I'll add that quite often, a match is considered 'great' based on one spot or a particular sequence or a hot three minutes at the end. I've seen people call the Shawn vs Flair WM match an all-time great and it's clear that 99% is based on "I'm sorry, I love you". So, a match that's actually 5-10 minutes of great content from bell-to-bell can absolutely measure up to a 25 minute match with like 3-4 minutes of great content and 21 minutes of 'good'.

This kind of hits upon my feelings. If there's a 30 minute match where 20 of it is kind of a boring "feeling out process" of unfocused matwork and it doesn't really "get into the next gear" until the final 10 minutes, why should I automatically hold it in higher regard than a great 10 minute match that is all out action? I realize that guys can't go all out for 30 minutes, but some matches are legitimately interesting and engaging for 15+ minutes while others pretty much only have the final stretch. So if I am judging that kind of match against a shorter match that's interesting the whole time, I'm not going to punish the short match. More likely I'd punish the long one for boring me for 20 minutes before giving me an awesome 10 minute match.

Excuse me then.

 

Great matches tell stories.

 

Which really depends on the individual's idea of what constitutes as telling a story. For me, only three matches last in the past year have told a compelling story, that goes beyond the routine, albeit entertaining, storytelling in modern matches. They are:

 

Kazuchika Okada vs. Hiroshi Tanahashi @ NJPW "The New Beginning"

The Undertaker vs. Triple H @ WWE Wrestlemania 28

Brock Lesnar vs. John Cena @ WWE Extreme Rules

 

For anybody who has seen these matches, they must surely understand why I perceive them as "great" from a storytelling perspective. They might not have been the best from a wrestling or innovation perspective, but they didn't need to be.

I've seen all of those matches. No clue what is great about Taker/HHH from storytelling perspective. I mean I liked The Green Mile fine, but HHH is a really shitty John Coffey

Dylan beat me to it. There's nothing great about Taker vs HHH from last year, from any perspective, shape or form. It was greatly laughable and terrible all around.

Excuse me then.

 

Great matches tell stories.

Many of them do, but a match can be technically good and not tell a story. After all, the work is that it's an athletic contest not a piece of fiction.

Dylan beat me to it. There's nothing great about Taker vs HHH from last year, from any perspective, shape or form. It was greatly laughable and terrible all around.

Of course there was something great about it:

 

Trip jobbing to Taker

 

Taker 5-0 HBK+HHH at Mania. That's fucking great!

 

John

On the original premise:

 

Does a match need to go a certain length?, To be considered a "great" match

Of course.

 

I mean it's possible that one of us here might think Warrior vs HTM is a "great match" for whatever reason, or could come up with something along those lines that for our own personal fantasy wrestling could fit into it. Say for Loss given his love for the two workers, Ricky Morton doing something like that to Ric Flair and winning the world title from him in under 30 seconds in a crafty tricky fashion would be a GREAT~! match, get ****1/2 and be his #2 MOTYC for 1986.

 

The rest of us would shrug and just think, "That's Loss being Loss."

 

More than that, Kawada beat Misawa for the Triple Crown at the 1998 Dome show in 30 seconds and I thought it was ****1/2 because after all those years of getting screwed over by Misawa, I thought it was a great way for Kawada to get his revenge, Loss would join the chorus in saying:

 

"30 second main event of the Dome being ****1/2? Okay... jdw is just being silly there."

 

Is that "certain" in certain length some exact fixed in number that like forty-two explains Life, The Universe and Everything for everyone?

 

No.

 

But a "great match" needs to be, you know, a "match". If not, it's just an angle, and when we get to 1999 we'll have the fucking Beer Bath in the Top 10 of MOTYC and somewhere Russo will have a smile on his face.

 

John

The match sucked so much, and I'm so tired of the damn streak/self-conscious yearly Taker epic gimmick at this point that even that fact isn't great to me.

 

Now, Taker losing his streak to HHH, that would have been pretty awesome actually only for the shitstorm it would have provoqued.

Is it possible to have a great match in the current Wrestlemania setting?

 

It may be the only WWE show I watch every year and I have hated pretty much everything year-on-year since Wrestlemania 25.

 

Taker vs. HBK made me feel physically sick, and I went online to find the internet raving about it.

The first match that came to mind without really thinking is the Michael Hayes vs. Kerry Von Erich cage match that finished really high on the Texas set. The other match that I think comes to mind that I have grown to really appreciate is the Chris Adams vs. Kevin Von Erich match from the Mid South set. That went 5 minutes tops.

I suppose the answer is that yes, it does have to go a certain length -- long enough to get across their point. Great matches that last less than 10 minutes are rare, but they aren't impossible.

Ate you guys serious saying that match sucked that bad? The one from 2012? I was there live and while its not an epic all timer it certainly didn't suck. I hate triple h and I still thought the match was good you can't write it off just because the streak continued.

