Less appetite for hardcore matches?

[Bo Rida]

I use the term hardcore for thread title purposes but I'm talking about any match that's heavily weapons based, mostly those found on Extreme Rules, HiaC or TLC PPVs.

It seems to me that they're the matches that divide opinion most around here.
Do you think there's an increasingly pronounced split in the fanbase when it comes to these types of matches?

I guess their popularity may be dropping due to some fans having increased concern for the wrestlers involved, think they lack in psychology, are desensitised to the big spots or simply think they should be kept for feuds that need them.

Or do you love them and wish they happened more often?

[Surfer Sandman]

I don't like hardcore wrestling as much as I once did. It's hard to watch such matches unless it's older ECW.

I think weapons work in certain feuds. They need to be used less often in order to sell better.

[Hit Girl]

Hardcore wrestling is passe'

It's also oversaturation to have entire PPV's based on weapons, street fights, etc...

[saintpat]

I don't think it's as big a deal as some tried to make it out to be after TLC: I attribute it, in part, to the whole anti-WWE attitude. If they had hit each other with daisies someone would probably complain; which is to say I'm not 100 percent convinced that there's a huge "we're all about the health and safety of the talent" movement.

I recall after Hell in a Cell a bunch of "why even have it if they're not going to use the cell" posts. Some people dumping on TLC because "we're all about safety" also watch ECW on the Net and got off on some of Foley's sicker bumps. Where was this concern when E&C and the Hardyz were doing their death-defyng acts? Did people just now figure out that getting hit with a ladder or doing a high fall might hurt?

Head shots with chairs? No, I have trouble with that and am glad we don't see that kind of thing -- at least not in WWE. I was at an ROH show with a lot of chair shots to the head in a match and it made me very uncomfortable.

Elbow drops from ladders or bumping people off them or throwing people on them? That's more bumps and bruises to me. Could someone sustain a major injury from that? Sure, but they could also do that doing a flying goat headbutt, as we all know.

If they did a Zayn-Owens ladder match on NXT that resembled the same ladder matches those two had in the indies, I wonder if people would pan it for the sick bumps or say "WOW WHAT A GREAT MATCH" due to who is involved.

[Deleted]

Dec 16, 2014 11:48:58 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Hardcore wrestling is passe'

It's also oversaturation to have entire PPV's based on weapons, street fights, etc...

What you just said and having things like steel cage matches on Raw with no build are two of my biggest gripes with WWE's booking.

[Sephiroth]

Those kind of matches still have their place. But they need to be kept in that place and bit used where they don't belong.

[lesleymoon]

I don't have a problem with these types of matches but I like them to feel organic and not just have them because its December and time for TLC. Make me want to see Dean Ambrose take on Seth Rollins in a cell because that is the only way he can get his hands on Seth. That works for me. And use them sparingly.

[Boo!]

Hardcore in the PG era shouldn't really exist unless they give themselves leeway to break that particular rated wall. Given how a lot of stuff on the Network is TV-14 it just seems dim to keep the PPVs that rating religiously. Okay if they want to keep the majority like that fine but for something like TLC at least make an exception.

I don't get why other stuff on he Network being a more mature rating is fine but new stuff has to be PG only, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Deleted]

I have less of an appetite for matches, period, because so few of them are actually built well.

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

Part of the issue is that these matches do actually need psychology to work if you're not in a back yard somewhere. Foley, Edge, Hardy, Funk, Raven, even less acclaimed guys like Dreamer, they knew how to make a match still have ebb and flow and storyline and make you care about what has happening without just thinking 'what's the next big spot?'

Hardcore matches (generally) need more than 'these two guys are going to beat the shit out of each other' to get a proper response from the crowd.

["I'm Batman..."]

Making Hell in a Cell an annual PPV was dumb. It was much more dramatic saving it for an intense feud.

[Deleted]

Having hardcore matches when they make sense is good. Having multiple events each year based around a hardcor concept is overkill and just desensitizes me to the violence. Between Extreme Rules, Elimination Chamber, Money In The Bank, TLC, and He'll In A Cell I just can't get emotionally invested in the pain these guys are experiencing.

Hell, on Sunday night the announcers kept putting over what an amazing ladder match Dolph vs Harper was. Personally, I felt like I was just seeing the same spots as the other 5 or 6 ladder matches they've already done this year.

[SCCB Was Told To Do Steroids]

Like anything else, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Again, the original purveyor of "extreme" or "hardcore" wrestling, Heyman, even said it is passe. If ECW existed today, it would be a more athletic, hybrid-style --which is exactly where our tastes are right now.

I loved ECW when it first came out because it was different. The same with UFC, which, coincidentally, started becoming popular about the same time.

Old school guys will tell you that "Dog Collar Matches" or "Cage Matches" were feud-enders. If nothing else, they TELL the story instead of BEING the story. Even the critics of the TLC can't deny each match had some type of significance behind it.

