|
Minidust posted:This sure is an odd example to use! It pretty much defined the "dirty ending" to an I Quit match. At the point before the dirty ending, Mick had already lost. It was impossible for him to come back and win. There were only two possibilities remaining: 1. Mick gives up. 2. Mick dies. In either case, Rock wins.
|
#
?
May 18, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
BigDanRTW posted:I SWEAR before one of the games (the next one I'm assuming) Randy Savage cut a heel promo talking about how great the move was by Hrbek and that he wasn't cheating. Randy Savage turned face at WrestleMania VII, which was in spring 1991. The timeline doesn't add up, you're probably confusing a few different things.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:At the point before the dirty ending, Mick had already lost. It was impossible for him to come back and win. There were only two possibilities remaining: how about 3. someone comes out and takes the handcuffs off It's no DQ, after all.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
Lamuella posted:how about Wasn't Mick supposed to be unconscious when the Rock won? Doesn't that mean he technically lost anyway?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:Wasn't Mick supposed to be unconscious when the Rock won? Doesn't that mean he technically lost anyway? It was an "I Quit" match, not a Last Man Standing match. I don't think there was any provision for a failure to answer a ten-count or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:At the point before the dirty ending, Mick had already lost. It was impossible for him to come back and win. There were only two possibilities remaining: Rock realises Foley will never quit no matter what he does so gives up?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:At the point before the dirty ending, Mick had already lost. It was impossible for him to come back and win. There were only two possibilities remaining:
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Dragging Iron Feet posted:It was revealed on Raw the next night that Foley didn't actually say I Quit, it was a recording. That's what I was responding to. I said "before the dirty finish" , Mick was already the definite loser of the match. If anything, the ref should have put a stop to it way before that recording was played.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:At the point before the dirty ending, Mick had already lost. It was impossible for him to come back and win. 1. You can still DDT a guy with your hands cuffed behind your back. 2. Mankind could have dislocated his shoulders, flipped the cuffs to the front and choked Rock with it until he quit. 3. Shoulder block Rock off something. Even if Mankind was unconscious, this is wrestling. You can still win a match unconscious.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 02:25
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:1. You can still DDT a guy with your hands cuffed behind your back. Foley was on the ground near death leaking his brains out. He wasn't getting up and giving the Rock a DDT. The match was over. If the recording wasn't played, the ref would have had to stop it anyway. The only reason he didn't do it already is because it was wrestling. It makes no sense for the ref to let it go on and let Foley die because of the .01% possibility that someone will come out to help him. Rock won it clean. The recording just saved Foley's life.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:Foley was on the ground near death leaking his brains out. He wasn't getting up and giving the Rock a DDT. The match was over. Or maybe any of this poo poo could happen because wrestling isn't real.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 03:19
|
|
|
Beef Jerky Robot posted:Or maybe any of this poo poo could happen because wrestling isn't real. Do you reply like this about other TV shows? When someone criticizes the logic of another show and says a character wouldn't do a certain thing, do you put your fingers in your ears and tell them they can do anything because it's fake? Scripted shows still usually have to have some semblance of making sense. A jobber isn't going to no-sell a sledgehammer shot from HHH to the face and then turn around, beat HHH senseless, and pin him cleanly. An unconscious handcuffed Mick Foley who took 20 chair shots to the head isn't going to get up and win. (Without help.. which a ref wouldn't have any reason to believe was coming) If he did, it would be the fakest looking match of all time.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:Do you reply like this about other TV shows? When someone criticizes the logic of another show and says a character wouldn't do a certain thing, do you put your fingers in your ears and tell them they can do anything because it's fake? While I'll agree it's very unlikely it would happen, the important thing is that it could. Cena's debut match he very nearly beat Angle after kicking out of an Angle Slam and not submitting to an ankle lock. Now, obviously Cena went on to become Superman so you could argue he was never going to be a jobber, but this was his debut match - who knew what was going to happen? As for Foley not quitting after being knocked unconscious and bleeding all over the place: this is the same guy that carried on with the Undertaker Hell in a Cell match so the precedent was already there. No it's not particularly realistic that this would have happened, but to say it couldn't happen because it would look like "the fakest looking match of all time" seems a bit disingenious.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 06:33
