If Tommy Dreamer always loses and Kurt Angle will always win, then why watch?

[D-Man]

Sounds pretty pointless, right? I mean, let's face it; if I already know that a wrestler is going to lose a match, why would I keep it on my television screen? I could really care less how potentially great the match can be. Sure, it might be exciting... but the majority of the match will consist of me wondering when wrestler A is going to pin wrestler B.

Of course, there are few exceptions to this rule. HBK vs. Undertaker 1 & 2 can both be considered pointless. In their first encounter, I don't really care what anyone thinks, but the WWE really made us scratch our heads as to who might come out the winner in the match. Even though we had strong bias towards the Undertaker because of "The Streak", the match was very back and forth and really had us on the edge of our seats until it was over. On the other hand, the second encounter was just the opposite. We all knew that this was HBK's last match and knew that there was no way WWE would allow him to leave a blemish in the streak. Granted, the match was awesome, but knowing the outcome took a lot of wind out of our sails while watching it.

TNA is a big victim of this. I am constantly seeing one-sided matches on their television programming. The storyline with Kurt Angle is a perfect example. He has put his career on the line in his quest to gain TNA gold again. So far, he's gone through the top 5 (I believe, but might be more) in the TNA rankings. We ALL knew he would never lose those matches. Now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty and Kurt looks like he could possibly attain his goal at Bound for Glory (if he stays undefeated in the championship tournament), but prior to this tournament, we didn't have a doubt in our minds that he'd mow through the lower rankings.

The biggest example of my topic comes from the king of the losing record, Tommy Dreamer. This guy has built his entire career around losing matches. As a matter of fact, I believe that he stated in his own words that he wants to be remembered as a guy that never wins championships and puts others over. So I guess the only natural question that comes to my mind is why the fuck is he being put in high-profile matches when he's always going to lose them?? Isn't it pointless? How is a wrestler supposed to draw money when they're always on the losing end?

I understand that Tommy is a very giving person in the wrestling business and wishes to keep the ECW name and tradition alive forever and ever but this personal choice to constantly lose matches is hurtful to TNA's product. He's a loser (not personally but professionally) and guys that lose matches do not draw money.

My question to all of you is do you agree with me? Do you think that this needs to be changed by TNA? Do any of you want to watch a match that you know the outcome for? And if so, is there any point to your decision?

 

[Ferbian]

Wouldn't necessarily say it's a one sided hit against TNA D. Especially considering the fact that we always know - John Cena vs Chris Jericho equals Cena is the winner, Sheamus retains through dirty tactics etc.

So it's never just a one sided thing, and I agree to some extend. On one side, sure it's annoying to watch a match you know "yeah, not gonna loose the championship this soon" or "Yeah, he's gonna be the number one contender, because the other guy is crap on a stick".

But from another perspective, it's always nice to see a great match where, even though you know the outcome, it still kicks ass. John Cena vs Chris Jericho is always gold in one way or another, Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker is always golden. There's a lot of these matches that will, and always have been golden, even if the end result is obvious.

So it can be said in both ways, that not all matches necessarily turns the crowd off if you know who's gonna win. It's about suspending beliefs for a second or two, and actually enjoy what is going on. Sure I know that very concept of suspending beliefs is one hell of a bitch for the IWC, for any fan that knows just a little bit about the business and it's past of booking matches.

However, we're not alone here, some actually manage to suspend beliefs. I manage to sit down and watch matches I know are gonna be wrestling gold, match of the week or match of the year, I'll watch it. But comedy matches, or matches we know "meh, not gonna be good, and the end result is obvious", yeah I'm not watching that.

So all in all, it depends on the match, the people involved as well as the stage I guess. Obviously there's gonna be blown a bit of extra steam into a Wrestlemania match, for example Chris Jericho vs Edge, not a predictable match at this years Wrestlemania, however let's say it had been predictable, we know Wrestlemania is gonna be where they blow all the steam, but let's say they fought at Bragging rights, yeah, might not be as good.

And all of this goes for TNA as well, Angle vs A.J, we knew that Angle was gonna be victorious at The Whole F'N Show. However I watched the whole match, because I know they can put on gold.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

You put too much value in the outcome of a match, D, and not the entirety of it otherwise.