[The Dark Order Inferno]

I think seeing the condition of former ECW workers in the present day has soured people on hardcore matches and rightly so. Also, the WWE have no idea how to use matches for the most impact anymore, if a gimmick match works, they'll build a PPV around it or even have it as a mid feud match on Raw. A streetfight, Hardcore or Ladder match should never happen mid feud, they should be the conclusion to a long, back and forth feud and one of the rare occasions where blading is okay.

[Sephiroth]

Hardcore matches shoujd either be the cap if a feud, like the only way to settle it definitively is for them to go no holds barred in each other. Or it should be used to civet for general weaknesses; if you are putting two guys together for the umpteenth time, make it a hardcore match to add a new twist. Or if you have a guy who is great on the stick but not so great in the ring, use it to make his matches look great without highlighting his lack if skull between the ropes.

[Sephiroth]

Dec 17, 2014 11:16:31 GMT -5 SCCB Was Told To Do Steroids said:

Like anything else, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Again, the original purveyor of "extreme" or "hardcore" wrestling, Heyman, even said it is passe. If ECW existed today, it would be a more athletic, hybrid-style --which is exactly where our tastes are right now.

I loved ECW when it first came out because it was different. The same with UFC, which, coincidentally, started becoming popular about the same time.

Old school guys will tell you that "Dog Collar Matches" or "Cage Matches" were feud-enders. If nothing else, they TELL the story instead of BEING the story. Even the critics of the TLC can't deny each match had some type of significance behind it.

Something I think I is worth noting: Heyman has also openly admitted the reason ECW went "extreme" is because the talent he had to work with early in really weren't that talented. It really started with Public Enemy with the tables, and that those two needed the tables because they just weren't good between the ropes. Same goes for guts like Sandman or Dreamer; they were charismatic and tough as nails but weren't high flyers or may technicians, so they needed the hardcore style to make it look spectacular.

[The Legendary Ring Troll {BLM}]

I used to love these things, but now I'd rather have straight up wrestling matches or gimmicks based on wrestling rather than weapons. Submission matches or 2/3 Falls or the iron man matches in FCW for the medal; what were they, 15 minutes?

Bring out a cage, the cell or a Falls Count Anywhere match every now and then as a feud ender, but make them rare. Let's try to give ladder matches a rest, too, maybe outside of Money in the Bank. Or even drop that, I dunno.

[SCCB Was Told To Do Steroids]

Dec 17, 2014 13:10:06 GMT -5 Sephiroth said:

Dec 17, 2014 11:16:31 GMT -5 SCCB Was Told To Do Steroids said:

Like anything else, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Again, the original purveyor of "extreme" or "hardcore" wrestling, Heyman, even said it is passe. If ECW existed today, it would be a more athletic, hybrid-style --which is exactly where our tastes are right now.

I loved ECW when it first came out because it was different. The same with UFC, which, coincidentally, started becoming popular about the same time.

Old school guys will tell you that "Dog Collar Matches" or "Cage Matches" were feud-enders. If nothing else, they TELL the story instead of BEING the story. Even the critics of the TLC can't deny each match had some type of significance behind it.

Something I think I is worth noting: Heyman has also openly admitted the reason ECW went "extreme" is because the talent he had to work with early in really weren't that talented. It really started with Public Enemy with the tables, and that those two needed the tables because they just weren't good between the ropes. Same goes for guts like Sandman or Dreamer; they were charismatic and tough as nails but weren't high flyers or may technicians, so they needed the hardcore style to make it look spectacular.

That makes sense. Dreamer did accidentally become "The Innovator of Violence" by botching "regular" violence. The promoter saw a deficit and turned it into an asset. As for Sandman, well, that's self-explanatory...

[Mayonnaise]

Dec 16, 2014 13:17:34 GMT -5 Boo! said:

Hardcore in the PG era shouldn't really exist unless they give themselves leeway to break that particular rated wall. Given how a lot of stuff on the Network is TV-14 it just seems dim to keep the PPVs that rating religiously. Okay if they want to keep the majority like that fine but for something like TLC at least make an exception.

I don't get why other stuff on he Network being a more mature rating is fine but new stuff has to be PG only, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Because they have deals in place with companies like Mattel for millions of dollars that state they must be a PG product while partnered. Mattel does not give a damn what they did before getting together, just that while together they don't go insane. To put it simply, WWE likes money and there is a lot of money in staying PG.

[Deleted]

I love insane hardcore matches, but most of them these days are just so tame and repetitive. It's an extreme rules match, great, somebody goes through a table and there are a billion kendo sticks, and you have awful fake-looking chair shots to the back. Granted to be fair there are some great matches that still have those things - Bryan / Orton on Raw last year for instance, or Rollins / Ambrose a few months back - but so many that do that are just utterly forgettable in every way.

And to be fair, having tons of huge crazy spots does not guarantee a match will be good. On paper with its forklift spots, flaming table, ridiculous diving headbutt, and whatever else, Bryan / Kane at Extreme Rules sounds awesome but that match was insanely boring.