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:Do you reply like this about other TV shows? When someone criticizes the logic of another show and says a character wouldn't do a certain thing, do you put your fingers in your ears and tell them they can do anything because it's fake? No dude, but Mankind is the guy who got tossed of a 20 foot cell and kept going, then got chokeslammed through the roof and kept going. That's 2 things out of a million that could justify him getting up and kicking the Rock in the balls or something. I mean, I don't really care about the match, but it certainly wasn't a clean win. E:/\ Trans-atlantic mind meld! /\ Beef Jerky Robot fucked around with this message at 06:42 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:Do you reply like this about other TV shows? When someone criticizes the logic of another show and says a character wouldn't do a certain thing, do you put your fingers in your ears and tell them they can do anything because it's fake?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:That's what I was responding to. I said "before the dirty finish" , Mick was already the definite loser of the match. If anything, the ref should have put a stop to it way before that recording was played. The ref should have unlocked the cuffs as soon as they were put on. The ref should have warned The Rock that handcuffing a man would result in a disqualification. There were a lot of things the ref should have done.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 07:22
|
|
|
rotinaj posted:The ref should have unlocked the cuffs as soon as they were put on. The ref should have warned The Rock that handcuffing a man would result in a disqualification. There were a lot of things the ref should have done. There are no disqualifications in an I Quit match. It would be like an umpire threatening to send the pitcher to the penalty box for intentionally walking someone. Or the manager for ordering a bunt.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 07:25
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:That's what I was responding to. I said "before the dirty finish" , Mick was already the definite loser of the match. If anything, the ref should have put a stop to it way before that recording was played. That wasn't the rules of the match. It's an "I Quit" match, not a "The ref thinks this guy will definitely lose" match. The match only ended when one of the two participants said "I quit". Anything else that could happen (handcuffs, chairshots, run ins, unconsciousness) was within the rules. Super Ninja Fish posted:It makes no sense for the ref to let it go on and let Foley die because of the .01% possibility that someone will come out to help him. why dismiss a run-in as such a remote possibility? Foley was a popular babyface. Run-ins are common in wrestling. There had been multiple run-ins in the match where Foley won this very title. Super Ninja Fish posted:A jobber isn't going to no-sell a sledgehammer shot from HHH to the face and then turn around, beat HHH senseless, and pin him cleanly. Does the ref call the match the moment HHH hits someone with the sledgehammer? Or does he wait for the pin? Lamuella fucked around with this message at 10:59 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 10:56
|
|
|
Lamuella posted:That wasn't the rules of the match. The Rock could have killed Mick Foley. He could have sharpened the steel chair and decapitated Foley. He then could have sat down with one of Foley's kids to play Yahtzee and after being unable to get one, throw his dice aside and shout, "I QUIT THIS ROODY POO GAME!" Mankind wins.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 12:14
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:The Rock could have killed Mick Foley. He could have sharpened the steel chair and decapitated Foley. He then could have sat down with one of Foley's kids to play Yahtzee and after being unable to get one, throw his dice aside and shout, "I QUIT THIS ROODY POO GAME!" I seem to recall an I Quit match where the ref asked one guy "Do you quit?" and the guy said "yes", so the ref rang the bell, and later the guy disputed the result because he said "I thought the ref asked if I thought I was handsome"
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 12:25
|
|
|
Lamuella posted:That wasn't the rules of the match. Wow, this is getting stupid now. If a participant refuses to quit, there's no way he can win, and he may die if a match is not called, the ref has to put a stop to it, period. The match is over. quote:why dismiss a run-in as such a remote possibility? So you really think a ref should let someone die because someone may come out to help him. Are you really this dumb or are you just trying to troll me?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 12:34
|
|
|
Lamuella posted:The match only ended when one of the two participants said "I quit". Anything else that could happen (handcuffs, chairshots, run ins, unconsciousness) was within the rules. Someone mentioned Bret Hart vs. Austin earlier, and there we had exactly the situation argued about here: Austin is in the sharpshooter, bloodied and screaming, and passes out. The ref awards Bret Hart the win, with the kayfabe explanation that passing out is kind of like tapping out, or something. Nobody bought that, and passing out instead of admitting defeat made Austin look like a complete hardass. Nobody argued about how likely it was that Austin would have won, what was important for the story of the match and the overall feud was that he didn't submit. And Foley didn't, either.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 12:39
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:Wow, this is getting stupid now. If a participant refuses to quit, there's no way he can win, and he may die if a match is not called, the ref has to put a stop to it, period. The match is over. My point is that in the rules of an "I quit" match, as they are currently understood there is no provision for referee stoppage. Whether he would want to or not, the ref is not empowered to stop the match. quote:So you really think a ref should let someone die because someone may come out to help him. Are you really this dumb or are you just trying to troll me? it's not about what the ref should do, it's about what the ref has the power to do. "I quit" matches require a little more suspension of disbelief than regular wrestling matches because within their rules there is only one victory condition and it requires the active participation of the person losing. They require not just that a person loses but that the losing person is humiliated, not just that someone is beaten but that someone gives up. The rules of the match, as commonly expressed, are that the only way to win is to make your opponent say "I quit". It may well be that if WWE was more realistic about the way they put things like this together there would be other victory conditions or grounds for match stoppage, but WWE has never expressed that there are such grounds. This is a fault in WWE's writing and stipulations, not in my interpretation of such.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 12:49
