.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

What was Keith talking about with the "I haven't seen Angle do a missile dropkick since 2000"??

 

He did two against the Big Show last December - once on a SD tag match, once at Armageddon.

[CanadianChris 0]

i TOLD ya SK would give it ****

 

****1/4

 

Well, there ya go.

 

What an ass

Plus, the rant was late because of...a Def Leppard concert.

 

What a wuss.

 

He says the weaknesses (which he does mention) brings down the ratings "a lot."--to ****1/4?!

 

Maybe he typoed and put an extra * in there.

I doubt it, since he found the match to be "fantastic."

 

I don't see how he could give it ****1/4 and say it wasn't a MOTYC in the same breath. Last I checked, **** was the threshold for MOTYCs, according to how the star ratings are supposed to work.

[Guest BionicRedneck]

Keith's an idiot. In his rant he described it as if it was a decent match and then gave it a rating that suggests it was great.

 

He basically said "The psych was crap and the first 30 minutes sucked. Good last 30. ****1/4"

 

God, Keith sucks.

[godthedog 0]

no. you suck.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

Star ratings are toss. Fact. There is absolutely no good argument for them at all.

[AndrewTS 0]

Star ratings are toss.  Fact.  There is absolutely no good argument for them at all.

Then devise a superior method of rating matches and I'll be all ears.

 

Unless you think that matches shouldn't be rated at all, in which case I think many of us are going to disagree.

 

Maybe we can go 1-10 ratings for crowd heat, psychology, workrate, smoothness of match flow (lack of awkward transitions or blown spots), etc. However, the star ratings are a more succint way of doing so, which is why they've stuck around.

[Guest BionicRedneck]

OK, just seen the Iron Man match and it was sure as hell no MOTYC.

 

It was fun in parts and had some nice sequences but was riddled with lot's of stalling, no real build, psych that was all over the place, inconsistent selling and some stuff that I just flat out hated. Such as the ref bump. It was totally uncalled for and when it's being billed as a such a big match (and the GM is in the back) shouldn't another ref have come down? Also, when did it become the new rule that you don't have to break the hold when your opponent reaches the ropes?

 

It was around ***s maybe, but nowhere near the level that it has been pimped.

 

The ad breaks sucked too.

[AndrewTS 0]

"Also, when did it become the new rule that you don't have to break the hold when your opponent reaches the ropes?"

 

I think you have until a count of 5 to release a hold when your opponent has the ropes. If not, the ref can disqualify you. So a smart wrestler keeps it on to a 4 count.

[Guest BionicRedneck]

Yeah, but I mean when Angle has the Ankle Lock on Lesnar, Lesnar makes the ropes and Kurt just keeps pulling him off. In the past the hold is broken.

[Guest Retro Rob]

Star ratings are toss.  Fact.  There is absolutely no good argument for them at all.

Then devise a superior method of rating matches and I'll be all ears.

How about words? Instead of giving a rating (which must be backed up by opinion), why not just give the opinion?

[The Tino Standard 0]

"Also, when did it become the new rule that you don't have to break the hold when your opponent reaches the ropes?"

 

I think you have until a count of 5 to release a hold when your opponent has the ropes. If not, the ref can disqualify you. So a smart wrestler keeps it on to a 4 count.

I think he meant like when Brock would grab the rope (which should get a release of the hold), only to have Angle pull him away. I don't really understand the rationale behind that either. I interpreted the rule to be if you just touch the rope, you don't get the hold broken. But once you grab the rope or have a limb clearly breaking the plane of the ropes, it should be a break.

[AndrewTS 0]

"Also, when did it become the new rule that you don't have to break the hold when your opponent reaches the ropes?"

 

I think you have until a count of 5 to release a hold when your opponent has the ropes.  If not, the ref can disqualify you.  So a smart wrestler keeps it on to a 4 count.

I think he meant like when Brock would grab the rope (which should get a release of the hold), only to have Angle pull him away. I don't really understand the rationale behind that either. I interpreted the rule to be if you just touch the rope, you don't get the hold broken. But once you grab the rope or have a limb clearly breaking the plane of the ropes, it should be a break.

I think that's only for pins, or video games. Might be a rule for Japan matches, like 20 counts before a ring out.

 

There's no actual WWE rule book for matches since they don't care much about the matches themselves. They'd break the rules anyway for an angle, but at least we would know.

 

How about words? Instead of giving a rating (which must be backed up by opinion), why not just give the opinion?

 

I think an opinion should be given anyway. However, it's hard to sum up an overall opinion easily. *'s allow you to compare matches to each other more easily.

 

I do see your point though. Ratings are often subjective, but there are clearly definable "good" matches and "bad" matches, so they aren't completely subjective.