When in all the history of pro-wrestling has the precedent ever been unpredictability? That age-old formula of heel beats face, heel cheats to beat face, face beats face and ends feud has been going on for years in this business, man – years. And with good reason. It works! Why break that now because you're too smart for your own good? Yes, it's predictable, but that doesn't equate not being entertaining.

So Angle is going to win, so what? Yes, we know he'll beat Hardy, but that doesn't mean the match he has with him isn't worth watching just because you know Angle will more than likely come out on top. You're potentially robbing yourself of 20-minutes of entertainment based purely on the fact you are fairly certain of the outcome. It's preposterous.

How do we even know Angle will win the WHC, anyway? Sure, it's likely he does, but how do we know for sure?

1. BFG is in Daytona Beach, the home of the nWo controversy. You think TNA is going to put on a show there and have everything go status quo? I highly doubt that.

2. If you watched ReAction, you'd have seen the closing segment was Anderson talking about how much he respected Angle, only to have Angle mutter "what an asshole..." when Ken left the room. As if that isn't a prelude to the two meeting for the title at BFG?

3. Presuming the aforementioned is true, why would you not capitalize on the fact Angle's career is on the line by screwing him not only out of the title, but out of his career in a very heated and very personal angle where Anderson wins? Certainly not as predictable as Angle winning, no?

 

[gd]

Not knowing who's going to win is always one of the biggest things that makes a match great. Anytime it's a forgone conclusion someone's going to win, it's just missing an extra something. You know what I mean, don't you? Of course you do, you made this thread.

Of course, TNA is guilty of this, especially with the Angle thing. His match with Pope at Victory Road could've been great, but we all knew who was winning. Same with his latest match with AJ. The fact they added the whole "retiring" thing on it didn't help either.

The current tournament is painfully predicatable as well, with Angle and Anderson sure to meet in the finals. Almost as predicatable as the tourney at Against All Odds, where I actually predicted every match correctly, no foolin'.

Where am I going with this? Umm, those matches aren't totally pointless, I guess. It's still a Kurt Angle match, which is always enjoyable. And even in the WWE a lot of matches are predictable, especially on free TV. There really isn't much you can do to change that, apart from going crazy with your booking, so I guess predictability isn't always a bad thing, as long as you're able to change it up every once and awhile.

 

[shattered dreams]

I think this should be in the general wrestling section not TNA because this guy called John Cena still works for WWE. In fact, generally speaking I think match outcomes are much more predictable in WWE. On this question it really depends. First things first, it is impossible to put on a tv show every week where every match is unpredictable as far as winners go. Once you realize that it becomes about how they use the predictable winner matches. The Angle storyline is good IMO. Yes, he is going to win up until BFG but the matches are still entertaining. I think a lot of people enjoy those matches for what they are advertised as, strong wrestling matches that angle will prevail in. Often times the match is as much about how the winner wins as the outcome. People get too obsessed with the oversimplified outcome.

If it was true that it was pointless to watch matches that we knew the outcome from then there would be no DVDs of PPVs selling and youtube would be down a few billion hits. There are plenty of reasons to watch a predictable match if it is good or advances the story. However, unpredictability is key and IMO TNA has done well to keep people guessing. Dreamer losing those two matches advanced the storylines. AJ vs Dreamer is at the heart of the ev2 fortune conflict and while Dreamer lost he did not lose to AJ, he lost from Abyss getting involved while the factions were brawling. Like I said the journey to your theoretically obvious outcome had meaning to the story, which made it interesting, even if AJ defeats Dreamer does not sound like it.

 

[D-Man]

Wouldn't necessarily say it's a one sided hit against TNA D. Especially considering the fact that we always know - John Cena vs Chris Jericho equals Cena is the winner, Sheamus retains through dirty tactics etc.

I had a feeling someone would misunderstand my point. This thread is not for the purpose of your everyday match that consists of Yoshi Tatsu versus John Cena on Raw. I'm speaking about taking a high-profile storyline and trying to make it interesting while the rest of the world knows damn well how it's going to turn out. No one is going to watch a high-profile match where they already know who the winner is going to be.

You put too much value in the outcome of a match, D, and not the entirety of it otherwise.

When in all the history of pro-wrestling has the precedent ever been unpredictability? That age-old formula of heel beats face, heel cheats to beat face, face beats face and ends feud has been going on for years in this business, man – years. And with good reason. It works! Why break that now because you're too smart for your own good? Yes, it's predictable, but that doesn't equate not being entertaining.