|
|
|
I always though of I Quit-matches as being related to regular submission-matches kind of like Hell in a Cell is related to a regular cage-match. They share some basic rules and characteristics (a form of submission as humiliation and a no way out-factor, respectively), but the former is sort of an escalation of the latter, and was invented to avoid shenanigans like "can't lose via unconsciousness" or "people interfere despite cage, cage must be even cage-ier".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 13:14
|
|
|
Look at this from a booking perspective. That match got Mankind over huge for being able to absorb an inhuman amount of punishment without quitting. It got Rocky over because he went above and beyond what it should have taken to put down any mortal man, and had to resort to a very heelish tactic to win the match. Rock got over, Mankind got over. It told a fantastic story, and that was that. It doesn't matter about the what-if's. Wrestling is scripted. Grendels Dad posted:I always though of I Quit-matches as being related to regular submission-matches kind of like Hell in a Cell is related to a regular cage-match. They share some basic rules and characteristics (a form of submission as humiliation and a no way out-factor, respectively), but the former is sort of an escalation of the latter, and was invented to avoid shenanigans like "can't lose via unconsciousness" or "people interfere despite cage, cage must be even cage-ier". e: Heeling. Heeling with chairs. Fixed a typo. RealFoxy fucked around with this message at 13:44 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 13:28
|
|
|
flameingblack, just so you know, reducing someone's argument to an all caps sentence filled with spelling errors doesn't make them look dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 13:33
|
|
|
Lamuella posted:flameingblack, just so you know, reducing someone's argument to an all caps sentence filled with spelling errors doesn't make them look dumb. I fixed it just for you, shugah. Either way, it's a baffling argument to make in a scripted environment. I think there's a certain responsibility that referees have to make, including judgment calls on whether someone can compete or not, even in matches like I Quit. It's perfectly fine with me when a referee calls for a TKO in an MMA fight, I don't see why it's within a referee's right to do so in an I Quit match. Besides, I've seen I Quit matches end by managers throwing in the towel, so what's the big deal? It just feels dumb to have to argue with someone over whether or not a referee should call a match before someone gets legitimate permanent damage (Even outside of Kayfabe)
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 13:47
|
|
|
Everyone knows about how the Royal Rumble match and Money in the Bank originated. Is there a story of how they came up with the I Quit match? This was way before tap-outs entered en vogue in the late 90s (I guess) so they always said ''I Quit'' to submit back then. Was it pretty much the same as a submission match but with the added attraction of a live mic?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 13:56
|
|
|
Haha missed this.Grendels Dad posted:I always though of I Quit-matches as being related to regular submission-matches kind of like Hell in a Cell is related to a regular cage-match. They share some basic rules and characteristics (a form of submission as humiliation and a no way out-factor, respectively), but the former is sort of an escalation of the latter, and was invented to avoid shenanigans like "can't lose via unconsciousness" or "people interfere despite cage, cage must be even cage-ier". I don't get how saying it is worse than tapping out in the same way a big cage + roof is worse than cage without roof. Why can't you lose via unconsciousness in an I Quit match if you can in a normal Submission match? Why wouldn't the same rules apply? It's not like if a guy passes out he definitely can't say anything but his lifeless hands can still tap.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 14:07
|
|
|
Web Jew.0 posted:Haha missed this. tapping isn't the only way to lose a submission match. The pre-tap pantomime used to be raising and dropping the arm, with three drops meaning submission. Web Jew.0 posted:Everyone knows about how the Royal Rumble match and Money in the Bank originated. Is there a story of how they came up with the I Quit match? well, the first one was Blanchard/Magnum TA at Starrcade 85. Not sure of the background there, though. Lamuella fucked around with this message at 14:16 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 14:12
|
|
|
A ref really isn't able to end a match if one of the competitor's life is in danger? Is that a legitimate stipulation? Also how in the blue hell could they pull off a spot where a guy can DDT another wrestler with his hands handcuffed behind his back?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 14:21
|
|
|
