A No-Finisher match would cure the fans boredom.

[MAHGAWD]

I have been saying this for years. Look guys here s an example..when you are watching a match..and you see all of these 2 3/4 counts before a kickout after someone uses a non finisher move..you know they are gonna kick out...so no need for all the near fall cheap because its just filler until someone hits their finisher..only then do you get a little interested thinking the match might end.
Well..a fix to that is to ha e a match where finishers are banned..not just there finisher..but all finishers. That way you won't know if that suplex will win the match or not. My point is..wrestling is so predictable..you know no one is gonna win unless they use their finisher..so ban them for a match and let two wrestlers actually wrestle and the fans will be more interested because they don't know what move might end the match. Do this with a title match..get the crowd involved again WWE..you are slowly losing us.

 

[Hoke Hogan]

Pretty sure they don't like the term "finishers" and I don't know how else you'd portray that angle. I don't know if a match with that stipulation would cure the boredom at all. Just because there's a lot of "finishers" in matches these days, the fact that there are so many makes matches less predictable, if that makes sense? I think that the booking is pretty predictable regardless of the use of finishers in matches. I mean, we've known that Lesnar/Reigns is the main event of Mania since... last Mania.

 

[The Life Of Pablo Ren]

No it wouldn't.

I'm not even sure what you mean by banning "all finishers" do you quite literally mean ALL finishers? Because if that's the case, you aren't going to have that many moves to choose from. Suplexes were finishing moves at one time, and some variations are still used in the modern climate as finishers. If you just mean more modern finishers... you still run into a problem. Moves like a vertical suplex or a scoop slam have essentially become transitional moves. Nobody is gonna be on the edge of their seat after seeing a scoop slam and thinking, "OH MY GOD IS THIS IT?!" just because finishers are banned from the match. The reputation of the move has become so non-threatening that to see it actually win a match for someone would have a far more negative impact than positive. The ONLY way ending a match with a move like that would work is if the person was hit with it repeatedly one after another after another, but then we're essentially back to square one because the audience then knows that's the finish.

Finishers are finishers for a reason. You need something that looks flashy and impactful, and the exact definition of what that means and looks like changes with the times.

I think you have a good idea in theory but you took it to an extreme. Banning the finishers of the competitors in the match could work, but then to say that they can't borrow someone else's finishing move and use it as their own for the victory just isn't smart.

I'd be far more intrigued to see, for example... Finn Balor defeat Dean Ambrose with a curb stomp as opposed to just a random suplex.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I'm not sure if it would "cure fans boredom" but it is not a bad idea and can add something to a story. I'm not sure if it has happened before. I definitely know WWE has had some matches where a popular move was banned but nothing exactly like this idea. Although banning all finishers seems kind of hard to follow. Big Show used a punch as a finisher. Does that mean no punching?

Overall, sure why not? WWE does 4 billion matches a year. Trying this wouldn't really be that bad.

 

[ISkye]

Eh if it's used as a narrative in a storyline I could see it actually adding to the match if the talent actually can go in the ring tell a decent story. The thing is with WWE you could still predict the entire outcome of every match on a PPV card sometimes over a month in advance. Even with this, most people know where it's going to go anyway. Even if the WWE fans are bored they'll still watch anyway. They could do it, but there's hardly even a point in doing so when they can just continue what they're doing now.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Here's the thing regarding finishers: ALL wrestlers need them because every wrestler needs that one move, that one singular offensive weapon that's the biggest gun in their arsenal. What hurts the concept of a finisher is when WWE or any other wrestling company turns a match into a finish fest with guys kicking out of a move 2 or 3 times. WWE does it, New Japan does it, ROH does it, Impact does it and so does everyone else at various times and that's what takes the starch out of finishers. Take Lesnar's F5 as an example; how much do you want to bet that WWE has Roman Reigns kick out of that move at least twice at WrestleMania? I can see kicking out of a finisher once, every once in a while, but it shouldn't happen often.

As usual, people would simply find something else to complain about and this strikes me as an example of someone really, really, really stretching for an excuse to complain about something. Whenever a match ends without a finisher, whether it's a roll up, a quick powerslam, a superplex or what have you, you know what the dirt sheet writers do? They call it a cheap finish and usually criticize the hell out of it.

Overall, the matches are just fine; when it comes to in-ring ability, WWE probably has the overall strongest roster in its history. The problems are that Vince McMahon lets some outdated perspectives get in the way sometimes, a lack of attention to little details that he sometimes doesn't think are important, a lack of continuity and an almost crippling fear of allowing the wrestlers to be more organic.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Matches end all the time with no finisher used. They're called rollups, and they happen almost as often as finishers to end a match. That'll make it more unpredictable. Right, WWE? RIGHT?

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

I agree that instead of relying on finishing trademark moves for each wrestler in a match, then they should have some matches end by different moves. Look at the King Of The Ring 1993, and how Bret won all 3 matches with a different but innovative finish. It is not always about the finishing manoeuvre but the exciting and drama a match has at the end. I cannot ever describe the end of the match where Mick Foley beat the Rock for his first wwf title. I had been a huge fan of wwf from 1988. In 1996 I had grown a bit bored of wwf and the characters and whilst Mankind was a decent performer - I got bored of him. That changed with his vignettes with JR in May/June 1997 time, and I became a fan of his. When he won the wwf title, it was one of the greatest wwf/wwe moments of all time, and one of my personal favourites. That ending didn’t need a finishing move, it just needed drama and intensity - and it delivered just that!