So Angle is going to win, so what? Yes, we know he'll beat Hardy, but that doesn't mean the match he has with him isn't worth watching just because you know Angle will more than likely come out on top. You're potentially robbing yourself of 20-minutes of entertainment based purely on the fact you are fairly certain of the outcome. It's preposterous.

How do we even know Angle will win the WHC, anyway? Sure, it's likely he does, but how do we know for sure?

1. BFG is in Daytona Beach, the home of the nWo controversy. You think TNA is going to put on a show there and have everything go status quo? I highly doubt that.

2. If you watched ReAction, you'd have seen the closing segment was Anderson talking about how much he respected Angle, only to have Angle mutter "what an asshole..." when Ken left the room. As if that isn't a prelude to the two meeting for the title at BFG?

3. Presuming the aforementioned is true, why would you not capitalize on the fact Angle's career is on the line by screwing him not only out of the title, but out of his career in a very heated and very personal angle where Anderson wins? Certainly not as predictable as Angle winning, no?

In this entire post, I see absolutely no mention of the #1 culprit that I mentioned; Tommy Dreamer. The Kurt Angle... er... angle aside, Tommy has built his career around losing matches... especially high-profile matches. Why insert him in any feuds of real meaning?? For instance, he faced AJ Styles two weeks ago on Impact. Do you mean to tell me that you had a thought in the back of your mind that had Dreamer winning the match?!? And if you did, you still wanted to watch the match?? I don't know how else to ask this, but WHY?!? I see no point in it.

IDR, I see what you're saying but I think you've got things backwards. You're saying I put too much stress on the outcome of a match and that I'm too smart because I noticed that Tommy Dreamer loses every fucking match that he's in. Wouldn't any casual wrestling fan notice this? I mean, if you want to call me "smarky", maybe you should dig into my knowledge of the history of ECW, or Tommy's background, or something else that isn't plain to the naked eye of your casual fan like his CONSTANT LOSSES IN MATCHES.

You say I put too much stress on the outcome of a match, but isn't that why the casual fan watches the television show? Even though they know it's staged, they still want to see a match that generates interest as to who wins and who loses. Every time they see Tommy Dreamer he loses. Doesn't that take interested out of watching his matches?

I just don't see any way you could defend this. Fact of the matter is that Tommy ALWAYS loses. Casual fans want to see winners and losers of matches in the same way that they want to see their favorite football team win games. If their team kept losing games, wouldn't it drive down the ratings, seating buyrates, and everything else that has to do with money making? The same goes for pro-wrestling. Even considering that Tommy would win a match is like betting the farm on a horse with three legs in the Kentucky Derby. This is obvious to casual fans so I'd imagine they'd be hesitant to watch a Tommy Dreamer match.

 

[D-Man]

I think this should be in the general wrestling section not TNA because this guy called John Cena still works for WWE. In fact, generally speaking I think match outcomes are much more predictable in WWE.

OMG... Pahhhhlease...

Apples and oranges, man. Cena is the hero of the WWE. I hear what you're saying, but comparing him to Tommy Dreamer isn't even in the same universe. Cena doesn't ALWAYS win matches and don't make me have to do research and prove it. You know it's true.

If it was true that it was pointless to watch matches that we knew the outcome from then there would be no DVDs of PPVs selling and youtube would be down a few billion hits. There are plenty of reasons to watch a predictable match if it is good or advances the story.

Actually, I would assume that DVD buys and YouTube hits would INCREASE as a result of a predictable match. Who would want to watch it live if they knew who was going to win? They wouldn't. Matter of fact, they'd be like me and try to catch it on YouTube the next day or a DVD down the road that they can rent. How does this make money for TNA? It doesn't.

However, unpredictability is key and IMO TNA has done well to keep people guessing. Dreamer losing those two matches advanced the storylines.

Yup, they sure did. And no one knew he'd win them so they shut off their TV's when the matches began and read about the brilliant "storyline advancement" the next day on TNAwrestling.com. Once again, how does this make money for TNA? It doesn't.

