OAO No Way Out Thread, Feb/19th/2006

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

the main event for SD is Angle/Taker/Henry/Orton for the title

 

Oh..I'm not sure if it was mentioned, but Orton had the flu or something the past couple of weeks and still hasn't got over it.

 

Ya know, the flu is a very bad thing. It could spread and get the entire locker room sick as well. I mean, It could wipe out the entire smackdown side.

 

Randy Orton needs to step up and take a well deserved six week break to heal from the flu.

Naw- Johnny Ace knew all about it, no problem.

 

I hate to see what will happen when a wrestler has diarrhea or Irritable bowel syndrome and Ace still makes him wrestle.

[Silence 0]

I hate to see what will happen when a wrestler has diarrhea or Irritable bowel syndrome and Ace still makes him wrestle.

 

Johnny Ace would find it hilarious for that wrestler to pull a Sid, I would think.

[Wrestlefreak 0]

Well, I downloaded that Angle/UT match, and it certainly lived up to the hype it's been getting. This match happened about 5 years later than it needed to, because it put Angle over HUGE. He dominated most of the match and got smart, clean win (kinda reminded me of the Bret/Austin SS 96 finish). Good story telling, psychology and move execution from both guys.

 

Gets a solid **** 1/4 from me. Best WWE match since Lesnar/Eddie. No Way Out gets lossed in the RR/WM shuffle, but it usually delivers with at least one stand-out match.

 

Agreed!

[Hawk 34 0]

I have watched the match three times now since my inital viewing of it and my stance still stands.

 

It was an excellent match that really had flaws that noticable and that took it away. Could they improve? I think they left the door slightly open to blow that match away and step up to another level.

 

This match is easily among the top 5 matches of each men's career and it might inch near the top for 'Taker.

 

I still think Lesnar/Eddie was the last great WWE match that hit a legitimate ****1/2. (WWE only has 2 matches from me, to touch 5 stars). I don't want to give sunday's match a star rating right now but it easily beat everything since 2004's NWO that WWE had to offer.

[Guest Dr Stupid]

I have watched the match three times now since my inital viewing of it and my stance still stands.

 

It was an excellent match that really had flaws that noticable and that took it away. Could they improve? I think they left the door slightly open to blow that match away and step up to another level.

 

This match is easily among the top 5 matches of each men's career and it might inch near the top for 'Taker.

 

I still think Lesnar/Eddie was the last great WWE match that hit a legitimate ****1/2. (WWE only has 2 matches from me, to touch 5 stars). I don't want to give sunday's match a star rating right now but it easily beat everything since 2004's NWO that WWE had to offer.

 

 

 

Seconded.

This match got me so involved, something WWE hasn't been able to do since 2004 NWO main event, or WMXX both main events. I'm not real good with star ratings, but it would be closer to **** for me.

Also, it's got me really excited about Angle as champ. There's no way he can drop it at WM. Also Taker earned his place in the ME scene. If he's not somehow involved in the title match at WM, he should be with some younger guy that he can make look good (or Benoit). I just don't know if there's one available in Smackdown.

 

I think, with at least one promo, it will be clear that Angle was bridging while the pin was counted. I'd like to see this played into one of the rematches. Maybe the 2/3 falls idea, but have the last fall submission only. Angle can somehow make it non-title. Taker makes Angle submit, maybe pulling out a few other holds just so it doesn't become the same thing over and over. If Benoit can be free from the US title, he can come along saying that he could be the one to finally make Taker submit. Hey presto, Taker/Benoit at WM.

 

(The only thing a bit worrying about that idea to me is, Angle should still look strong. I wouldn't want him jobbing right before WM.)

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

I just wanted to point out Michael Cole is an idiot, because Angle has tapped out before, to the Crossface.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

Well, I just watched Angle/UT for the first time and dug it immensely.

 

UT bringing out the speed and psychology early on was a breathe of fresh air, really, as they took the first half of the match to show that both men could play mat games and brawling. I think this match went a long way in showing that Angle owns the mat and Taker owns the fisticuffs, but that when push comes to shove, Angle is as good a brawler as UT is a technician.

