Finishers= OVERATED!!!

[Saritafan]

I hate that finishers are the only way to end a match, it just drives me crazy. lets be honest, when you're watching a wrestling match, you're basically waiting for the finisher right? you think that no matter what other move is done, the opponent will kick out. It's just doesn't make sence

For example, Sheamus's finisher is that running powerbomb toss thing right? but I noticed at Fatal Four way that Drew Mcintyre did the exact same move to Kofi Kingston, but Kofi kicked out. Now just because Sheamus is not the one doing the move, doesn't mean it's any less impactful, is it because thats not Drews finisher. Kofi lost to Sheamus multiple times with that finisher but kicks out when Mcintyre does it, how does that make sence

I think finishers are highly overated, they should be used to a degree, but not that it's the only way to end a match

 

[Ferbian]

Finishers are not the only way to end a match Saritafan, there's roll-ups, disqualifications, cheating pins or attacks that goes unnoticed by the referee (title belt to the head and therefore being knocked out cold)

You have to remember a finisher is something that is specifically designed to put someone down by only one wrestler performing it, if Drew McIntyre wasn't able to keep Kofi Kingston down it does not mean that Sheamus wouldn't.

And there's different ways of putting this into perspective, if someone is unable to pin someone because of a move that is not their finisher but someone else's from a non-kayfabe point of view the reason is obvious, but from a kayfabe view you could put it in terms that perhaps Drew didn't have the power and impact behind the move to put him down like Sheamus had.

So they're not the only way to end a match, a finisher ending a match is simply to create the actual pop behind it, the same goes for a submission hold because people are on the edge of their seat waiting for the opponent to tap.

And a roll-up for example is due to the creation of a surprise victory, something like Heath Slater pinning Chris Jericho.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

I see your point here, but there is a reason that it is called a "finisher." It is meant to finish the match. Wrestling has changed since the 1980's, back in the 80's the main finishers were DDT''s, Piledrivers, and Leg Drops. Now we are in a new era in the WWE, finishers are becoming more flashy. Therefore, these moves from the 80's arent as powerful anymore.

As for your Sheamus example, how much bigger than Drew McIntyre is Sheamus, how much stronger is he? Therefore he is able to put more power into his finisher to keep his opponents down.

But, you have got to remember that this is wrestling. Everything is scripted and kayfabe. So the finishers WILL finish the match whether you like it or not.

Stop Bitching.

 

[Max Headroom]

The way I think of it, your supposed to pretty much have the match in the bag, the opponent is already pretty much "pinnable" to say. You then show your dominance by doing your special move to finish him off completely and look good doing it. It's basically saying "hey look what I can do to this fella, I'm sick."

 

[mister_b1LL]

If finishers were so overrated, guys like Justin Gabriel and Evan Bourne would've been out of a job. Some guys in the business are only known for their one move that is designed to put their opponent away: Their finisher. Now it's true that there are other ways to finish a match, like with roll ups and disqualifications, but I think anybody knows the feeling of not being complete without seeing an RKO or a Pedigree every week.

As for the Sheamus example, I will add to that by using the Dolph Ziggler example. Everybody and their mother knows the sleeper hold and most people actually know how to execute it. Just ask the kids who die from their friends performing it on them. The difference with Dolph Ziggler is because his technique is much better at putting away opponents than anybody else. Or the Big Show. We see punches all the time, but it's Big Show's that is so powerful due to his size and ferocity of his punch. In some cases it really does depend on who's doing the move for it to be considered a finishing maneuver.

 

[mvalley]

In the past, finishers were finishers because whoever executed them had the knowledge, skill, power and so forth to make them have the most impact. They know how to make the most out of the move. Perhaps it's twisting the arm a certain way a bit more, using their additional power, and so forth, but they had "mastered" the finisher.

That kind of logic can be used today as well. Triple H has mastered the pedigree. Sure, perhaps C.M. Punk could start using it (and he did use it in ROH), but Triple H in theory has studied the move so long that he knows just the right way to use it for a win.

