Matches you never understood the love for.....?

Which critically acclaimed matches are overated?

Savage vs Steamboat Wrestlemania 3
Its a pretty solid match between two very good workers, but best match ever? Seriously it's just a bunch of near falls. I can't stand George the Animal Steele either.

Undertaker vs Triple H Wrestlemania 27
ECW style spot feast followed by a game of 'let's see who can kick out of each others finishers the most times'

Shawn Michaels vs Razor Ramon Wrestlemania 10
Watch this match today & boy has it aged badly.

Wrestlemania X-7
Edge and Christian vs. Dudleys vs. Hardys TLC match

Often put forward as the best match ever, decided to watch it, perhaps it's because I watched it out of context but I didn't think it was as amazing as people suggested. There were too many interferences for my tastes, and I didn't think it flowed that well, certainly not compared to some of the best Money in the Bank matches.

Undertaker v Sean Micheals WM 26

A good match, but not a great one espically compared to the year before. Made better in peoples memory's i think because of the average matches on the rest of the card, and the fact it was Seans last match.

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:Wrestlemania X-7
Edge and Christian vs. Dudleys vs. Hardys TLC match

Often put forward as the best match ever, decided to watch it, perhaps it's because I watched it out of context but I didn't think it was as amazing as people suggested. There were too many interferences for my tastes, and I didn't think it flowed that well, certainly not compared to some of the best Money in the Bank matches.

If you can watch TLC I from Summerslam 2000 (same participants) then I think that it is a better match. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTj0KGTK0QE

Vader Vs Michaels was one which i never quite got

Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant

Bret Hart vs Shawn Michaels WrestleMania XII

Two guys who had no interest in putting the other over for a complete hour, considering these two are near the top of best ever lists this was an abomination

the-gaffer wrote:Bret Hart vs Shawn Michaels WrestleMania XII

Two guys who had no interest in putting the other over for a complete hour, considering these two are near the top of best ever lists this was an abomination

Shocked it took so long for this one to be mentioned. It's very interesting what the say about this on the rivals DVD.

The whole 'Iron Man' gimmick killef it, if those two went out there and did a broadway people would call it a technical classic but because everyone knew it was lasting for an hour regardless people saw right through all the BS

Maybe but in the rivals DVD it doesn't come across as two guys not wantingto put each other over. The real tension started around early 97 anything before that was a work

Undertaker vs HHH - Wrestle Mania 2011

Hulk Hogan vs Mr Mcmahon - Wrestle Mania 2003

HBK vs Hulk Hogan - Summer Slam 2005

Shawn Michaels vs Ric Flair WM 24
Yes it was a good match but not incredible- mostly just chops and submission holds. Over-hyped IMO for being Flair's last match.

Brock Lesnar vs Kurt Angle WM 19
Again a decent match but certainly not worthy of WM main event status.

BloscarPit09-ASK_HIM wrote:
Brock Lesnar vs Kurt Angle WM 19
Again a decent match but certainly not worthy of WM main event status.

Are you for real?

Almost all of the 'Best matches ever' in ECW

Brady12 wrote:Maybe but in the rivals DVD it doesn't come across as two guys not wantingto put each other over. The real tension started around early 97 anything before that was a work

I've not watched the new DVD but I'd saythe WWE suger coat has been well glossed over it, the tension started well before 97, when HBK won the strap at WM12 his first sentence was to tell Bret to Friar tuck out of his ring, Bret had also been a leader in direct opposition to the clique from 95 onwards

I still love you though shagger so don't go killing me....

The Iron Man match at Wrestlemania 12 is definitely one. They were hamstrung by the fact that only 1 fall was going to decide it - allegedly because it wouldn't be 'realistic' for them to take numerous falls off each other.

Then when you look at the match itself they're still performing headlock takedowns on each other 30 minutes into it. I'm not saying they should have gone at it balls to the wall for 60 minutes, but for 2 of the best of all time in the prime of their careers, the match at WM 12 is kinda boring.

Another match I never understood the love for is the Hell in a Cell match between Triple H and Shawn Michaels at Bad Blood 2003.

HHH vs Taker @ this year's mania. I was actually planning to avoid any wrestling websites for a week or so after mania as I thought they would be jumping at the chance to rip into HHH and 'taker. Couldn't believe it when most of them labelled it a classic!

The whole thing went off too quick, ended too slow, was cluttered with big spots to hide (poorly) both wrestler's weaknesses and had so many near falls I just became numb to them near the end. Worst streak match at mania in years.