 

I didn't mind the multiple count breaks late in the match, especially when Taker used Kurt's downed body for the first one leading into the first anklelock spot (it doesn't matter that Kurt grabbed the good leg the first time, as it was totally a desperation thing on his part) and the later break that saw Kurt about to win the match, only to want it in the ring.

 

That little move almost proved costly though, which played into both Angle's competitive spirit and Taker's ability to come back at damn near any amount. Even his situp wasn't so much a no-sell in this instance as it played out more like adrenaline, as he didn't continue no-selling after the sit (and it helped that Angle went crazy seconds before to really show how pumped up both men were).

 

I didn't think Taker should have gone to the top rope toward the end, especially with a bad wheel. He's no RVD, ya know. A veteran like Taker would have kept it standing, regardless of the situation. I also hated Cole bringing up Angle's neck every ten seconds during the early stages on the match. That drove me insane. I did, however, like Tazz trying to put over the Triangle Choke as deadly.

 

 

Both men sold the beatings extremely well, especially toward the end. I saw no problem with them trading holds, signature moves, and finishers late, as it really became acts of desperation and opportunity. Angle kicks out chokeslam, Taker goes for Tombstone. That gets reversed, he goes back to the choke which worked earlier on in the match (Kurt only barely made the ropes with his foot). Angle's Slam attempts were simply opportunity knocking even when it was clear he was setting his sights on the Lock any chance he could get it.

 

The ending was beautiful, as I could see there is a definite possibility Taker thought that Angle's shoulders were down in the bridge and was too concentrated on the hold to realize at that very moment that his shoulders had been pinned as well.

 

 

I have absolutely no problem with a rematch between the two, as this was fantastic with very few flaws. Even some of the botches or little mishaps played well into the story of them both just being tired and hurt and doing whatever it would take to win the title. I don't even think they would have to make the next match No-DQ...but a No Countout stip would be fine, as I don't think they would abuse it because it really wasn't abused here. They told a great story and it really could set up a longer feud and really makes me believe that if Orton wins the belt at Mania that it will become Angle/UT for a number one contenders spot and Rey/Orton to fill some time and maybe even give Rey the belt. I wouldn't mind seeing Rey get the belt if it led to Rey vs. Angle and then a part three of a 2006 Angle/UT feud into SurSer.

 

 

****. Definitely.

[Guest Dam(o)nYankees]

I just wanted to point out Michael Cole is an idiot, because Angle has tapped out before, to the Crossface.

And Undertaker tapped to a triangle choke.

 

IRONY~!

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

I just wanted to point out Michael Cole is an idiot, because Angle has tapped out before, to the Crossface.

And Undertaker tapped to a triangle choke.

 

IRONY~!

 

When was this? Was it the summer of 02?

[Hawk 34 0]

I second the Cole sentiments. It has been 7 years now and he hasn't improved at all. If anything, he has regressed.

 

The only thing Cole can do well is the J.R style hyperbole. Other then that, he still can't call a match, is still a douche, still doesn't know 1/2 the names of the moves and basically everything else.

 

Tazz and Matthews were a great combo, during that short lived period on Velocity.

 

Anyways, does anyone like the idea of UT/Angle having a rematch on 3/3 that leads to a 30 minute draw or a double submission (similar to a double pin, but only with a submission) leading to a no time limit "Submission" match for SNME?

[Dangerous A 0]

Michael Cole still sucks.

 

 

That is all.

[Guest Dam(o)nYankees]

I just wanted to point out Michael Cole is an idiot, because Angle has tapped out before, to the Crossface.

And Undertaker tapped to a triangle choke.

 

IRONY~!

 

When was this? Was it the summer of 02?

Yeah. Angle triangle choked him into submission during a double pin.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I think we could get a bunch of good matches out of them.

 

A time limit draw. 2/3 falls (no gimmicks needed, just straight-up 2/3 falls). And an I Quit match. The I Quit match would draw, IMO, on the basis of seeing either guy say "I Quit" since it has been an integral part of their feud that neither guy has given up.