AJ vs Dreamer is at the heart of the ev2 fortune conflict and while Dreamer lost he did not lose to AJ, he lost from Abyss getting involved while the factions were brawling. Like I said the journey to your theoretically obvious outcome had meaning to the story, which made it interesting, even if AJ defeats Dreamer does not sound like it.

Then why wouldn't they stick in another EV2.0 wrestler? why put AJ Styles, arguably the best wrestler with one of the best win/loss records in TNA, against a guy that ALWAYS LOSES?? Hell, Foley is just as important to EV2.0. So is Raven. So is Sabu. There were many choices as to who could wrestle in that match but they chose the predictable loser? It just makes no sense.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Overall, I think I've got to side with IDR on this one. To me, the outcome of a match isn't automatically what's going to make a match great. Whenever I go out to the movies to watch an action flick, I KNOW that somehow or another the good guys are going to wind up winning in the end. I don't know exactly how it's going to happen but I know it's going to happen. In the LOTR movies, I knew Frodo was going to destroy the ring when it was all said and done and it didn't keep me from enjoying the films. To a large degree, it's the same with wrestling matches. Not always, but a lot.

A wrestling match can tell a good story and an entertaining one and as long as I'm kept entertained, that's really what I care the most about. Kane's promo on Smackdown the other night told a great story and has me interested in seeing him feud with The Undertaker. With the emphasis on Taker's weakened physical condition due to being in a "vegetative state" can lead to some potentially interesting matches and scenarios for the feud. Sure, there are a few holes in the logic overall, but professional wrestling isn't Shakespeare in the Park. I knew that the MCMGs were going to win the 3rd and 4th matches in their best of 5 series against Beer Money to tie things up, but it didn't keep me from enjoying the matches.

Last week on Raw, I was almost certain that John Cena was going to beat Darren Young. The match in and of itself, however, was connected to a much bigger and overall more entertaining story for me that the outcome of the match didn't really sour me.

That's not to say, however, that the point D-Man has brought up isn't applicable. The outcomes of some matches are so obvious that it can kill the entertainment factor. I thought Kurt Angle and Douglas Williams had a pretty good match this past Thursday on iMPACT! but the outcome overall was entirely too predictable. I knew Angle would win, I knew he'd win via the ankle lock submission and I knew that the match would be short. Kurt Angle wrestling his way through the top 10 contenders for the TNA Championship was potentially an interesting storyline. There could have been some extremely good matches to come out of it but most of them have fallen flat partially due to their short length and partially due to the retirement stipulation. With most of the matches lasting 5 minutes or less, they don't feel particularly special. After all, this is Kurt Angle, one of the overall greatest pro wrestlers in the world. The storyline calls for him to work his way through the top 10 in order to get his shot at the TNA title, that's all well and good but a succession of 5 minute matches puts the kaibosh on some of the sizzle and the retirement angle pretty much finishes off the rest. Angle & Styles had a good match on iMPACT! a few weeks ago, but it didn't feel special because of the length and because of the retirement deal. Styles & Angle have had fantastic matches in the past and while the match was good, it just doesn't hold up. An 8 minute match in which Kurt Angle is guaranteed to win simply can't compare. I do think that TNA has a problem in that it winds up making potentially memorable and special matches, feuds and storylines come out mediocre. Case in point, Kurt Angle's quest to regain the TNA World Heavyweight Championship or the current TNA World Heavyweight Championship tournament.

 

[Барбоса]

I can understand the problem with obvious outcomes.

However, what I would say is that knowing who is going to win can add extra incentive to the performances of those involved. Both HBK/Taker encounters are perfect examples. I knew that Taker was going to win both times but during both occasions I was so caught up in the atmosphere of the story-telling and the play-by-play that there were moments that I forgot about the ramifications and thought that HBK was going to win.

That has been sadly lacking in Kurt's quest to win the TNA title again. Most of his matches have gotten very little build up and very little time on the card making it all the more obvious that he is going to win. Perhaps this might have changed as Angle got closer to the title but know with RVD vacating and the tournament underway, I very much doubt that we will get the potential build of intrigue that Kurt might not win.

Angle's quest has also been a missed opportunity to build up the younger stars too. A time-limit or double pin draw against Angle could have worked wonders for someone without having Kurt retire (although I am uncertain about the wording of his promise to retire - is it "if he does not win" or "if he loses"?)

 

[It's Damn Real!]