There are some matches which were never designed to be technical classics so can't be included (eg Hogan vs Andre), and others which I wasn't actually aware were particularly "rated" (Hogan vs McMahon). There are even more that I think are sometimes unfairly judged with hindsight. Savage vs Steamboat, viewed in 2011, is simply a good match but in 1987 was mind-blowing compared to the in-ring dross usually presented by the WWF. I agree about George Steele though, what a dreadful performer.

The three below are matches which I consider were all overrated at the time they took place, and continue to be overrated with hindsight.

My top three:

1) Undertaker vs Triple H WM27 - completely agree with your appraisal Brady, it was like numerous overrated ECW matches. Shortcut after shortcut, no psychology, and the two should have been embarrassed by the fact they can't have real matches any more, rather than lauded in most circles for having a great match.

2) Bret Hart vs Shawn Michaels, WM12 - this has always been number one for me, but it has been leapfrogged for the simple reason that Taker vs Triple H is so overrated! Just a really dull match, poor use of the match stipulation and a finish I consider to be one of the worst of all time (not the outcome, just the finish itself). Gaffer's right, there was definitely tension at the time of this match, and it drags the match down.

3) Hulk Hogan vs Ultimate Warrior, WM6 - now, I realise this is one of the best matches of either man's career, and on paper it might read like a classic, but in reality I think it was really, really boring. I also did not like the finish again, as it made Warrior's win look like a fluke. In general I think it was a match where the story is a good one but the execution is pedestrian and lacking any kind of grace or athleticism.

This might not go down well....

The Rock v Stone Cold at Wrestlemania 17.

Hated the finish, and i dont get why its regarded as a classic, it just didnt do it for me.

Mr H wrote:This might not go down well....

The Rock v Stone Cold at Wrestlemania 17.

Hated the finish, and i dont get why its regarded as a classic, it just didnt do it for me.

My opinion is that it was a good match which was totally destroyed by one of the lousiest finishes ever.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:

Mr H wrote:This might not go down well....

The Rock v Stone Cold at Wrestlemania 17.

Hated the finish, and i dont get why its regarded as a classic, it just didnt do it for me.

My opinion is that it was a good match which was totally destroyed by one of the lousiest finishes ever.

I agree, think that the WWE were trying far too hard to have a shocking heel turn to end the event on and needed some way of writing the Rock out of the storyline for a few months as he was filming his first movie.

It didn't make sense then, didn't make sense with the Invasion storyline that followed and looking back on it, still doesn't make sense (imo).

the-gaffer wrote:

Brady12 wrote:Maybe but in the rivals DVD it doesn't come across as two guys not wantingto put each other over. The real tension started around early 97 anything before that was a work

I've not watched the new DVD but I'd saythe WWE suger coat has been well glossed over it, the tension started well before 97, when HBK won the strap at WM12 his first sentence was to tell Bret to Friar tuck out of his ring, Bret had also been a leader in direct opposition to the clique from 95 onwards

I'll try post a link up of it when I get in. It's pretty compulsive viewing & I'm not sure it has the WWE tradional rewriting history tales all over it. It's simply Bret, Shawn & JR sat round talking.... About the 'get the f out of the ring' yeah this is a bit contridictory because Shawn says it was all script to build tension for a rematch, whereas Bret says he wasn't that bothered about that! Desire villifying in his book for it. Bret claims they spoke in the dressing room before the went out in Montreal withBret trying to patch up there differences & Michaels racked with guilt knowing what was coming next

Re WM17, I do think Austin had got a little bit stale. He'd returned in late 2000 after a year out from injury, and just didn't have the same spark that he'd had in 1996-99.

However, turning him heel wasn't sensible because not only was he too popular, but the reason for his popularity was that he acted so heelish! To make the fans boo him, the WWF had to change the entire constitution of his character, and give him a complete personality transplant.

In addition, it was perhaps wrestling's greatest example of "wrong time, wrong place"; they were in Texas! And with The Rock about to depart for a few months' filiming in Hollywood, it left the WWF with no top babyface where they'd previously had two of the hottest the industry had ever seen.

Maybe if his heel turn had done huge business, the WM17 match would be remembered as a bigger deal. But it was a critical and financial flop, and neither the company nor Austin have ever again reached the same heights that he did in his record-breaking first babyface run. Indeed, when he later turned back to being a babyface, he quickly evolved into the heavy-handed parody Austin character that remains to this day.

Maybe the WWF would have been better off creating new opponents for Austin to work with, and freshening up his act without comprimising the traits that had made him so popular in the first place.

Is the Rivalries DVD out then? I didn't realise it had been released yet. A link would be great Brady!

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:Re WM17, I do think Austin had got a little bit stale. He'd returned in late 2000 after a year out from injury, and just didn't have the same spark that he'd had in 1996-99.