I should also note that many times wrestlers will gain sole procession of a move as their finisher. Sure, OCCASIONALLY you might see some wrestlers use the same finisher in the WWE (e.g. Show, Taker and Kane all use the chokeslam), but generally a move is "owned" by a specific wrestler which thereby makes it unique, thereby making it a finish. And if another wrestler DOES use it in the WWE, most of the time they make a big deal of it.

And if anything, this is far better than years back. Years ago you'd see guys in WCW use certain moves as their finisher that WWE guys would use as part of their routine, and vice-versa.

 

[UFOcalling]

I understand what you mean, S.fan. I remember YEARS ago, talking with a friend about how the DDT wasn't considered a finisher (or a way to "put someone away") anymore. We talked about how a DDT would definitely garner a kick-out, unless Raven or Jake Roberts was the one delivering the move.

Similarly (again this was YEARS ago, probably circa 1999 or so), the same friend I mentioned earlier and I went to go rent a video (this was before DVDs were all the rage, so it was actually a VHS tape we rented). In lieu of getting a movie, we decided to rent WWF's King of the Ring from 1998. We rented it SPECIFICALLY for the "Hell in the Cell" match between Mankind & The Undertaker.

There were some great matches on the undercard, however...and we didn't even care to watch Austin vs. Kane after seeing "Hell in the Cell". There were two matches on that PPV that are relevant to this topic, but I don't remember the exact specifics...

The first match I'll mention featured the Rock, and was a King of the Ring qualifying match. I remember JR talking about Rock's "artistic-elbows" (ha!), and we actually saw The Rock perform the move that eventually became known as "The People's Elbow". Rock did the whole deal (bouncing off each side of the ring, etc), and followed it up with a pin. His opponent kicked out of the move. If that had happened a year later, Rock would have "finished" his opponent with the elbow-drop.

The other match featured Billy Gunn. Billy hit the "Famasser" (sp?) on his opponent, but was unable to get the pin-fall after the move (this was before the move became his "finisher").

Mvalley touched on the same subject I'm going to address next, which is that wrestlers used to be known as "The Master of..." whichever move they had "mastered"; ie: in the old WCW, Michael Buffer used to introduce Kevin Nash as "The Master of the Jackknife Powerbomb", and Lex Luger as "The Master of the Torture Rack".

I totally agree with what mvalley was saying, the kayfabe idea is that the wrestler spent a lot of time at the gym "mastering" the move. Using your Drew McIntyre/Sheamus example, McIntyre hadn't spent enough time learning how to properly deliver the move (kayfabe-wise). It's one thing to be able to execute a move (again, kayfabe), but it's another to execute it in such a way that it will knock a dude out.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

What absolute crap...Come on..finishers always finish a match...Thats not true...

Yes, ferbien coverd em all really..DQ's, Count outs, Roll-ups(my favourite), cheating etc...

But then again...i mean it IS a finisher..A SIGNATURE MOVE performed by a superstar to put away hi/her opponent...

I don't think you can really argue with that...

Most superstars have a finisher that no one else can even perform, its unique..and its awesome, i mean when you see a 450 splash or an air bourne...thats what makes each wrestler stand out aswell..I mean Rey's is so popular, anyone who sees the '619', knows whats coming...

 

[The Raven's Epitaph]

I see your point. They can seem overrated. But it's been said before. It isn't the only way to win the match. There's count out, DQ, roll-ups, pinning somebody whilst using the ropes for leverage.

Sometimes there is a reason they're called "Finishers" though. If you look at a normal DDT, then look at Drew McIntyre's 'Future Shock' DDT, they're not that different. Just a little extra torque applied.

 

[Carpathian Florist]

I actually think finishers are underrated these days, is there even a single finisher anymore than someone has not kicked out of? As the name implies, such a move should finish the match because they're so devastating. I don't think there are really "finishers" per say anymore, just "signature moves". To kick out of a finisher once every few years would be an amazing thing, like when Austin first kicked out of the Rock Bottom for instance. Well at least the first time I saw it happen, it was an amazing moment. Then it became kind of routine and lowered the credibility of the move. When I was first into wrestling seeing a finisher was an "OMG it's over!" moment, but then it got to the point where the move meant nothing because I was always expecting the annoying babyface to kick out at "two and nine tenths".