 

[Vintage Punk]

I think the wrestlers should develop a couple of finishers or at least a finisher and two big signature moves ala Styles and Zayn. Styles has won with Styles Clash, Phenomenal Forearm, and Calf crusher so sometimes you never know which one will win for him. Finally last night, Zayn won with Blue Thunder bomb instead of Helluva Kick. It was a nice change of pace. But banning finishers is just nonsense as that is what pro-wrestling is known for

 

[MasterDebator]

It'd be better to protect finishers and tell meaningful stories rather than tampering with a tried-and-true formula. Furthermore, a wrestler's arsenal ideally is designed to soften their opponent in advance of a finishing maneuver. Without a finisher, technically, a wrestler's ability to logically target a body part loses that much more significance. Fans aren't bored because of finishers, they're bored because so much of the in-ring action is divorced from the potential dramatic weight a well-told story adds. See: NXT.

 

[Azane]

Occasional matches that end on a regular move, rather than the current formula of Finisher, or outside interference distractions, Sure.

Banned finisher? Just means something dirty is going to happen.

We're bored because, As Jack-Hammer said "how much do you want to bet that WWE has Roman Reigns kick out of that move at least twice at WrestleMania? " We knew a full damn year ago Roman was winning RR and Brock was afking 12 months with the belt, and the Journey to get there was just wasting time for everyone; This has been the epitome of the Roman and Cena Era's, we know the stories years ahead of time.

Finishermania is something thats taken over since around WM 18; We see 3-4 of each finisher in every main match, before that, it was rare to see 2+ finishers in a 1v1 non-gimmick match, now we see double or triple finishes on RAW, It plays out like a damn Videogame, and it removes the impact of the moves.

I remember DDP Saying how he tried for YEARS to protect the Diamond Cutter, and the impact when you saw that move was so much stronger, like Goldberg kicking out of it at Halloween Havoc '98, After about 10 seconds of downtime, was Insane, now, If Randy Orton RKO's somebody and instant pins for a nearfall, people go meeeh. I'd argue that Randy Orton's RKO even looks more devastating than the Diamond Cutter, but the Finishermania has dilluted the RKO to almost a DDT.

 

[Hoke Hogan]

Here's the thing regarding finishers: What hurts the concept of a finisher is when WWE or any other wrestling company turns a match into a finish fest with guys kicking out of a move 2 or 3 times. WWE does it, New Japan does it, ROH does it, Impact does it and so does everyone else at various times and that's what takes the starch out of finishers.

I think that's the wrong way to look at it, though. The starch isn't taken out of the F5 because it's been kicked out of. It builds up the wrestler kicking out of the finisher more than it diminishes the finisher.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Give wrestlers different finishing moves.

For example instead of Lesnar ending every match with an F5, end some with a Kimura Lock and Shooting Star Press (if he can actually do those).

Give every wrestler two to three finishers, and it would help a lot.

And limit the finisher kickouts to where they actually mean something.

 

[Azane]

I think that's the wrong way to look at it, though. The starch isn't taken out of the F5 because it's been kicked out of. It builds up the wrestler kicking out of the finisher more than it diminishes the finisher.

This may of been true at one point or another, but I don't feel like HHH, Undertaker, John Cena, Roman or Randy Orton look that much stronger because they've kicked out of F5's, and that the F5 looks much weaker, Hell, The F5 was kicked out of on SMACKDOWN.

When the first F5 comes out on Roman after he wins the Royal Rumble, the crowds gonna be checking their phones, not cheering. (Well maybe, because it's Roman, so Megaface Brock, even if Brock kills Puppies)

 

[Starkist]

I think WWE should do matches like Submission only once in a while. This would work for guys that have a submission signature move. Styles vs Rusev submission only match. The Calf Cursher vs the Camel Clutch. It would be different than a no finisher match. With a no finisher match, in this day and age, finishers are used to further a story not really end the story. Cena used four AA's, including a Super AA, which Reigns kicked out of all four of them. Cena lost this match. Imagine if this was a no finisher match and how long it would go on if 4 AA's were kicked out of? It seems like a good idea on paper but in real life, I don't think it would work to well. They would be better off with banning an opponent from using their finisher but that's about it.

 

[#hamler]

Banning a finisher for a match? Eh, I don't personally see the purpose there.

But as far as predictability, i get what youre going for. That issue can really be solved not by banning the finishing maneuver, but by doing a couple of surprise wins with a signature move that never wins any matches. Just last week on Smackdown, Sami Zayn defeated Aj Styles with the Blue Thunder Bomb. The Blue Thunder Bomb? The same Blue Thunder Bomb that has never put the weakest of opponents away let alone a World Champion? Yes that one and I was totally shocked. I think more ways to win a match other than one specific finisher is a great way to cover up a predictable finish to a wrestling match.