In this entire post, I see absolutely no mention of the #1 culprit that I mentioned; Tommy Dreamer. The Kurt Angle... er... angle aside, Tommy has built his career around losing matches... especially high-profile matches. Why insert him in any feuds of real meaning?? For instance, he faced AJ Styles two weeks ago on Impact. Do you mean to tell me that you had a thought in the back of your mind that had Dreamer winning the match?!? And if you did, you still wanted to watch the match?? I don't know how else to ask this, but WHY?!? I see no point in it.

Because the wrestler in question doesn't matter as much. You're using an exception to the rule, not the rule, which is made up of the other 99% of the product. Yeah, Dreamer always loses. Who cares? It doesn't change the fact that the formula still works. If it works 9 times out of 10, and that 10th time is always Dreamer "ruining" things, that's a damn-fine success-rate in my eyes. I'm A-OK with Dreamer being the black sheep time-after-time when the rest of the show still has the potential to throw you off.

You're wrong about Dreamer, though – yes, for the most part, he loses, but what of his win at Hardcore Justice? He's beaten Raven I think twice in his entire career now. Suffice it to say, if your theory were flawless, he'd have lost again, but he didn't.

IDR, I see what you're saying but I think you've got things backwards. You're saying I put too much stress on the outcome of a match and that I'm too smart because I noticed that Tommy Dreamer loses every fucking match that he's in. Wouldn't any casual wrestling fan notice this? I mean, if you want to call me "smarky", maybe you should dig into my knowledge of the history of ECW, or Tommy's background, or something else that isn't plain to the naked eye of your casual fan like his CONSTANT LOSSES IN MATCHES.

No, because casual wrestling fans don't focus on a guy losing as a means to not watch a product, smark fans do. Casual fans, the ones who still manage to suspend their disbelief a bit, but don't really care for or follow the backstage aspects of the business will watch the show so long as they are entertained. If that means Dreamer has to lose every match, then Dreamer loses those matches.

You say I put too much stress on the outcome of a match, but isn't that why the casual fan watches the television show? Even though they know it's staged, they still want to see a match that generates interest as to who wins and who loses. Every time they see Tommy Dreamer he loses. Doesn't that take interested out of watching his matches?

Well, Dreamer kinda takes the interest out of watching his matches on his own, considering he's pretty god damned boring, but that's besides the point. Hardcore Justice breaks this spell. It's fine for predictability to become a constant so long as your fans are still there. Are you telling me you didn't realize Hogan would have won half the matches he was in? It made the ones he lost that much better.

I just don't see any way you could defend this. Fact of the matter is that Tommy ALWAYS loses. Casual fans want to see winners and losers of matches in the same way that they want to see their favorite football team win games. If their team kept losing games, wouldn't it drive down the ratings, seating buyrates, and everything else that has to do with money making? The same goes for pro-wrestling. Even considering that Tommy would win a match is like betting the farm on a horse with three legs in the Kentucky Derby. This is obvious to casual fans so I'd imagine they'd be hesitant to watch a Tommy Dreamer match.

I don't really agree. Smark fans want to see winners and losers, because smark fans actually keep track of that shit. Casual fans want to be entertained, and rarely focus on the wins/losses record of wrestlers so long as the product is still entertaining.

 

[D-Man]

Listen guys, I think you're all missing my point. I'm not speaking GENERICALLY in regards to wins and losses in pro-wrestling. That subject obviously doesn't need explaining.

In this thread, I'm citing the specific examples of TNA's current product such as the Kurt Angle storyline, but especially Tommy Dreamer's constant losses. He's being put into a main TNA storyline, but if he's thrown into a match with a high-profile opponent, we all know he's going to lose. After all, that's his forte. So what's the point??

 

[D-Man]

Because the wrestler in question doesn't matter as much. You're using an exception to the rule, not the rule, which is made up of the other 99% of the product. Yeah, Dreamer always loses. Who cares? It doesn't change the fact that the formula still works. If it works 9 times out of 10, and that 10th time is always Dreamer "ruining" things, that's a damn-fine success-rate in my eyes. I'm A-OK with Dreamer being the black sheep time-after-time when the rest of the show still has the potential to throw you off.

Obviously, this formula isn't working for me if I made this thread. And I don't think I'm the only one, but I'm not about to embark on a door-to-door survey of all TNA fans.