My problems with it:

 

(1) Shawn Michaels telling HHH to end it when nothing really bad had happened yet

(2) The weird preoccupation with busting HHH open hardaway

(3) Shawn Michaels making strange facial expressions in the corner

(4) Me not being clear on why Shawn superkicked Taker into the pedigree, and why he had that reaction afterward, and the announcers not explaining it

(5) The match being built almost entirely around talking

(6) Shawn Michaels

Being there live I might have missed or not noticed most of that which I suppose is a good thing from how u make it sound.

(6) Shawn Michaels

You got a laugh out of me on that one.

Poor Shawn.

 

But yeah, it was a total postmodern match *totally* based on "acting" and "scriptwriting", not in a Hulk Hogan vs Ultimate Warrior way but in a "it isn't a wrestling match, it is a scene from a movie" way. Pure shit. The infamous "Sorry, I love you", was enough for me to hate that Flair match which was already outrageously ridiculous and sad on his own, but this took things to another level. I sure hope we get more of this at Mania this year though, it's "interesting" to see where they go from there.

My problems with it:

 

(1) Shawn Michaels telling HHH to end it when nothing really bad had happened yet

(3) Shawn Michaels making strange facial expressions in the corner

(4) Me not being clear on why Shawn superkicked Taker into the pedigree, and why he had that reaction afterward, and the announcers not explaining it

(6) Shawn Michaels

Well there's your problem right there.

 

John

I was there live for the flair match as well and have rewatched it and still liked that one. I could see not liking the hhh match on rewatch though as I really don't like hhh.

Is it possible to have a great match in the current Wrestlemania setting?

Yes

I was there live for the flair match as well and have rewatched it and still liked that one. I could see not liking the hhh match on rewatch though as I really don't like hhh.

I was there live for the HIAC HHH vs. Taker also. Enjoyed it more than the one from the year before. Then again, I didn't have to listen to the melodrama in the ring.

Yea that was my take on it too. I still haven't rewatched it though so ill reserve full judgement. It did come off well live though and had good drama

if you count pre and post match then Sheamus vs Bryan may well be a great match in a current WM environment.

Had Untertaker kicked Triple H and pinned him in eight seconds, I would've given it *****.

I'll add that quite often, a match is considered 'great' based on one spot or a particular sequence or a hot three minutes at the end. I've seen people call the Shawn vs Flair WM match an all-time great and it's clear that 99% is based on "I'm sorry, I love you". So, a match that's actually 5-10 minutes of great content from bell-to-bell can absolutely measure up to a 25 minute match with like 3-4 minutes of great content and 21 minutes of 'good'.

This kind of hits upon my feelings. If there's a 30 minute match where 20 of it is kind of a boring "feeling out process" of unfocused matwork and it doesn't really "get into the next gear" until the final 10 minutes, why should I automatically hold it in higher regard than a great 10 minute match that is all out action? I realize that guys can't go all out for 30 minutes, but some matches are legitimately interesting and engaging for 15+ minutes while others pretty much only have the final stretch. So if I am judging that kind of match against a shorter match that's interesting the whole time, I'm not going to punish the short match. More likely I'd punish the long one for boring me for 20 minutes before giving me an awesome 10 minute match.

 

I'd argue that the "20 minutes of boring work, 10 minutes of great work" wouldn't classify as a great match. A more accrurate comparison might be a match with an "average" first 20 minutes and a great last 10 minutes. I would probably think this was better than a great 10 minute match just due to the epic feeling one gets while watching a longer match.

Taker vs. HBK made me feel physically sick, and I went online to find the internet raving about it.

Wait...what?

The weird preoccupation with busting HHH open hardaway

I was somewhat miffed by this.

 

From what I can gather, WWE didn't want them blading on the premier show. Naturally, this makes HIAC matches a bit harder to sell as the "ultimate violent match" when there is no colour for effect. With that, Hunter and Taker were left with putting together an "instant classic", whilst at the same time:

 

A. Ensuring that Taker doesn't re-injure his hip or recently repaired shoulder.

B. Not blading.

C. Ensuring that Triple H doesn't blow his quads.

D. Not performing any chairshots to the head. (regardless of whether they are protected or not)

 

In conclusion, they both decided just to batter each other black and blue with steel chairs and hope that one, or both of them drew blood hardway (since Vince doesn't seem to have an issue explaining away hardway blood to Mattel) and compensated for the lack of big bumps and HIAC spots.

 

Everybody knows that Punk bladed in his match with Lawler this year, I'm also fairly certain that Lesnar bladed following the "steel chain" punch from Cena at Extreme Rules (Cena was busted hardway, but there is no way that chain shot was stiff, given the potential for danger). With that in mind, I think it's safe to say that Vince is "open" to the idea of letting wrestlers bleed on rare occasions, just not at Wrestlemania.

 

I still think the match was outstanding from a storytelling perspective.