[Hawk 34 0]

I just wanted to point out Michael Cole is an idiot, because Angle has tapped out before, to the Crossface.

And Undertaker tapped to a triangle choke.

 

IRONY~!

 

When was this? Was it the summer of 02?

Yeah. Angle triangle choked him into submission during a double pin.

 

The fact they didn't even mention that or the match (at least I don't remember them saying anything about it) really bothered me. I can understand that they are trying to make it look like UT has never tapped before because that was a couple years ago and they don't expect fans to remember that.

 

It takes 20 seconds to mention that and adds a whole other dimension to the match that some might not have remembered.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

They didn't mention _anything_ about their past. Nothing about Fully Loaded 00, or Survivor Series 00, or their Smackdown match, or the pin/tap, or the Vengeance 02 match, or the Armageddon 00, 6 way HIAC... they have a pretty deep history and it wasn't brought up at all. Doesn't really bother me, though, because the match was self-contained.

[Hawk 34 0]

I think we could get a bunch of good matches out of them.

 

A time limit draw. 2/3 falls (no gimmicks needed, just straight-up 2/3 falls). And an I Quit match. The I Quit match would draw, IMO, on the basis of seeing either guy say "I Quit" since it has been an integral part of their feud that neither guy has given up.

 

It's that stupid pesky, Randy Orton who is in the way right now from letting them have a great series of matches. The title isn't really neccesary, at this point for UT/Angle. It's basically about, "who is better?"

 

The Dead-Man no feels no pain vs The Wrestling Machine. Do a rematch on 3/3 smackdown, straight up match. Goes 30 minute draw. Each men are even throughout the match, Angle is cautious to avoid getting into the choke again, knowing it took sheer luck to counter it at the end of NWO. Undertaker is aggresive, knowing that Angle's counter isn't going to be effective now. It forces each men to find new counters to the AL03 and Triangle Choke.

 

They meet again for round 3 @ SMNE in a "submission" match, that results in a double submission finish (but not a double-pass out). Since they are going with Mysterio/Orton/Angle for Mania, Angle is the odd man out really. Mysterio will probably win just for the sentimential moment and get a Benoit run with the title.

 

You can easily push Taker/Angle to Judgment Day to blow off that series in a 2/3 falls or "I Quit" match.

[hyperchord24 0]

So, with all the talk about how great this match was, when do you think an Angle DVD will be in the works?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

SNME would be the perfect place (and also the worst place) for a time limit draw, because -since it's on NBC and they have to have strict guidelines for time- it would make more sense to have time limits then than it would be to have it on any old Smackdown!. It would be less obvious. The negative is that such a long match might turn off the viewer at home and a draw might be considered a waste of time and a let down (but then again, if done right, it could make people want to see the rematch even more).

 

I don't think they should have a "submission" match, mainly because an I Quit match is too similar and it's more over, so why not just leave it at an I Quit? I also don't think either guy should tap out up to this point because of the way their last match went. It's been established the lengths these two would go at this point to not tap out, so the tap out should be the final point in their feud, not something along the way. Granted, each guy has tapped out before, but 2006 is a different year, different circumstances, more on the line and whatnot.

[Downhome 0]

I just remembered a topic I did last year, where I talked about a house show I went to, and Taker/Angle was the main event in what was one of the best matches I've ever seen live, if not the best.

 

Looking over their history together, I'm actually shocked to see that they've never had a one-on-one match with some sort of gimmick involved. Am I wrong about this?

[World's Worst Man 0]

I must say, Angle vs. UT was booked brilliantly. If Angle was anything better than "above-average" and UT was better than "suck", it would have been a great match. Some of the counters were great and the build to the moves was great and the finish was fantastic (ie, the pre-planned/booked stuff), but there seemed to be a lot of uninteresting/irrelevant filler stuff in the middle (stuff probably done on the fly). Still, I thought it was a really good match, probably the 2nd best I've seen from WWE this year.

