i only like wretling when theres a stipulation, eg. cage match, hardcore, cumpster etc, normal matches are just boring
slow matches like a batista and orton or the big show against cena contest desperately need these kind of enhancements. the better performers like mysterio can put on a wonderfully entertaining match under normal rules as shown last night
I heard Mysterio and Jericho was outstanding, which is no surprise.
As far as gimmick matches go...they have a shelf life. I mean, the first Money in the Bank match was unreal, but now? Whatever. Regular ladder matches stopped meaning anything over a decade ago, and now eight-person insane spotfests are meaningless, too. Hell in a Cell hasn't meant anything since HHH/Foley in 2000. The Elimination Chamber is already kind of dumb and there's only been, like, 10 of them.
That isn't to say those matches are bad. On the contrary, they can still be very enjoyable. It's just stupid to say that a show isn't good on the sole basis of not having them.
An actual match, one that's well-booked, well-paced, works the crowd like pro wrestlers are supposed to and tells a story? That's timeless. I don't know if a single gimmick match in history can match HBK/Undertaker from this year's Wrestlemania. And even though that match is an all-time great, I can think of 10 better ones with no gimmick just off the top of my head if I was so inclined. (I don't count things like "No DQ" as a gimmick, per se. Other timeless ones like "I Quit" or "last man standing" are grayish area.)