However, turning him heel wasn't sensible because not only was he too popular, but the reason for his popularity was that he acted so heelish! To make the fans boo him, the WWF had to change the entire constitution of his character, and give him a complete personality transplant.

In addition, it was perhaps wrestling's greatest example of "wrong time, wrong place"; they were in Texas! And with The Rock about to depart for a few months' filiming in Hollywood, it left the WWF with no top babyface where they'd previously had two of the hottest the industry had ever seen.

Maybe if his heel turn had done huge business, the WM17 match would be remembered as a bigger deal. But it was a critical and financial flop, and neither the company nor Austin have ever again reached the same heights that he did in his record-breaking first babyface run. Indeed, when he later turned back to being a babyface, he quickly evolved into the heavy-handed parody Austin character that remains to this day.

Maybe the WWF would have been better off creating new opponents for Austin to work with, and freshening up his act without comprimising the traits that had made him so popular in the first place.

Would you have kept the belt on Kurt Angle all the way to WrestleMania then? Given that the whole Invasion storyline (particularly the early bit) was Austin v Angle it would have given them a real reason to fight then. Or, Austin beat Angle at RR and HHH win the Rumble to set up the decider for Austin in revenge for the hit and run.

It's all hypothetical Josh, but I think there were many fresh heel opponents waiting for Austin when he returned in late 2000, and the WWF didn't take advantage of most of those opponents.

You had Triple H, who had established himself as a great heel in Austin's absense. Then there was Angle, who appeared on the verge of being a top star. Benoit, Jericho and Eddie were all a notch below but could have had decent 2-3 month feuds with him (especially if aligned with Vince McMahon). Kane and Big Show had never had fully-fledged feuds with Austin. There was also the small matter of Brock Lesnar waiting in the wings as a future opponent (even a year or two before his debut, they knew they wanted to do big things with him).

Plus, it would have been a late call, but at WM17 the company had just bought WCW, and ECW had folded. So there was a lot more talent available (and others who would be available at the right price, or once their contracts expired) if the WWF felt they didn't have any good potential "in-house" opponents for Austin.

I think the WWF could have easily kept Angle and Austin apart until WM18, with Angle as a long-standing champion. It also would have probably turned Angle into a bigger draw, thus helping the company in the longer term.

Probably getting off topic now though!

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:Is the Rivalries DVD out then? I didn't realise it had been released yet. A link would be great Brady!

Yeah pal... I've bookmarked it at home so I'll post the link on here when I get in from work... I found it on some Asian website

What was the deal with Lesnar/Austin?
I've heard very mixed reports on that, some saying Austin wouldn't job to him and it ended up being the Rock that was the fall guy to get Lesnar over, some saying Austin was never meant to be involved.

As far as I know Lesnar was schedueled to go over Austin on Raw in a match that had zero buid up. Austin who was said to have been very paranoid over his character refused & left the company. I don't think Austin had an issue putting over Lesnar just not in a worthless throwaway tv match

Has Austin ever convinvingly put anyone over? Aside from The Rock at mania 19 and Trips in early 2001 I cant think of anyone.

Samo wrote:Has Austin ever convinvingly put anyone over? Aside from The Rock at mania 19 and Trips in early 2001 I cant think of anyone.

Did Austin put HHH over in 2001? My memory probably fails me but during the "Two Man Power Trip" phase HHH was most definitely the junior partner. Also, given that Austin had beaten Rock at WM 15 and 17 he was hardly taking one for the team at 19.

Who went over in the 3 Stages of Hell at NWO that year? I remember them both falling at the same time, but I can't remember who landed on top of who!

liverbnz wrote:Who went over in the 3 Stages of Hell at NWO that year? I remember them both falling at the same time, but I can't remember who landed on top of who!

Was Trips who landed on Austin.

When Triple H won the 3 Stages of Hell was he not like the first guy to beat Austin clean in about 4 years or something?

AberdeenSteve wrote:

BloscarPit09-ASK_HIM wrote:
Brock Lesnar vs Kurt Angle WM 19
Again a decent match but certainly not worthy of WM main event status.

Are you for real?

Yes, and while I do respect the fact that it's a very popular match and many do like it, there was something missing for me, I just couldn't quite get in to it (admittedly I did first see it on a DVD, already aware of the outcome, which may not have helped).

I think Warrior/Hogan is a classic and is text book in how to manipulate the crowd

I also think WrestleMania XVII should have been Austin/Triple H and Rock/Taker

theundisputedY2D2 wrote:When Triple H won the 3 Stages of Hell was he not like the first guy to beat Austin clean in about 4 years or something?

I think so yeah. I dont understand how Triple H gets nothing but abuse for "Not putting talent over" when Austin was just as guilty. Infact, Triple H has probably put more over than people give him credit for.