Having Good Matches or Winning Matches?

[pepentorresHHH]

Some people were discussing this in my "does winning a fued matter" thread so now its time to ask the question.

I remember during the build up for both HHH Taker matches at WM 27 & 28 HHH always made a point to to tell Shawn that Shawn may have been about giving us great performances but HHH was about winning the match...

So my question is, is winning the match as important as a good as giving a great match? I think they should BOTH be as important

Lets look at Dolph Ziggler, he IMO gives us great matches on a consistent basis but he loses most of the times and yes i was entertained by the match but it bothers me he does not win..... This is bad because credibility is lost by losing too much and now i go into his matches with a negative mentality... Not as far as the match itself but the outcome.

John Cena (this isnt a Cena cant wrestle comment) and his matches dont necesarily appeal to me, i respect the man and character and the effort he puts in but lets say 50% of the times id rather see someone else wrestle because the man can put a daaaamn good match with the right opponent but he wins.... Most of the times ( or more ) and again due to the level of his matches and the certain predictability of his matches takes away from the experience

So.... Is winning or performing more important or are they equal?

 

[THTRobtaylor]

In the past, it was all about the wins. During the Hogan era you were no-one if you lost, if you won the match then it reflected with the fans and you were a bigger star. Where it changed was with the IWC cottoning on to how the business worked and Vince going the Sports Entertainment route.

Phrases like "work rate", push, underrated, jobber, rub, burial, punishment and "telling a story" replaced wins and losses as the most important. After all a World title win can now be "transitional", "hot-shotted" or to "spike a number"... In the 80's a title win was massive, and even if those things were true, it was never a factor in how it was presented. Now the wrestlers themselves can point to their work, quality of matches and justify themselves even if they lose every match... Al Snow was right with the "Pin Me...Pay Me..." catchphrase, no one would ever say he put on a bad match other than Kennel From Hell and he made a strong career into training on the back of never really winning.

Jericho is perhaps the best example of where this can be a blessing and a curse... He got his break in WCW off the back of a strong work ethic and was genuinely pushed with wins, once he hit the WWF he lost more often but got respect for being able to do so and not lose much momentum. It bit him in the ass when he got his Undisputed reign as they felt they could book him as cowardly and losing often and it ruined the run. Over time the pattern repeated, Jericho got better and better in each feud and match, but continued losing till they got to his more recent runs, where even he would refer to himself as "bulletproof"... The problem is, in those first returns he was getting shock title runs and big wins, like Elimination Chamber... eventually a bulletproof vest will start letting hits in and by the time Jericho left this time he had basically lost that tag cos he hasn't done anything in terms of major wins for so long... When he returns, if they want it back, they have to give him big wins to rebuild that aura that he can win the big matches, otherwise as noble as his "put others over at all cost" mentality is, the help he is giving is diminished cos he is then a jobber...

WWE has gotten away from bulding wins that matter as a push in favor of "push of the week" or the Super Cena, steamroller everyone in the way... In the past, everyone up to Hogan would lose at least once per feud, be it in a tag match or a singles match on the way to the payoff match... it might not be to the feud opponent, how many times did you see someone like Ted DiBiase take a loss cos his feud opponent distracted or interfered... How many times would you see a Mr. Perfect take a countout loss rather than risk a pinfall? it made the final win matter more... you never heard of someone jobbing cos of backstage stuff... But now a feud is 2 matches, and a win is almost second to the match itself... Take this week, they have Christian v Del Rio... and the problem is, you know if Christian wins on SD, he ain't winning at Summerslam or vice versa, however good the match you know Rhodes or Sandow is likely walking out the champion...

 

[Eyebrows]

A good worker or seller that looks good in defeat can get a lot more mileage now than in the past as TNT alluded to.

But it's a fine line between being the go to guy for putting on great matches and making other guys look good to losing the credibility that you have with the audience. It's been an issue with Ziggler in the past. Wade Barrett hasn't had too many *great* matches but he is somebody that has suffered from losing too much. Ryback's been hurt as well. Wrestlers still need wins to be taken seriously.

That said, a good worker on a losing streak will always have an easier time re-building credibility than a bad worker on a losing streak if and when it comes time for their push.

 

[crippler]

It all depends who the wrestler is if its a guy who has made a big name for themselves like Y2J undertaker, HBK and Triple H then Its not just having good matches its everything you have have good promos and builds to all the matches, keeping things interesting and making the fans care and want more then performing a great match win or lose it doesn't matter. But if its a rising star like Bryan & Ziggler then wins are important as well but if they lose its how they lose if its not a clean loss or a DQ then they don't lose as much momentum as if they lose clean. Overall it all depends who your talking about each star has different needs to be on top or keep going up.

 

[Headman]

Well considering Cena's matches are usually better than Dolph Ziggler's matches I'd say Cena should be used as both of your examples. As athletic as Ziggler is I can't think of too many great Dolph Ziggler matches. Come to think of it his matches with Cena were probably some of his best.