Also, to stay on topic a bit I do agree with everyone who is saying that it's who performs the move and how that matters, as opposed to the move itself. I remember on a shoot interview involving Raven and Jake The Snake they were discussing this with regards to the DDT, explaining how it made them more over because they knew exactly how to do it whereas most guys hadn't got a clue. I must admit though I did not look at this way until they mentioned it, I always thought that the DDT was a finisher back when the move sets of wrestlers was more limited due to the realism they needed to portray and because they were old school wrestlers they kept that old school move set too.

 

[ForzaItalia]

Just as mentioned before, finishers do not always finish a match. It is true that these finishers make superstars stand out from each other. Not all finishers are predictable. Look at the RKO, Trouble in Paradise, Twist of Fate, Stunner, etc. The moves are executed out of no where sometimes leaving the crowd excited that they they did not know it was coming.

 

[pistol]

hell no. thats like not having fataliyies in mortal kombat. thats how you finish a match 90 % of the time. sometimes you gotta throw the dq or count out in between to keep it fresh. some of the greatest matches were one with finishers. hogan one many mania matches with the leg drop. flair evened it out with the 60 minute matches and going over the limit countless times. one thing needs another. you can have multiple ones( undertaker got a million finishers). thank god at wrestlemania 8 warrior came back because the end of the hogan/sid match was bullshit. sid kicked out the leg drop.dq. that warrior return was the shit. same at 9 hulkamaniacs/money inc. bullshit. dq. but hogan came back later and beat yoko with the legdrop(finisher) and one the title and back then it was the shit. stone cold/hbk at the mania. finishers are the shit

 

[HBKevin]

They use surprise roll-ups all the time, especially with distractions. As for another wrestler using the same move as a non-finisher: the idea is that the wrestler who uses the finisher is so skilled at it that his execution of it is more effective. Anyway, what else do you suggest in a scripted fight, besides finishing maneuvers, as a good way to end matches (with a clean finish?)

 

[Bobby B]

I think the main issue with finishers is not that they always finish the match, but that some of the new finishers are plain awful. All of these little compact finishers - The "Cross Rhodes" and "The Zig Zag" (The names are awful too - but thats for another topic). Both of these moves - and some others - don't look that great (and you could look at every Diva finishing manoeuvre too in this) it doesn't look like it should command a 3 count in the same way that an RKO, or a trouble in paradise should.

 

[Dave]

I hate that finishers are the only way to end a match, it just drives me crazy. lets be honest, when you're watching a wrestling match, you're basically waiting for the finisher right? you think that no matter what other move is done, the opponent will kick out. It's just doesn't make sence

For example, Sheamus's finisher is that running powerbomb toss thing right? but I noticed at Fatal Four way that Drew Mcintyre did the exact same move to Kofi Kingston, but Kofi kicked out. Now just because Sheamus is not the one doing the move, doesn't mean it's any less impactful, is it because thats not Drews finisher. Kofi lost to Sheamus multiple times with that finisher but kicks out when Mcintyre does it, how does that make sence

I think finishers are highly overated, they should be used to a degree, but not that it's the only way to end a match

The issue with McIntyre performing the "Celtic Cross", if you buy into all the hype with finishers, is that it is not his finisher, for lack of a better phrase. You could probably assume that Sheamus is going to deliver that move every time he has a match and if you are to believe that finishers are the best move that a superstar can pull off, then you have to believe that Sheamus is going to hit that move with more impact and more technique than Drew McIntyre is going to hit it with. I would also suggest that Sheamus is more imposing and stronger than Drew McIntyre, hence more impact is like to be carried into the move and it will be hit with sharper precision.

Of course, that is if you buy into all of that. However, I do agree with you about the issue of finishers ending matches. Believe it or not, I created a thread about a year ago asking why we don’t have a lot of flash finishes with roll ups anymore, or for that matter, any other move. It just seems as though finishers are a way for the WWE to tell its audience that the match is over and that is exactly how they have been utilized in recent memory. I for one, would love to see some more variation added to the matches but I don’t think I would like it if it was to come to fruition. Personally, I would think it was a waste of a good match and I think I have been conditioned into thinking that a finisher is the end of a match and would feel slightly annoyed that I never got to see one.

