Business.... or Personal?

[Ghostboy259]

I thought of this while watching tonights Triple Threat match for the United States Championship contender.

I can't remember when, but last year or before(when Santino was clean, before going heel, then going to a funny heel), there was a number one contenders match for the IC title, which Jeff beat shelton with a roll up.That was just 4 guys, having a match for a title. Umaga and Jeff have had fueds before, but also just matches. A lot of matches nowadays, all have some kind of fued or gimmick to it. Before the Triple Threat, WWE was trying to make a fued between Matt, MVP, Kofi, and Regal. But it seems like people don't have "business" matches anymore. Remember the fued between Lashley and Cena? There wasn't a long fued that went with it. just two guys having a great match.


So, here are the final questions.

Do you prefer matches business, or personal, or a mix?
What is your favorite match with no fued connected to it?
What is your favorite match with a fued involved?

Please put thought into your answers. because then, it was business. Now, its personal.

 

[shafe_41]

It's all relative really. I personally don't think any wrestling fan has a personal favorite of what kind of matches they prefer as far as personal or business go. (That sentense was the most times ever using a form of the word personal.) I guess it would really start with how one describes a feud? How long does a rivalry have to go before it constitutes a feud? It really sounds based on personal definition of feud.

I personally don't care so long as the match is good. Sure the storylines make the matches interesting, but if you don't have good matches... which is the core and reason of the business we all love of wrestling... then the feuds don't mean shit to us. At least I don't believe to any real wrestling fans a storyline feud means shit if it's just going to lead to a terrible match. I wouldn't care if somehow Big Show and Great Khali made the most memorable storyline in wrestling history... the match itself that truly tells the story would be awful and for that... the storyline portion would just all fade into the back of our minds and so would the match itself.

I'm not sure if there was a "feud" buildup or not to this... but my personal all-time favorite match I've seen to this point in my life is Kurt Angle/HBK at WM21. They put on one of the most memorable matches in recent memory...hell...in history. I know they did another match or 2 between them at future PPVs, but none held a candle to their WM match. The only reason I don't remember the storyline or "feud" to that match is because while I was in school, I hit a spot where I wasn't watching wrestling at all and sadly... leading up to WM21 was in there somewhere. So whatever classifies as their match at WM21 between business or personal... that's my favorite or whichever it is.

But again to reiterate... I think you need to make another post in your thread here so we know what qualifies as a feud in terms of this thread. Feud needs defined. But overall, I really do think it depends on the quality of the match in a "feud" because if it's just business, a match is really all you have. There's no great storyline to connect to it.

 

[instantkarmaVA]

I like business matches. For example, king of the ring. One year they had Angle,edge,christian, and Rhino all wrestle each other and they were all heels and friends at the time. It was business.
Feud matchs are cool but mostly every match is a feud therse days..

My favorite feud match is the first War Games. The Horseman and JJ. vs Dusty,Koloff,the Road Warriors,and Ellering. They all had these interwieving fueds.Truly hated each other..No where to run. Time to settle shit. I don't think I ever heard a more hot crowd in my life..

 

[dd23beatlesfan1]

In the grand scheme of pro wrestling it's probably better to have a good storyline that builds up the match. It usually will add more purpose to the match and also help fans put more of an emotional investment in the match. Some examples of this include Ric Flair vs. Shawn Michaels as Wrestlemania 24, or Bret Hart vs. Stone Cold at Wrestlemania 13, or Andre vs. Hulk at Wrestlemania III.

But, I do also agree with your point in that sometimes, it's just nice to have a good clean match that isn't personal or have some kind of story building it up. Simply a match of good competition. I was ecstatic to see Kofi win tonight on Raw, because I haven't seen MVP and Kofi Kingston have a match before, and beings they're both now babyfaces it should be a good clean, matchup next week (until the end when they'll probably have Matt Hardy and/or William Regal interfere). While I think wrestling is more interesting usually with matches that have good stories and issues building them up, sometimes it's nice to have matches where "competition" is the only storyline for the match.

A great example I can give of a great, classic matchup that had no buildup or storyline or personal aspect to the match was a match in the summer of 1994 on Raw between Bret Hart and the 1-2-3 Kid. Both were babyfaces. There was no buildup that I remember. No storyline setting up the match. If I remember right, they just simply announced on the beginning of the show that night that we, the audience, were going to see Bret Hart take on the 1-2-3 Kid in a world title match. And even with no storyline or feud build-up to the match Bret and Sean Waltman still put on one of the greatest babyface vs. babyface matches that I've ever seen in wrestling. If the Ladder Match hadn't ever taken place at Wrestlemania X that year, or Bret had never fought Owen that year, we would've had a "Match of the Year" candidate with that match, IMO (or the underrated Hart/Backlund main event from Survivor Series 94).

Another example of one of my favorite matchups with no buildup was the random finals matchup of the original European Championship tournament between the British Bulldog and Owen Hart on the Raw in Germany from 1997. Up to that point, they were the tag team champions I believe, and they randomly made it to the finals against each other. They weren't feuding yet (that would come after this matchup), so it was a simple one on one matchup between two great wrestlers. Owen and Bulldog pulled off one of the greatest matches ever seen on Monday Night Raw. With no buildup or personal feud to lead into the match.


So in short, both ways work. But I think it's easier for a wrestler to have a classic matchup if there's some sort of storyline or feud to build up the match. Aka: if it's "personal." It allows for emotion to go into the match. See all of the matches between Chris Jericho and Shawn Michaels last year. But a really good wrestler can have a classic match without a storyline or a personal aspect. That's what all of the old pros from before the 1980's were able to do.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Personal are usually the best, in my opinion. One of my favourites in recent history is the feud between Shawn and Jericho last year. Shawn and Jericho are both great wrestlers, and have had some fantastic matches. The best part of this feud is when Jericho punched his wife - could a feud get much more personal? The matches involved are usually better when it's this sort of storyline as there's urgency and a big desire to win.

That being said, I often enjoy matches which are done for a single purpose, such as the King of the Ring tournament. It's a great way to have some good matches with no real storyline other than the desire to win the tournament. It shows us some good matches, and shows WWE which wrestlers work well together and get good reactions for them to plan future feuds.

 

[Age of Orton]

the last match I can recall that had no prior build up that was a classic would be the Gold rush tournament gem in Shawn Michaels/Shelton Benjamin absolute classic, I could actually see them tangling it up at a big 4 PPV WWE dropped the ball on them.

Feud matches, I've always like gimmick matches problem I have now is there is to many different variations of matches, I like Hell in a cell's concept, more room to tell a story.
The Elimination Chamber, again I like the concept of having 6 guys in one cage but it can get to much, and having two on one show (IMO) just defeats the purpose, of feuds because at no time will you be feuding with 5 other guys, so a straight up match is what I prefer, I've said it before HHH IMO needs to have gimmick matches to get over, I can't recall one singles match HHH had that wasn't a gimmick match of some kind that was great? but some guys like the Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart's even Stone Cold (before the neck injury) could have a straight up 30 minute match no gimmicks needed and keep you entertained.
as far as favorite match goes in a feud I have two, 1. None gimmick match Austin/Bret Hart survivor series 1996 and the other Bret/Owen and summerslam 1994 in the cage match.

 

[ORTON_RULEZ]

Tbh i prefer it when its personal, when theres no storyline or gimmick it's just a toilet break or another diva/us/ecw match lol gets anticcipation built up for the ppv, otherwise its just a bunch of matches with no purpose
I think someone said it but i quite liked the jeff/umaga feud for the IC belt in 07 when umaga was champ and jeff was just trying to win it over and over but no mic time or real storyline