You're wrong about Dreamer, though – yes, for the most part, he loses, but what of his win at Hardcore Justice? He's beaten Raven I think twice in his entire career now. Suffice it to say, if your theory were flawless, he'd have lost again, but he didn't.

I'll admit, I was shocked when Dreamer won at HJ. But then he went right back to being a jobber the following week on TNA Impact. At Hardcore Justice, he lost to Raven... an EV2.0 wrestler who hasn't impacted any TNA storylines as of late. But once Tommy was pinned against another TNA wrestler he went right back to where he belongs... in the losing column.

No, because casual wrestling fans don't focus on a guy losing as a means to not watch a product, smark fans do. Casual fans, the ones who still manage to suspend their disbelief a bit, but don't really care for or follow the backstage aspects of the business will watch the show so long as they are entertained. If that means Dreamer has to lose every match, then Dreamer loses those matches.

You mean to tell me that a casual fan doesn't keep track of win/loss records? Man, I guess casual fans think Yoshi Tatsu should be the next world champion then.

Well, Dreamer kinda takes the interest out of watching his matches on his own, considering he's pretty god damned boring, but that's besides the point. Hardcore Justice breaks this spell. It's fine for predictability to become a constant so long as your fans are still there. Are you telling me you didn't realize Hogan would have won half the matches he was in? It made the ones he lost that much better.

Honestly, I hated Hogan in the 80's. And why? Because the guy would NEVER LOSE. This not only turned me off to his matches, but my friends and other acquaintances, as well. However, hogan was the world champion and Tommy is a meaningless jobber. Therefore, the two don't really compare.

I don't really agree. Smark fans want to see winners and losers, because smark fans actually keep track of that shit. Casual fans want to be entertained, and rarely focus on the wins/losses record of wrestlers so long as the product is still entertaining.

Once again, I'll reiterate my point about Yoshi Tatsu. You're obviously wrong about what smarks think.

 

[freekzilla]

Look its simple yes Tommy losses alot but he is willing to make his opponent look gold and that is harder to do then alwa ys winning.. Forget Tommy for a second and look at the greastst hardcore king Mr Foley time after time he list his ass but he elevated carers . As for watching the matches we know the out come of well I read every shoulder every week and at the end of the day I still watch raw as much as it has gone down hill and I still watch tna and down y simple I am a wreastling fan junkie what have you.....doesn't matter how the journey ends its the ride that takes you to that end.....
...and that my friends is the true wrestling fan imo.. Thank you

 

[D-Man]

Look its simple yes Tommy losses alot but he is willing to make his opponent look gold and that is harder to do then alwa ys winning.. Forget Tommy for a second and look at the greastst hardcore king Mr Foley time after time he list his ass but he elevated carers . As for watching the matches we know the out come of well I read every shoulder every week and at the end of the day I still watch raw as much as it has gone down hill and I still watch tna and down y simple I am a wreastling fan junkie what have you.....doesn't matter how the journey ends its the ride that takes you to that end.....
...and that my friends is the true wrestling fan imo.. Thank you

Well, after straining my eyes to decipher this dribble, I realized that this poster is also missing my point. We're trying to view this from a casual fan's perspective. By stating that it's all about how Tommy "makes them look good" and other banter, you're speaking like an internet smark. I'm trying to view this from a casual fan's perspective.

And just to add, I'm not discouraging anyone from watching any of the organizations. I'm more of a TRUE wrestling fan than you could possibly imagine.

 

[XgringolocoX]

Not a fan of known outcomes. If I'm going to watch a show I do not read spoilers beforehand. The most exciting matches let you believe the win could go either way. When near falls are used correctly it's just awesome when either wrestler hits that last big move for the win. I also don't like big drawn out set ups for moves. I think that exposes the business in a negative way.
The Streak is one of those double edged swords for me. I watched the Undertaker from his first appearance and been a huge fan the entire time. However his WM matches lose something for me because I know he'll win. It's not that I want him to lose, I just want that OMG will "enter wrestlers name here" beat UT and end the streak?!! feeling back.

 

[The Main Event]

i've got a feeling that sth happening in BFG in the final beetwen Angle vs Pope/Anderson .
remmeber when hogan said this is ur last shot at 2010 ?! i think hogan/Bischoff REgime will do sth to stop kurt angle from bein' WHC . that's justr my feeling but the ending of the match isn't important to me ... for me The MATCH itself is important .. not who wins/loss .. it's the match that entertain me not the results ... So i think ur wrong about this one .