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

I must say, Angle vs. UT was booked brilliantly. If Angle was anything better than "above-average" and UT was better than "suck"

 

Wow, UT-Angle put on a great match, and a smart finds a way to bash Angle and Taker without bashing the match.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Wow, a mark who is offended that I don't think Angle and UT are good workers. You don't get around much do you?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Why aren't they good workers?

 

Because Taker doesn't execute moves perfectly? Yet is able to get the crowd up from simple gestures? What exactly is more important for a worker to do: Execute moves, or Get a crowd excited and believing in certain things (also known as working the crowd)? Because Angle didn't sell his arm?

 

Go fuck yourself. You completely missed the point of that match. You are trying to use your own criteria for judging a match and since that match doesn't fall perfectly in-line with that criteria it has to be that match is seriously flawed, not that your criteria is. There are different ways to look at wrestling, this one went beyond the little details and involved something deeper. I'll gladly take a match like this which sacrifices bodywork for a greater story being told.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

I barely noticed any non-selling of Angle and his arm. Since it was his left arm and most of his punches and other things were down with his right... Usually if he did something that used his left arm (the irish whip on the outside) it got reversed or in the case of the superB2Bplex left both men down for a considerable time that noticable selling wasn't possible. Any other time it came into play was him hooking in the Anklelock or being himself put into the Choke.

[World's Worst Man 0]

I missed the point of the match? Even though I said it was really good? When did you turn into a whiney fanboy? For a guy who nitpicks the shit out of indy wrestling, your criteria is pretty soft for other promotions. Use your friggin head. If the gap-filler stuff doesn't matter, why even pay attention to the match? Do you just phase out 5 minutes into the match and start paying attention during the stretch run? If I'm comparing two matches, both of which are relatively equal in terms of story/build/selling, I'm obviously going to say the match with the better body-work was better. It's a no-fucking-brainer. So if I say Angle-UT is great, then a match with more or less equal story and better body-work (Rey-Eddy from June for instance) becomes really great. And that pretty much ends up at the top of the scale, even though I've seen much better matches. Seems kind of pointless. So yea, to me Angle vs. UT was very good and not great because while it had great story and build, it wasn't rock-solid from start to finish, whereas great matches are.

 

Whine about criteria all you want. At least I apply the same criteria to all wrestling I see, rather than selectively deciding what to praise and what to bash based on which promotion is producing the wrestling. After that, it's really just a matter of comparing a match to others to decide where I rank it.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Was this Undertaker's first clean loss with no gimmicks?

 

And no, SummerSlam 98 doesn't count.

[Hawk 34 0]

Was this Undertaker's first clean loss with no gimmicks?

 

And no, SummerSlam 98 doesn't count.

 

I thought Foley won one of those matches clean in '96 but I'm not sure. I'm sure he has before on house shows and forgotten tv shows but on a large scale like a ppv main event? I can't recall.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I missed the point of the match? Even though I said it was really good? When did you turn into a whiney fanboy? For a guy who nitpicks the shit out of indy wrestling, your criteria is pretty soft for other promotions.

 

First, I don't have a set criteria. I tried to think of one a few years back and I simply couldn't, and then I realized that it's fruitless. Anyone who does doesn't know a whole heckuvalot about professional wrestling. Wrestling is not meant to fit any mold, there is no predetermined point of greatness or quality because wrestling's primary function isn't about quality. Wrestling is about making people believe, and selling an arm the whole way through isn't mutually exclusive with this principle. In theory it is, but in reality it simply isn't.

 

You see a match, you like it. You wonder why you liked it. You don't have a check list and then evaluate it afterwards to see if you liked it. The reasons why you liked one match may not necessarily cross-over to other matches, and guess what? A match can give you new reasons to like something as well. There isn't an indy match that I've seen that did the same thing Taker and Angle did at NWO. It's a bit of a laugh that you think I play favourites, though, with the WWE in particular.

 

Use your friggin head. If the gap-filler stuff doesn't matter, why even pay attention to the match?

 

Disagreed. The majority of the match played into the overall storyline between the two. A lot of the match was built around the two fighting on the outside and which lead to the key moment of Angle telling the ref to stop the count. That moment was key in developing the finish. Other stuff that you write off as "filler", like I suppose you'd say Takers arm work was, was done as high spots to pop the crowd (the arm-lift spot and Old school), so even that served a purpose. I know, it's crazy, factoring the crowd in...