 

[Ferbian]

Of course, that is if you buy into all of that. However, I do agree with you about the issue of finishers ending matches. Believe it or not, I created a thread about a year ago asking why we don’t have a lot of flash finishes with roll ups anymore, or for that matter, any other move. It just seems as though finishers are a way for the WWE to tell its audience that the match is over and that is exactly how they have been utilized in recent memory. I for one, would love to see some more variation added to the matches but I don’t think I would like it if it was to come to fruition. Personally, I would think it was a waste of a good match and I think I have been conditioned into thinking that a finisher is the end of a match and would feel slightly annoyed that I never got to see one.

I guess it's time for us to collide Dave.

As you probably read my reply as well to this thread, the problem is that yes the finishers are used for the majority of times, but it is due to the fact that they do give the pop that they do, they give that excitement or disappointment.

This point can be especially applied to a match of high profile, Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels, Triple H vs John Cena, John Cena vs Batista, hell the list goes on as long as the match is high profile, you cheering for your favorite you will be there on the edge of your seat eagerly hoping for him to kick out, at least you will be doing that from a fan perspective, not a smark perspective.

And I would like to point out before I continue, you = the common wrestling fan, not you as in you in particular Dave.

A finisher adds to the high profile matches, because we all know that at some point a high profile match like Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania, hell anywhere in the year, any event, should not end through a roll-up, or a disqualification.

We've seen plenty of disqualification matches ending awfully, I personally hated when a great match between high profile wrestlers were ended due to interference, a particularly great example is Triple H vs Randy Orton's feud, or John Cena vs Triple H vs Randy Orton, the interference was there in all of the matches, there were disqualification endings between Batista and Randy Orton, CM Punk and Jeff Hardy.

There's always room for a disqualification ending, a roll-up, as long as it's done without overdoing it, and I would say in proper high-profile matches it should even go as far as to be disallowed to some point.

And the last statement I am fully aware is solely based on personal opinion and the fact that I would be bummed to watch a match that has all the potential in the world, get ended because X shoved the referee, or Y had an interference disqualification victory.

Again, another example, Triple H vs John Cena before Night of Champions, the match had all the potential in the world, sure it went on to make a great match at Night of Champions due to it becoming a triple threat, but about 3-4 months later John and Triple H proved how great the match could've been if they had kept it to a finisher ending.

But to support you just a small bit, I do agree that we need to see a bit of variations, but right now the variations are still there, they are still presented in some manner every week, or every month (sometimes a week can be lacking) and therefore not being overused to an extend of where it becomes boring and we'll start crying "So, what happened to the finishers? I remember when they ended matches".

 

[Dave]

I guess it's time for us to collide Dave.

As you probably read my reply as well to this thread, the problem is that yes the finishers are used for the majority of times, but it is due to the fact that they do give the pop that they do, they give that excitement or disappointment.

This point can be especially applied to a match of high profile, Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels, Triple H vs John Cena, John Cena vs Batista, hell the list goes on as long as the match is high profile, you cheering for your favorite you will be there on the edge of your seat eagerly hoping for him to kick out, at least you will be doing that from a fan perspective, not a smark perspective.

No, wha you have done there is give more evidence to the contrary. Let us examine a case that you have raised yourself, the match at WrestleMania 26 between The Undertaker and Shawn Michaels. This is a prime example of why finishers, in this day and age, are completely overrated. I seem to recall both Shawn Michaels and the Undertaker hitting, at least, two finishers each. However, both men kicked wither time and nothing was accomplished in that match.

Sure, we got a winner but what did it actually accomplish other than making the finishers of both men look weak and overused? Nothing! You could argue that kicking out of a finisher makes the person look very strong but when you use too many finishers in the one match, it does nothing but further the idea that your finishers are weak.

A finisher adds to the high profile matches, because we all know that at some point a high profile match like Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania, hell anywhere in the year, any event, should not end through a roll-up, or a disqualification.

No, I think this comes down to a certain miscommunication. You see, I agree with you that these matches should not end on a roll up or a disqualification. In fact, The Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels match at WrestleMania is a prime example of why finishers should be used. However, I will say that at the end of that match, not one finisher look strong. As The Undertaker drove Shawn Michaels into the canvas for the last time, I almost thought that he was going to kick out of it again and who would have been surprised?