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Whether its in the WWE of in TNA it doesn't really matter, if you've been watching wrestling as long as I have you are going to know the outcome 9 times out of 10, wrestling is very predictable if you can read the story lines.

Even though you know who is going to win it doesn't mean the match can't be enjoyable. Personally I watch wrestling because I like it and when it comes to matches I don't watch the matches for the outcome (because I usually know the winner before the bell ring) I watch it for the storytelling, the in ring action and to see where the superstars are heading, basically to see what these superstars can show me and see if they can be built into something great.

Some of my alltime favorite matches were ones I knew the outcome, Rock vs. Hogan at WM18, Kurt Angle vs. Chris Benoit at RR03, the last 2 taker/hbk matches, benoit/hbk/hhh at wrestlemania 20, these are all matches that I knew the outcome of but I didn't really care, just because I knew the ending doesn't mean I knew the rest, its like riding a rollercoaster, you know how it will end (it will slow down and stop every time) but you don't know what the ride has in store. Wrestling matches are the same thing although you know how it will pan out, you can still enjoy the ride.

I feel TNA follows the same format, take for example the best of 5 between Beer Money and MCMG. This is another instance where I knew it would end (Beer money takes the first 2 and MCMG takes the final 3, wasn't that hard to figure out) but I was more interested in the matches they would put on, and all of them were great matches and its one of the best things I have seen in TNA recently and once again, I knew the ending but the ride was phenomenal and thats what I'll remember, the matches not the outcomes.

Thats the one big difference between UFC and wrestling, you watch UFC it actually matters who wins the fight, in wrestling not so much. In UFC you remember the outcome, in wrestling you remember the match.

To D-MAN: Your title and OP is a little confusing, you only used Angle and Dreamer as an example while asking a more broader question. In any event it doesn't change my opinion, my post can go for any match or storyline, if the storyline and the match are intriguing enough then it doesn't matter at the end because thats what people remember, not the outcome. The same applies for Angle and Dreamer, I may not have used that as an example, but its still the same thing all they got to do is to put on a good storyline with a good match, if they can do that it doesn't matter if you know the outcome because you can still get into it (maybe not everyone, but I sure can).

 

[Judah's Lion]

d-man,

sweet mother of mercy! you must have such a headache from pounding it against a wall right now. if i cared about those little emot-icons, i'd put one right here just for you.

ah, i'll do it anyway. <-- is this you D-man? don't answer that. i already know that it is.

for the record, for every poster that responded to this thread, i do get your point. it is hard sometimes to get "involved" in a match and suspend belief, etc, when you know the outcome of the match. a great case in point is the Taker streak at Mania. how can we ever believe that he's gonna lose at Mania now? we can't. and so maybe something is lost in those classic HBK/Taker matches. maybe. i dunno. they were still great, but what if HBK won that first one? would it have been better because it would have been totally unpredictable that HBK broke the streak? touch call.

but still, in THIS thread, such speculation is POINTLESS. this isn't about wrestling and restults and outcomes and records and predictability. this is about DREAMER and his matches.

D-man... i got your back on this one. i actually understood the point to your thread. if only because you had to re-post it about fifty times. seriously. one more just for good measure and just for you.

to answer your question, we don't. "why would we watch matches if we already know what the outcome will be?" we don't. i cannot think of a single time that i've ever watched a show just for a Dreamer match, or kept a show on just because he was on it. this isn't a slam on his wrestling ability, mic skills, age, etc. this is a slam on his win/loss record. it's pretty terrible.

even when he was on his "quest" to win the WWECW title that one last time, the story telling was so predictable. he'd win the title, hold it thru one ppv, and then lose it again never to win another match. he won the Raven match which might have been the biggest shock of all because he's not usually on the winning end, but has resorted to jobbing again. jobbers are important. i appreciate what they do for the business. but i don't watch wrestling to see jobbers lose. i watch to see the other matches.