 

Do you just phase out 5 minutes into the match and start paying attention during the stretch run? If I'm comparing two matches, both of which are relatively equal in terms of story/build/selling, I'm obviously going to say the match with the better body-work was better.

 

Why would you compare two matches? Especially two that were trying to achieve two different objectives? And what does "relatively equal" mean? And are those three categories related or something? I just find this whole paragraph to have a lot of stupid things in it, which is ironic.

 

"Well, X match was a 5.2 on the story scale, a 5.3 on the build scale, and a 5.1 on the selling scale, which was relatively equal to match Y, but match Y was a 5.5 on the bodywork scale whereas match X was a 2.3"

 

Silly silly silly.

 

You missed the point of the limb work and you are holding it against the match. The problem here is you only are looking at it from one perspective, which isn't very surprising. The limb work served a purpose. Period. Just because it didn't serve a purpose in the way you see things doesn't mean that it didn't. It helped in developing the overall story between the two and directly influenced the finish, in my eyes. That end stretch was not independent of the match, what they did before that helped in getting them there.

 

It's a no-fucking-brainer. So if I say Angle-UT is great, then a match with more or less equal story and better body-work (Rey-Eddy from June for instance) becomes really great. And that pretty much ends up at the top of the scale, even though I've seen much better matches. Seems kind of pointless.

 

And then terror breaks loose on the streets of London and chaos erupts because you said one was great and that meant the other was really great! AAAAHHH!! Silly, silly, silly. Angle/Taker was a story-driven match. It's hard to compare story-driven matches, and I can imagine especially hard for you, because there are two areas of concern - one is "which story did you prefer" and "which match told the story better". I seriously doubt that Guerrero/Reys story was better than Taker/Angles, partially because people tend to overrate both guys' stuff over the past year, and partially because Taker/Angles was so good and unusually complex for the WWE.

 

So yea, to me Angle vs. UT was very good and not great because while it had great story and build, it wasn't rock-solid from start to finish, whereas great matches are.

 

Great matches don't have to be "rock-solid", I don't even know what that means, even. I imagine it has something to do with technical matters which are rather irrelevant unless what made that match great was it's use of technique. The definition of great doesn't necessarily include the word "quality", which is something a lot of people tend to mistaken it for.

 

Whine about criteria all you want. At least I apply the same criteria to all wrestling I see, rather than selectively deciding what to praise and what to bash based on which promotion is producing the wrestling.

 

Which is just about the dumbest thing you can do with wrestling, not the promotions part which is you being a fucking retard, but the "using the same criteria to all wrestling I see".

 

I understand your point about limbwork and continuity and all that, I've made that case before for several matches and in one way you are on point, but there is more than one way to skin a cat and in another way you couldn't be further from the point. In fact, you are on Mars when it comes to that point.

 

After that, it's really just a matter of comparing a match to others to decide where I rank it.

 

How do you rank a match that is great in one area against a match that is great in another? Do you weigh them? Do they then become equal? Does a great brawl score higher or lower than a great grappling match? If one match uses a cravate better than another match, but that other match uses a straight headlock better, which match is the better one? How about arm work vs. leg work... do they get even points? Where does the tie breaker go? "Decide where I rank it", fucking hell, go over and jerk off with the boys at Smarkschoice.

[World's Worst Man 0]

You see a match, you like it. You wonder why you liked it. You don't have a check list and then evaluate it afterwards to see if you liked it. The reasons why you liked one match may not necessarily cross-over to other matches, and guess what? A match can give you new reasons to like something as well. There isn't an indy match that I've seen that did the same thing Taker and Angle did at NWO. It's a bit of a laugh that you think I play favourites, though, with the WWE in particular.[/b]

 

I see a match, I like it. I explain why I like it. It's really as simple as that, even if you want to make it seem like some big, technical analysis. So I go in expecting some very basic, fundamental and general things. Cry me a fucking river, because everyone does that to some degree or another. I can just put it into words, when a lot of people either can't or don't want to.

