How do hardcore matches in WWE compare to ones in other organizations?

Question

What do you think? Are they better?

Worse?

Pathetic?

Tell me what you think of the hardcore matches that happen in WWE compared to other places. This is not restricted to TNA.

Answer 1

wwe shows violence so i dont like it

Answer 2

WWE's hardcore matches used to be great, but now since the PG thing happened I think that other organizations have better Hardcore matches. WWE isn't even hardcore now a days. The WWE is so boring in their hardcore matches.

Answer 3

pathetic now and days cuz it went PG.....

Answer 4

This is my first answer in quite some time but i found it interesting so i'll give it a shot..

WWF hardcore matches use to be great, the fans really got into them and the wrestlers really seemed to put forth the effort to entertain. With matches such as h**l in a cell the hardcore era for WWF kinda began. Now that WWE has gone "PG" there are hardly and hardcore matches, part of the reason due to the death of Chris Benoit and his brain injuries apparently being from hitting his head so many times. h**l in a cell matches use to be nothing but blood and hard falls, the latest cell match was nothing compared to what it use to be. cell matches guarenteed blood and yet the latest one with edge and undertaker had no blood except for undertakers elbow which was just a scrape. WWE cannot even compare to the brutality of hardcore matches that ECW did. ECW was nothing but hardcore matches which what made fans enjoy it, ECW was blood and hard knocks, WWF/E will never come close to ECW. Nor will TNA, but TNA has done some pretty good matches that were "hardcore".

Answer 5

WWE hardcore matches are really brutal only on PPV events. Like the recent event that passed the h**l in a cell match was pretty brutal

Answer 6

Watch CZW and get back to me...

Answer 7

I think the WWE'S are better because they are creative they dont just use chairs on heads all the time they do crazy moves with like Tables and other weapons

Answer 8

We don't see many hardcore matches in the WWE today, unless it's ECW extreme rules which is also rare.

Let's compare with CZW. The hardcore action that goes on there in my view is over the top. The action there is of such poor quality standard, even if they have decent wrestlers that it will probably never get a TV deal. Compared to the WWE, it's more brutal, and only blood-thirsty fans would watch that. I don't consider those wrestling fans, which in my view makes the WWE hardcore matches better. They're restricted, safer and entertaining at the same time.

TNA love to over-gimmick their PPV's. I admit they have some good matches, but some of them are over the top. I think limiting hardcore matches to once in a while is better, as they're more appreciated when they come around. TNA do have better hardcore matches than WWE, and comparing to WWE they are similar.

Answer 9

I think the Hardcore matches in WWE at the moment are no longer impactful. Take for example the pay-per-view One Night Stand 2008, an event in which the matches are supposed to be very extreme and even gruesome.

But you see, i was very disappointed when I saw the matches there, ok, let me just talk about one of them, the first blood match. This is a match which is supposed to be filled in blood, especially if you guys are able to recall this kind of matches during the Attitude Era. The first blood match in that event was not impactful at all.

I think it is only because WWE is currently in a transitional period. I believe a new attitude era is coming soon.  

Answer 10

Well, I seem to have a differing opinion from those who have already answered.

To me (being the old-school fan that I am), when a feud has progressed to the "hardcore" stage it means the feud has become very "personal" and no longer about a championship or a professional rivalry.  The WWE seems to be the only promotion that agrees with me on this.

The other promotions, TNA included, get ridiculous with hardcore matches.  Shopping carts full of weapons, etc.  They basically spread them out on the mat and just start bashing each other with them.  Very cartoonish.  Entertaining, sure, in a Tom & Jerry sort of way, but not really believable.

The WWE is guilty of this, too, but not nearly as often.  They generally do feuds right in that they save the "hardcore" matches until the feud is nearing it's conclusion, be it h**l In A Cell, Last Man Standing, or whichever gimmick match they want to do.  By the time the feud has progressed to this stage the wrestlers involved "hate" each other and are only looking to put the other out of wrestling, everything else (including championships) are secondary.

Hardcore matches in other promotions are just random, violence for the sake of violence, blood for the sake of blood, are usually aren't very good because there is no emotion involved, no "hatred" between the wrestlers.  It's just guys acting out a Tom & Jerry cartoon.  More often than not, hardcore matches are so ridiculously over-the-top they become comedy, and that defeats the purpose of the match (to settle a very personal feud between two wrestlers who hate each other).

Being an old-school fan, to me wrestling is all about the wrestling match.  Lining up a series of stop signs, trays, sticks, trash cans, etc. and bashing the other guy just to bash him makes no sense.  Without a build-up, without emotion, without "hatred", a hardcore match is just a cartoon.

So, to summarize, the WWE "hardcore" matches are better, more meaningful than other promotions' "hardcore" matches.

Answer 11

I won't say that they are better than worse, just different, and for good reasons. The hardcore style match is simply a tool used to tell a storyline, as a way to make the drama feel more "real" and exciting. When you pit WWE's style of hardcore matches against those from other organizations, you can make an argument that WWE's matches look worse, pathetic, more fake, whatever, but there are some things to consider.

First of all, WWE's wrestlers make a LOT more money than wrestlers in other organizations. An average wrestler on the independents can draw between $25 and $100 per match, an exceptionally talented worker can develop an income between $25,000 and $50,000 a year easily. WWE's workers, it is rumored, normally do not make less than $100,000 and many easily clear $250,000 a year just for being "jobbers".

So, it might be fair to argue that people who make more money should be willing to take more risks, perform more high-profile spots, etc. No so, I would counter. When you're paying people THAT kind of money, do you want them to really risk their health or their lives? Take a look at Mickie Knuckles' unfortunate accident. She just signed her big money contract with TNA Wrestling, and then a week later in front of 60 fans and an IWA indie show, she decides to take a legdrop off of a balcony and breaks her leg, she's now injured for the next six months, and TNA has to pay her that money to sit out.

So WWE won't let their men and women take a lot of risky stunts that are going to make them injured.

Another thing to consider is that independent promotions can get away with a lot of things that WWE cannot, simply because WWE is so large and are constantly watched. And what I'm talking about here is the fact that in many states certain types of wrestling are not allowed. For example, here in Kentucky, you cannot have matches which involves anything other than a table, ladder or a chair, and you cannot blade/juice/cut yourself open in order to bleed. The last time WWE held a PPV in Kentucky, they had to pay out thousands of dollars in fines because a wrestler decided to cut themselves and the match was not ended within 30 seconds, as required by law. That same weekend I was at an independent wrestling show that had a hardcore match that involved staple guns, baseball bats, broken doors, panes of glass and beer bottles. As far as I know, nobody even reported this, the wrestling organization was not fined.

Now, what WWE lacks in being able to do, they make up for in creativity - how they do it, where they do it, who is involved. These are things that WWE can pay a lot of money for and it pays off, things that independent wrestling promotions cannot. Take, for example, the recent h**l in a Cell match between Undertaker and Edge. On the grand scale of things, it wasn't a very bloody or hardcore match, but this is probably going to be one of the most memorable matches in WWE history. Could it have been that if it was, say, MVP vs. Gene Snitsky?

Just some things to think about, anyhow.

Answer 12

Hardcore wrestling is ok at times, but I like how WWE only does it in small doses and doesn't over do it, that way it makes it more appealing to watch when it does happen. I would say other organizations make the matches more hardcore and gory (the indies), while WWE's hardcore matches are always softer in the way they turn out.

Answer 13

czw is to crazy but tna puts on good hardcore matches

Answer 14

wwe hardcore matches suck compared to most indepentents