But as for which is more important, it really depends on the situation. If you can come out of a losing feud but manage to scoop all the heat then winning isn't a big deal. But usually the guy who wins the feud does so because the WWE sees him as having the momentum. As for predictability, it's probably a good thing. Fans around here bitch a lot about things being predictable but they get pretty angry when they don't get what they're expecting. They like things predictable as long as it's one of their internet heroes coming out on top. It looks like Daniel Bryan is going to win at Summer Slam and Randy Orton is going to cash in on him. That's not a bad ending, but it's predictable. If that happens I want to see outrage from the IWC because it was predictable. A good ending but predictable.

 

[TheLittleOne]

both are important, i believe it depends on many factors.. like i just posted in another thread in regards to WM19 HBK vs Y2J : the kid thought hbk should have lost.. well that match made perfect sense for HBK to win..it allowed Jericho to get over as a heel huge by being a sore loser with doing the post match show of respect, shake hands, hug , then BOOM out of nowhere low blow..

jericho lost, but he got over that night.. and so did HBK. their in ring work was almost flawless, as well as the winner was the better man.

vice versa RYBACK's numerous ppv losses to punk just to me didnt make sense.. he was getting over as a face.. he had the arena chanting his shtick... ( like D Bry's Yes) and he looked like a believable monster.. of course his in ring work wasn't 5-star BUT it didnt have to be.. NOW i'm not saying he HAD to lose.. but i personally feel ( & most agree) that it was not believable that a low blow by punk could cause him to pin ryback after all the crazy wins and awesome build they were feeding us on tv every week.. i 4get the exact ending but i think you get my point... he could have lost that first ppv match with punk, but it had to be booked stronger... ( simply have heyman handcuff ryback's wrist to something under the ring while he's lying outside hurt, then he doesnt make the 10 count) i dunno but not the way it went down.. feel me.. agree?

for example i predict a very fun and exciting match at summerslam because i know the american dragon can carry cena on a wrestling rollercoster...but after all the people we saw bryan defeat cleanly, the only way d bry should lose would have to be wm style numerous AAs or Passing out in cena's submission hold.. other wise i feel the way its been booked, bryan should win cleanly.. but let ORTON cash in and defeat him.. because that gives us a great Heel in ORTON and its always better to watch sum1 like Daniel Bryan CHASE the belt and win 1st wwe title at wm ( the old school way)

 

[SilverBullet1929]

I think it depends on the wrestler and where their career is at and things like that but generally speaking having a good match is more important. You can get over in losing, then again, you can also win every match and not get over if you don't entertain the people. Bret Hart once said some of his favorite performances were matches that he lost because he could tell a good story in not coming up with that big win. That says a lot to me about how the performance is more important than the win. With that said, Bret is an established Hall of Famer performer. Wins are now irrelevant to a guy like him. If you ask a guy like Tito Santana who lost 7 of his eight WrestleMania matches, he'd probably like an extra win or two on his record. Then again, Tito did make the Hall of Fame as well so maybe he's happy having 7 WMania losses if he knows he had good matches overall.

So yea it depends on the circumstances but I'd lean more towards having good matches.

 

[Irishock]

both are important, i believe it depends on many factors.. like i just posted in another thread in regards to WM19 HBK vs Y2J : the kid thought hbk should have lost.. well that match made perfect sense for HBK to win..it allowed Jericho to get over as a heel huge by being a sore loser with doing the post match show of respect, shake hands, hug , then BOOM out of nowhere low blow..

jericho lost, but he got over that night.. and so did HBK. their in ring work was almost flawless, as well as the winner was the better man.

That was nothing new. Jericho had already gotten over as a sore loser heel years before WM19.

 

[FlairFan2003]

How you perform in a feud, your promos, character development, etc means more than technically being viewed as winning a feud. Randy Savage clearly lost his fued vs Hogan, over 12 years and two companies Savage lost every time he tangled with Hogan. He benefited though due to some great work, especially in their early runs in 86 and 89, he gained status, he didnt lose it. Steve Austin gained a ton by losing to Brett Hart at WrestleMania, Sting gained tons coming up short vs Ric Flair at Clash of Champions, same with HBK losing to Hart at S-Series 92.

Now if you dont impress with your work on the mic and as a character then it really doesnt matter what you do in the ring or in the fued you wont benefit and gain with the audience. Chris Masters is a great example, pushed hard on TV and featured prominently against HBK, Flair, & Cena. Likewise Shelton Benjamin won the IC Title, beat Flair, HHH, & RVD, and never caught fire. Winning a big match or fued does help, but its a combination of everything that gets you over & connected to fans.

 

[theBec2101]

I think story telling might be the most important one and if you’re not able to tell a story you get Hayman, Bobby the Brain, or someone of that nature. I think if you’re able to sell the story you’re pretty much golden. You can always have good matches and make it but if you don’t sell or the crowd isn’t into you mid-carder for life. Don’t get me wrong there are exceptions to the concept but eventually it never last long they will eventually be put in the proper place. But personally I rather see great matches and them lose i.e. Shelton Benjamin in almost every match but it nice to see a win all of a sudden.

 

[HBsam31]

It's having good matches for me. A great wrestler can sometimes look better than the winner in defeat. Wins don't seem to really mean much these days, and I think it is more important to have a good match.