There comes a point in a match, where it needs to end and finishers are there for that purpose. However, I am not talking about the main event match at WrestleMania. I am talking about every single show that the WWE puts on. I would urge you to go ahead and watch Smackdown and Raw this week thinking about how many matches, wrestled to a finish, will end with a finisher. To me, it takes all of the momentum out of a match when you see a finisher. You are basically waiting to see that finish and that is what the WWE wants from you. Finishers is their way of saying, this match is over and once that finisher connects, the match is basically done, it takes all the character out of the match knowing that a pinfall is seconds away.

We've seen plenty of disqualification matches ending awfully, I personally hated when a great match between high profile wrestlers were ended due to interference, a particularly great example is Triple H vs Randy Orton's feud, or John Cena vs Triple H vs Randy Orton, the interference was there in all of the matches, there were disqualification endings between Batista and Randy Orton, CM Punk and Jeff Hardy.

There's always room for a disqualification ending, a roll-up, as long as it's done without overdoing it, and I would say in proper high-profile matches it should even go as far as to be disallowed to some point.

No, that is where you are wrong again.

You see, disqualification endings are there for a perfect reason. They allow people to get over without making anyone look weak. Look at the stretcher match between Triple H and Randy Orton. I recall seeing the Legacy come in and stop Randy from going over the finish line. Thus, they stopped a major face getting the win and both them and Randy Orton came out looking like absolute superstars. They looked as though they were a legitimate stable that could bend the rules to match their needs.

A disqualification now and then, in a big match, will not do anyone any harm if it is pulled off correctly. In these sorts of matches, you don’t need a finisher to end it but they are used anyway. Personally, I don’t think that finishers should be the only way to end a match and to suggest otherwise, is ludicrous.

In summation, I do agree that finishers are great tools that are at the disposal of any superstar. A win by finisher is as clean a win as you are ever likely to get. However, they are not the only way to end a match. The WWE seems to have forgotten that we are not stupid. We can enjoy a match without having to see the RKO or the Pedigree. We know that these guys are capable of sinning from any situation and for the WWE to continue to overuse finishers is just like a slap in the face.

 

[Ferbian]

No, wha you have done there is give more evidence to the contrary. Let us examine a case that you have raised yourself, the match at WrestleMania 26 between The Undertaker and Shawn Michaels. This is a prime example of why finishers, in this day and age, are completely overrated. I seem to recall both Shawn Michaels and the Undertaker hitting, at least, two finishers each. However, both men kicked wither time and nothing was accomplished in that match.

But as I mentioned it is a high profile match and because of that, did you really want to see Shawn's career, of The Undertaker's streak being ended because Undertaker managed to roll up Shawn, or vice versa?

I know I certainly wouldn't, and because of that the finishers made a good point in being used, because a match like this would make no sense to end in any other way and would have accomplished much less than the actual amount of finishers being used that proved to make both look strong willed to come out as the winner, and the resilience of the two of them.

Undertaker and Shawn has before been credited as the more resilient and stamina enduring people of WWE, this match backed up the claims, and accomplished that.

Sure, we got a winner but what did it actually accomplish other than making the finishers of both men look weak and overused? Nothing! You could argue that kicking out of a finisher makes the person look very strong but when you use too many finishers in the one match, it does nothing but further the idea that your finishers are weak.

Yes the finishers may very well have been overused, but as I said above it made them look resilient, and it did nothing to hurt the finisher, or to hurt the superstar that suffered / delivered the finisher, because the other opponent simply had the resilience.

And we all know that more finishers has proved before to be some of the more exciting matches, at least I've been on the verge of my seat for many of the finisher filled matches, if we're to talk about a match that makes finishers look weak, meet Money In The Bank.

No, I think this comes down to a certain miscommunication. You see, I agree with you that these matches should not end on a roll up or a disqualification. In fact, The Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels match at WrestleMania is a prime example of why finishers should be used. However, I will say that at the end of that match, not one finisher look strong. As The Undertaker drove Shawn Michaels into the canvas for the last time, I almost thought that he was going to kick out of it again and who would have been surprised?

