Talk:King of the Ring (1998)

Bracket

The bracket is wrong. It says The Rock was pinned by vader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC) The whole thing is wrong actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright (talk • contribs) 20:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Just checking it now, I see no problems. NiciVampireHeart 01:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge from 1998 Hell in a Cell match

It seems highly unnecessary for 1998 Hell in a Cell match to have its own page. This one isn't even long and barely mentions the match. There's no reason why the page can't be merged here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Oppose The pay-per-view event itself is rather forgettable, but this match warrants its own page. If you really want to be specific, take a look at the 1997 Survivor Series article: it's relatively short, yet the Montreal Screwjob article is a lot longer. There's some precedence to this, and if length of this article is an issue, it can be expanded on. Jgera5 (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    • So? The notability of the event shouldn't matter even in the slightest. If anything, that's a good argument for merging. If the event is, in your own words, "forgettable", then the page can't stand on its own with very little mention of the most remembered event from it. Now if the event was so notable that detailing it properly would require multiple articles, THEN branches are needed. The branch article itself isn't overly complex. It's just a more in depth retelling of the storyline. If anything, it's too much detail. And you can't compare this match to the Montreal Screwjob. It was a complex event with far reaching consequences beyond the match itself and to merge it with the Survivor Series 1997 article would completely hijack it. In this case, the article isn't particularily long and the match is integral to the event. There are no other wrestling matches that have pages because there is no need for it because we have pages for the ppvs themselves. It also opens the "What about this match?" pandora's box. Why not other notable and influential matches like Hogan/Andre from WM3 or the first Hell in a Cell? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The match it's like the PPV: (Argument, match and reception). It was a notable match, but I don't think that deserves his own article, when the PPV explain all about the match. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge Should be the meat of the event article, for the same reasons any main event is. It does not exist independently from the show. The Montreal Screwjob is not just a match, but a situation, with real implications. The only lasting implication this article mentions is that others have tried to emulate the spots (and that's not sourced). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• MERGE Noteworthy information, but not for it's own article. It should go in the PPV article just like every other notable match. Feedback ^☎ 17:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Merge But I'm going to put some of the description of the match back into the Mick Foley article. When I recently expanded that section and added the refs, it was with the intention of articulating why this match was important to Foley's career. Particularly since non wrestling fans who read his bio don't care about/understand the gimmicks. Evenrød (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Merge Clearly a notable event but there are plenty of notable PPV matches that don't get their own articles. HIAC was pretty much confined to this PPV and I think that giving it an individual article sets a bad precedent.LM2000 (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. There have also been quite a few notable TV matches. Angle and Benoit's insane RAW cage match, Angle and Lesnar's SmackDown Iron Man, Angle vs Jannetty. And PPV ones like Angle vs Joe for every belt, the Eurocontinental Triple Threat at WrestleMania and the WWF Title match at No Mercy 2000. Everything Angle touches, basically, becomes gold. Of course, other people feel the same about Sting, Undertaker or Mantaur. Slippery slope, for sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hell in a Cell 'botch' lie.

Please, for the credibility of the site, stop stating that the cell roof was not supposed to give way. It's a ridiculous urban legend that isn't backed up by the source that was in place and has been refuted and contradicted time and again by everyone involved. There was even an article sourced on here a while ago that had watertight reasons in place as to why it couldn't possibly have been a botch but was removed because it was on 411mania, despite actually making critical arguments.

The whole 'botch' myth is based entirely on the fact that Foley was knocked unconscious. THAT was the botch, not the actual bump itself. The botch was Foley landing awkwardly and having the chair hit him in the face, which contrived to knock him out. If you still believe that this spot was unplanned then you either haven't seen it (it's blatantly choreographed, the cameras even zoom out especially for it and track it flawlessly) or you're just desperate to believe in the myth because it's more interesting to think WWF made a life-threatening error, especially after the tragic death of Owen Hart. The evidence and the sources simply do not uphold the lie.

So stop letting this crap get on the page. It's turning this article and Foley's article into a joke.2.28.173.142 (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well the only problem with calling it a "lie" is that it contradicts what Mick Foley, The Undertaker, and Terry Funk have stated themselves.

• When Mick Foley introduces the "Hell in a Cell" match at minute mark 1:39:44 on his DVD, he states: "The cage ripping and giving way was a complete surprise to both of us, [meaning Foley & the Undertaker] and it did a lot of damage." [Mick Foley: Greatest Hits & Misses. 2004]
• In a sit-down interview with Off the Record with Michael Landsberg The Undertaker states: "That panel was not supposed to break loose. That panel gave way and the second one was far worse than the first one" (see minute mark 2:15: [1]).
• Then in Terry Funk's own words on page 198 of his autobiography [Terry Funk: More Than Just Hardcore] he writes: "The same prop guy was supposed to make sure the two sides of the cage were secure, so the impact of Mick's body would cause the top of the cage to sag and gradually come open, so Mick would tumble into the ring. It would be a hell of a spectacular bump, but Mick figured he'd have the cage breaking his fall."

Based upon what Funk wrote, that would make sense that among the many camera angles available during big events, if a "tumble" through the cage was planned, then why wouldn't there be cameras primed to track whatever was going to take place; i.e. a vertical fall of some type?

I suppose that Foley, Undertaker, and Funk could be conspiring and there is another "insider" story, but what credible sources do you have to prove that or show that this is as big a controversy as you're making it out to be? Evenrød (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Separate page for Undertaker vs. Mankind Hell in a Cell match

There has been a discussion about this already, but I think the subject deserves to be reopened. The Hell in a Cell match with Undertaker and Mankind has been called on of the most memorable matches in all of professional wrestling history, I think it is well deserving of it having its own page. It's one of the most watched matches in history that contains some of the most memorable falls anyone who watches the sport has ever seen, and it generated controversy and criticism, but also has been hailed alike. --Matt723star (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King of the Ring (1998). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080904210033/http://stars.ign.com/objects/142/14208780_biography.html to http://stars.ign.com/objects/142/14208780_biography.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)