Web Jew.0 posted:I don't get how saying it is worse than tapping out in the same way a big cage + roof is worse than cage without roof. It is worse in wrestling-land, where people Never Quit. Why is it so hard for people to get the distinction between tapping out and saying Oh God Oh God Please Make It Stop into their heads? One is like being pinned, it sucks but is kind of part of the deal. The other is verbally expressing your inferiority. Nobody says it's not kind of childish, so if it helps, think of it as a Say Uncle-match. quote:Why can't you lose via unconsciousness in an I Quit match if you can in a normal Submission match? Why wouldn't the same rules apply? Because it's a a different kind of match! I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, but your question basically boils down to "They are not the same type of match, why do they have different rules?" quote:It's not like if a guy passes out he definitely can't say anything but his lifeless hands can still tap. And it's not like the rules can't change into anything that's needed at the moment, either. Anyway, the I Quit-match is supposed to be more eXtreme than a submission-match. You don't just slap a submission-hold on your opponent, you try to crush him with a forklift!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:A ref really isn't able to end a match if one of the competitor's life is in danger? Is that a legitimate stipulation? Sorry for double-posting, but you must have missed all the times where matches were stopped because one of the wrestlers bled a little. The Rock/Mankind scenario was bang in the middle of the Attitude Era. Slightly different times.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 14:28
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Because it's a a different kind of match! I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, but your question basically boils down to "They are not the same type of match, why do they have different rules?" Yeah but throughout a "sport" there are defined rules that transcend stipulations. If you are unconscious, you cannot compete anymore. It makes no sense to continue the match after that. The ref at the very least has to throw the match out. What, do you think people really want to see a person beating up an unconscious dude, or just sit around until the guy wakes up?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 14:29
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:A ref really isn't able to end a match if one of the competitor's life is in danger? Is that a legitimate stipulation? It's not spelled out that way. The whole problem is that it's not spelled out in any way. There's nothing that says he can't stop the match but also nothing that says he can. there's also the question of whether, if the ref could end the match if someone's life were in danger, it would end as a no contest, or as a win for his opponent. ultimately speaking, the ambiguity doesn't matter too much, because unless a wrestling company are being idiots any rule that will actually affect the match will be spelled out fairly explicitly beforehand.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:A ref really isn't able to end a match if one of the competitor's life is in danger? Is that a legitimate stipulation?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 14:35
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:Yeah but throughout a "sport" there are defined rules that transcend stipulations. If you are unconscious, you cannot compete anymore. It makes no sense to continue the match after that. The ref at the very least has to throw the match out. What, do you think people really want to see a person beating up an unconscious dude, or just sit around until the guy wakes up? If the unconsciousness is part of the match, sure. If a guy is For Real unconscious because of a botch or something, there is very little doubt that the match will be stopped, or there is some cover-up being done on the fly. But we are not arguing about botches here. We are mostly arguing about kayfabe stuff. And in kayfabe, in wrestling-land, a match that is decided by one of the participants saying that he quits could well go on as long as neither of them has said it, for whatever reason. People don't *really* want to see John Cena kill somebody for real, or Randy Orton punting someone into a coma for real so what's your point in bringing that up?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 14:36
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:People don't *really* want to see John Cena kill somebody for real, or Randy Orton punting someone into a coma for real so what's your point in bringing that up? I am talking about kayfabe, of course. Mick Foley losing the I Quit match due to being unconscious would be the same as Austin losing the submission match due to being unconscious; regardless of the match stipulation, Foley would come out of it looking good while still losing the title. Flameingblack posted:Tommy Dreamer does it all the time, actually. But that doesn't mean that a handcuffed Mick Foley is going to be able to win an I Quit match. Admittedly I have seen maybe two Tommy Dreamer matches my entire life, but it still boggles my mind. How could you pull that off without making it look really contrived?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:Admittedly I have seen maybe two Tommy Dreamer matches my entire life, but it still boggles my mind. How could you pull that off without making it look really contrived? He kicks them in the stomach and spends two minutes trying to wrap his arm around their head. I think he's done it to Raven at least twice.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:I am talking about kayfabe, of course. Mick Foley losing the I Quit match due to being unconscious would be the same as Austin losing the submission match due to being unconscious; regardless of the match stipulation, Foley would come out of it looking good while still losing the title. Well, in this case Rock kind of *tricked* the referee into believing that Mick Foley was still conscious. Additionally, nobody would go the "Ask Him!"-route if they could just as well pummel their opponent into unconsciousness and win just as well. The aim is to humiliate your opponent by beating on him so much that he begs you to stop. Beating him so much that he can't say it anymore might make you look like a badass, but it goes against what the reason for the match actually is.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 15:08
|
|