Very well so we partially agree to the part that high profile matches should (while stretching it a bit) have the banning of actual roll-ups etc. because of the fact that it clearly will ruin the majority of people's surprise to see who gets the finisher in first.

I think in the majority of high profile matches, a finisher is the way to go, the majority of Pay Per View matches has finishers as the way to go, and leave Roll-ups for Television shows, now at a Pay Per View sure you can have disqualifications but that's probably the only little thing that you can have, and I say to limit that as well.

The power and credibility of the finishers has been addressed earlier.

There comes a point in a match, where it needs to end and finishers are there for that purpose. However, I am not talking about the main event match at WrestleMania. I am talking about every single show that the WWE puts on. I would urge you to go ahead and watch Smackdown and Raw this week thinking about how many matches, wrestled to a finish, will end with a finisher. To me, it takes all of the momentum out of a match when you see a finisher. You are basically waiting to see that finish and that is what the WWE wants from you. Finishers is their way of saying, this match is over and once that finisher connects, the match is basically done, it takes all the character out of the match knowing that a pinfall is seconds away.

I think it's all a matter of the person looking at it, because I don't see the lackluster in seeing a match taking place with or without the finisher in it because I sit there and "hunt" for the finisher to come, because I know there's a chance for the other endings to be presented, and because of that I won't scout for a finisher, and even if I did scout for one, I would know which matches I could expect more of them in.

If we start using more of the roll-ups, disqualifications, interference etc. endings, as I mentioned before, we will suddenly start scouting for them more.

The finisher is the primary way to end a match because of the excitement it generates, because it is the primary move of a wrestler, and it's been reported a lot in the past years time that "Randy Orton was left in the ring, surrounded by D-Generation X and John Cena, trying to make friends with them, doing the crotch chop ........ selling all finishers.... sending crowd home happy"

The crowd possesses a large margin of children as of late, children find the amazement in both a flashy finisher, but a finisher in general, and they are more excited to see that then they probably will if someone interferes, someone gets disqualified or someone simply looses by a roll-up.

So again, it's all about the person looking at the product.

You see, disqualification endings are there for a perfect reason. They allow people to get over without making anyone look weak. Look at the stretcher match between Triple H and Randy Orton. I recall seeing the Legacy come in and stop Randy from going over the finish line. Thus, they stopped a major face getting the win and both them and Randy Orton came out looking like absolute superstars. They looked as though they were a legitimate stable that could bend the rules to match their needs.

I do agree at times a disqualification could be a proper way to end a match, not a roll-up although, and I've said it earlier in this argument that disqualification is probably one of the few things that could be acceptable at a pay per view level.

The example you use although would be arguable whether Randy at least came out looking strong, considering he needed help from Legacy to get the victory, but that's all a matter of how you look at it, I was more of a mark back then and I hated Legacy, especially for ruining potentially great matches, through interference.

A disqualification now and then, in a big match, will not do anyone any harm if it is pulled off correctly. In these sorts of matches, you don’t need a finisher to end it but they are used anyway. Personally, I don’t think that finishers should be the only way to end a match and to suggest otherwise, is ludicrous.

That is correct, it won't do any harm, none of the things in this thread will do any harm if used to a correct amount of time, I can accept a roll-up, but as long as it is used in the proper matches, and used with limitations more than popping it off at the level of a finisher being popped off.

In summation, I do agree that finishers are great tools that are at the disposal of any superstar. A win by finisher is as clean a win as you are ever likely to get. However, they are not the only way to end a match. The WWE seems to have forgotten that we are not stupid. We can enjoy a match without having to see the RKO or the Pedigree. We know that these guys are capable of sinning from any situation and for the WWE to continue to overuse finishers is just like a slap in the face.

No of course they are not the only way to end a match, but they should be considered the primary way, and not as Saritafan so nicely puts it "OVERRATED".

Yes we can enjoy a match without seeing them, but for the majority of times there's a love for seeing the finisher, especially in the PG era seeing as the kids now watch a lot more (if we're to believe it being pushed for the kids now, I don't know about the kids viewing choices back in the Attitude Era for example) and I would assume a kid would rather see a finisher above anything else.