 

Why would you compare two matches? Especially two that were trying to achieve two different objectives? And what does "relatively equal" mean? And are those three categories related or something? I just find this whole paragraph to have a lot of stupid things in it, which is ironic.

 

Maybe some people like discussing and comparing wrestling matches? Did that ever occur to you? What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you one of those idiots who bitch about people who discuss wrestling on some intelligent level? Fuck off. People who do that do it because they enjoy watching wrestling with their brain turned on and then discussing it. It's as simple as that.

 

You missed the point of the limb work and you are holding it against the match. The problem here is you only are looking at it from one perspective, which isn't very surprising. The limb work served a purpose. Period. Just because it didn't serve a purpose in the way you see things doesn't mean that it didn't. It helped in developing the overall story between the two and directly influenced the finish, in my eyes. That end stretch was not independent of the match, what they did before that helped in getting them there.[/b]

 

Typical. "It served a purpose". That's pretty general there. Indy guys doing contrived matwork "serves a purpose". Yet you don't seem to like that too much. Double standards. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. And a little pretentious.

 

Which is just about the dumbest thing you can do with wrestling, not the promotions part which is you being a fucking retard, but the "using the same criteria to all wrestling I see".

 

I only look for general, fundamental things in all forms of wrestling. Things that if they were to be lacking, you don't really have pro-wrestling. Anything past that is completely dependant on the style. I actually did a blog entry and a post at NMB about that, so maybe do some resarch next time you "fucking retard"

 

 

How do you rank a match that is great in one area against a match that is great in another? Do you weigh them? Do they then become equal? Does a great brawl score higher or lower than a great grappling match? If one match uses a cravate better than another match, but that other match uses a straight headlock better, which match is the better one? How about arm work vs. leg work... do they get even points? Where does the tie breaker go? "Decide where I rank it", fucking hell, go over and jerk off with the boys at Smarkschoice.

 

It's simply a matter of putting things together and making a judgment call. Comparing different styles of wrestling can be done if one knows what to look for and what not to look for in a given style. Which is actually what I've said in the past, but by all means, continue under the assumption that I'm only looking for one style of pro-wrestling in every match I see. I'll continue to think you're a "watch with your brains turned off and bitch and cry about people who intelligently discuss wrestling" moron.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I haven't read your reply yet, but I have something to say first.

 

You are not an idiot MisawaGQ. You are one of the smarter posters here. I am not saying this to patronize or talk down to you or anything like that, it's honest. I just strongly disagree with the whole criteria and ranking thing, because the way I see wrestling is much different from that and IMO is closer to what wrestling really is. Smart people can say stupid things, so that should explain my mini troll job The idea that there is a fixed, constant, criteria in professional wrestling, to me, is absurd. Because in the past 5 years, I have probably looked at wrestling a dozen different ways and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

I just got done reading a thread that went on and on and on and on, on why people disagree with each other and the motivations behind the disagreement. And 99% of it I rolled my eyes at. I think a problem with a lot of people is they look at a wrestler or a wrestling match and they ignore what is happening and they focus on what isn't, and if it doesn't have this and this and this, then it's a bad match. To me, a great story is sufficient enough to be great match. Because great stories are rare. Other things are sufficient enough to be a great match, to me, as well. We probably look at Hogan/Andre totally different. I know we look at Angle/Benoit differently.

 

I think half of our disagreements comes in our language and how we define certain things like "greatness" and "worker" and even "wrestler". I think the other half, which relates to the first half, comes in on how we look at wrestling. A wrestler can do a move and we see two totally different things. And we have our reasons for thinking that way. And, to me, the real discussion lies in our different perspectives and sharing them, rather than the minute details and grand lists.

 

Anyways, don't expect a response from your post above any time today. I felt kinda crabby after I wrote my first reply and I find it kinda lame that a messageboard post made me feel that way. Gimmie a day or so to get removed from it and I'll look at it with a different attitude. Respond to this post and I'll chatter back.