Overrated/Your least favorite gimmick match!

[HMARK Center]

As we all know, any gimmick match, if booked and run correctly, can be done effectively, with the exception of some Wrestlecrappy ones, ala Viagra on a Pole/Kennel From Hell/etc.

With that being said, what's the gimmick match that, any time you hear it mentioned, you initially have a bad reaction? Again, not counting anything obvious, like most WCW gimmick matches from the later years or anything RD would automatically induct. Let's stick with the standards.

For me, it's Iron Man matches. Some people put them across as the greatest test of technical wrestling skill/endurance imaginable, but there are a few things that annoy me about them.

For starters, the ending: we know what's going to happen! It's going to be a one pin difference, and it'll be a mad scramble to the end!

Secondly, the reasons they're often booked for. Again, any gimmick match can work if the booking behind it lends itself to that kind of match. For example, it makes sense for BJ Whitmer's personal war against CZW to end with a barbed wire match against Necro, since that's the weapon that was used most often on BJ. It made sense for Benoit and Angle to have a submission match, since they were fighting over who was the better submission expert.

But Ironman matches are rarely done with a logical booking point in mind. The initial AJ vs. Daniels iron man match in TNA, which was good, was never booked towards needing a stipulation like that. It just feels pointless.

Maybe an Iron Man match makes sense in a feud where two guys keep besting one another, so there's no conclusive "better man"...ergo, toss 'em in the ring for 30-60 minutes and see who racks up the most wins.

But most of the time, there's not that much thought put into them.

Finally, I just feel they don't usually deliver. I've seen some good ones, but they're never as good as a straight-up, no gimmick 30-60 minute match usually can be. The unpredictability of a no-gimmick lengthy match gives it the advantage, in my eyes.

Anyway, that's enough from me. What say you, intrepid readers?

[Arthur Digby Stamp]

Strap matches.

No gimmick match is more of a turn off to me then a strap match. The "touching the four corners" rule seems like a silly way to end a match, and the ending is always a variation of "One guy touches 3 of the turnbuckles, but doesn't see that his opponent has too".

[jayjaystyles]

the 30 minute 2/3 falls match between The Rock and HHH at Fully Loaded 98. it ended in a tie, with the Intercontinental strap on the line........same old Vince Russo crap. The Rock and British Bulldog bullrope match, yeah that wasnt crap or anything, in real life Davey Boy wouldve knocked The Crocks block off with the cowbell and pinned him while he was ko'ed. crap indeed.

[Mozenrath]

Strap matches make no sense, I agree.

Also, I dislike "-on a pole" matches. Now, they sometimes fit a fued, but they usually seem to be done for the hell of it. Also, I really don't get the logic. So, are you the only one allowed to get the weapon, with DQ as normal otherwise? If not, why not just slide out and grab a chair while they're distracted, wail on them, then take the weapon?

[Mr. Mediocre]

I'm also not a fan of Iron Man matches. Now, I love it in ROH when a match goes 60. But I prefer to not know in advance that it goes to 60. I also think that the predictable one fall difference ending makes it trite.

Now, if someone won with a 2 or 3 fall difference - or even shut the other guy out (not 1-0), that'd be something.

[Shy Guy]

iron matches because of the length. if you say something is going to be sixty minutes, it's going to feel longer. when its kind of out of the blue like the punk\joes matches, then it doesn't feel as long because it wasn't something you'd expect.

[Johnny]

I dislike cage matches very much

[metylerca]

I think Ultimate X has been used to the point where calling it overrated is actually an accurate statement. Sure, the matches are usually great, but off the top of my head I can only say that 3 or 4 of them had any real build up to the point where Ultimate X was the only type of match to have...

[pegasuswarrior]

Oh? You want to talk about silly ways to end matches? Pointless booking? Nothing makes me roll my eyes and lose all interest than hearing WWE announce an upcoming Steel Cage Match. O.K., so you got two guys that hate each other so much, that want to rip each other apart SO MUCH, that would rather die than see the other live SO MUCH that they exact revenge and ultimate victory . . . by RUNNING FROM THEM or ESCAPING from them???

I do not want to see wrestlers win like that at all. I GLADLY take countout victories (though they don't really exist anymore) over running from your opponent and being rewarded with a win. At least with a countout, you've supposedly done something to the guy to make him incapable of (or willingly) getting back in the ring. And at least bullrope matches and dog collar matches with the 4-corner rule involve incapacitating the opponent and dragging him WITH you while you win via what is essentially a T.K.O. with a lame body behind you as your trophy/proof. WWE Steel Cage matches are all about running AWAY from the feud.

Cage matches were MEANT to be bloody brawls with a decisive winner. WWE has destroyed that match for me with its gimmicked finishes of climbing over and out.

[thestinger]

metylerca said:

I think Ultimate X has been used to the point where calling it overrated is actually an accurate statement. Sure, the matches are usually great, but off the top of my head I can only say that 3 or 4 of them had any real build up to the point where Ultimate X was the only type of match to have...

It's true Ultimate X used to happen because after months of feuding, something has to give like AJ/Daniels/Joe for the X Division Championship.

But lately they've done it without a feud as though one wrestler or team almost 'dares' the other. It's like "Accept that we're climbing on cables, or admit you're a pansy!"

The most recent Ultimate X (UX 13) was like that. It was as if TNA management or someone was like, "What tag team wants a title shot and has the guts to do this?" And LAX and XXX were the ones that stepped up even though they weren't feuding at the time.

[Samoa Kenny]

pegasuswarrior said:

Oh? You want to talk about silly ways to end matches? Pointless booking? Nothing makes me roll my eyes and lose all interest than hearing WWE announce an upcoming Steel Cage Match. O.K., so you got two guys that hate each other so much, that want to rip each other apart SO MUCH, that would rather die than see the other live SO MUCH that they exact revenge and ultimate victory . . . by RUNNING FROM THEM or ESCAPING from them???

I do not want to see wrestlers win like that at all. I GLADLY take countout victories (though they don't really exist anymore) over running from your opponent and being rewarded with a win. At least with a countout, you've supposedly done something to the guy to make him incapable of (or willingly) getting back in the ring. And at least bullrope matches and dog collar matches with the 4-corner rule involve incapacitating the opponent and dragging him WITH you while you win via what is essentially a T.K.O. with a lame body behind you as your trophy/proof. WWE Steel Cage matches are all about running AWAY from the feud.

Cage matches were MEANT to be bloody brawls with a decisive winner. WWE has destroyed that match for me with its gimmicked finishes of climbing over and out.

+1... I never really got that, and usually these days a normal hardcore match is much more brutal than a cage match

[The Lodger]

I think Ultimate X match is kind of goofy, but it's the only match where you see quality matches. I say, lose the gimmick and just let the friggin wrestlers wrestle.

[Mayonnaise]

"King of the Mountain" match. A reverse ladder match is bad enough but, add in the pinfalls and penalty box stuff and I can't stand it.

[Johnny]

jinxed said:

"King of the Mountain" match. A reverse ladder match is bad enough but, add in the pinfalls and penalty box stuff and I can't stand it.

I actually think that match is awesome. But I may very well be alone on that one.

[The Line]

Hell in the cell. It always just felt like a "big" cage match

[thestinger]

johnnysb said:

I actually think that match is awesome. But I may very well be alone on that one.

The matches are usually great, but I agree that the penalty box stuff is a little silly.

The box makes me feel like the bookers don't trust the wrestlers to 'sell' they are hurt for two minutes after they are pinned/submit before leaping back into the match.

Either that, or the penalty box was added just to provide a way for heels to cheat -- by having a ref not see a pinfall and the heel not losing his two minutes but I don't recall ever seeing that happen.

[GaTechGrad]

Any cage match where someone can win by walking out the door.

Cage matches where the door is locked, and the competitors must climb over the top are okay though.

[Hiroshi Hase]

I used to like them when I was younger, but honestly I'm not a big fan of the ladder matches.

["Playboy" Don Douglas]

I too hate the "win by escaping the cage" stip that goes with WWF/E cage matches. Even as a kid, I never understood that and wondered "Why does the guy who runs from the fight win the match?"

[plushtar]

Ladder matches: You've seen one, you've seen them all.
Tables: See above entry.
Cage matches: Running away really makes someone look brave. Although TNA's cage matchs, Hell in a Cell, Wargames, and the Elimination Chamber kind of restore the cage's damaged reputations.
Multiple man matches: With the exception of the X-Division and Cruiserweghts, it makes one guy look super strong while burying all others.
Handicap matches; Just overexposed really.
Monster's Ball: Why not just call if a No DQ match/street fight.
King of the Mountain: Why a penalty box?
Reverse battle royale: What is the point really?