and to the point that i should watch the match for its entertainment value and not just for the outcome, in the case of Dreamer, it is not entertaining. he's gonna lose. at least 15 years ago, when i knew he'd lose, at least he was in the ring doing crazy hardcore stuff that was entertaining and in angles and feuds that were entertaining. Styles would have been better off fighting Raven or Sabu or anybody else than Dreamer. first time ever that this match is taking place...!?!? so what. we saw Styles go over Dreamer in their first ever encounter, which we knew would happen.

and i dare say, back to the second of two points in the original thread, the same will be true of Angle and his angle at No Surrender against Hardy. there is no chance that Angle will not win. if there was better writing, booking, promoting and Angle's career wasn't on the line and Angle didn't win all of his other glorified squash matches in record time, then maybe i'd watch No Surrender to see this first ever encounter. but i won't.

why? to answer the original question of why would we watch matches if we already know what the outcome will be...? we don't.

thanks, D-man. good thread.

 

[Carpathian Florist]

I find it odd that no one brought up the example of Mankind winning the WWF title. Ok I know this is a TNA thread, but when Tony Schiavone gave away the fact that Mankind won on the pretape show thousands, if not millions of people changed the channel to watch Raw instead of Nitro.
I think that fact alone proves that knowing the outcome doesn't really matter too much in a match to most people.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I'll agree that Dreamer is famous for being a jobber, but at the same time he has had the (albeit rare and succinct) victorious runs as well. Given the current storyline, I can see TD come out with a transitional TV Title run because lets face it - AJ sure as hell doesn't need it. As such, I don't feel that he is guaranteed to lose every match, particularly with TNAs parchant for dodgy finishes.

Again, while Angle has been unlikely to lose in his recent program, there has been a slight element of doubt. Angle has been reluctant (to my knowledge) to commit his future to TNA, so all of these Top10 matches against young up and coming stars have, in my mind, provided the possibility of a departing Angle giving the ultimate rub - the wrestler who put Angle out of TNA. I will agree with the concensus that there has not been nearly enough time given to the matches though.

As a, slightly off-topic, final point I will say that I have found Impact really good at the moment and I feel Angle and Dreamer have contributed significantly to this.

 

[D-Man]

I find it odd that no one brought up the example of Mankind winning the WWF title. Ok I know this is a TNA thread, but when Tony Schiavone gave away the fact that Mankind won on the pretape show thousands, if not millions of people changed the channel to watch Raw instead of Nitro.
I think that fact alone proves that knowing the outcome doesn't really matter too much in a match to most people.

I'm really getting sick of having to repeat this...

I'M SPEAKING ABOUT TOMMY DREAMER AND KURT ANGLE, NOT ALL WRESTLING SUPERSTARS.

I know that this isn't the same for the majority of other wrestlers. But it seems that two of TNA's top stars are following this formula right now. Kurt Angle put his career on the line in many matches that are obviously going to have him come out as the victor. But even worse than that, the king of losses, Tommy Dreamer, is being booked in main event matches with AJ Styles. With his track record of always losing matches, do fans really want to tune into matches on Impact that they know the outcome for?

 

[Carpathian Florist]

I'm really getting sick of having to repeat this...

I'M SPEAKING ABOUT TOMMY DREAMER AND KURT ANGLE, NOT ALL WRESTLING SUPERSTARS.

It's called using prior evidence to back up a point. So what if Tommy Dreamer always loses? Perhaps the allure of what Dreamer vs Styles would be like is more important than the scripted outcome. Perhaps if we were still in the days where the majority believed wrestling was real, then people would probably get bored of seeing the same wrestler always losing over and over, but the pretense of wrestling being based on pure athletic competition is gone. It's more about the how and the why, not what actually occurs. Based on this I believe including other examples is completely valid, because it shows that people generally do not mind knowing the outcome of the match before they actually see it. It doesn't matter if it is Cena, Kurt Angle or someone like Amazing Red. Wrestling fans are exactly that, fans of the wrestling. When the pretense of athletic competition is gone then all that is left is the journey, the match itself. Everyone knew that in the film Titanic the ship was going to sink, did that stop it being one of the most successful films of it's time? No, because people wanted to watch the build up, the journey through the film, even though they all knew the ending beforehand.

 

[Suneeboy]

The basic premise seems to have been missed here.

D-Man let me rephrase your question, and correct me if I&#8217;m wrong.

&#8220;Why should we watch TNA&#8217;s matches featuring Tommy Dreamer and Kurt Angle, if we KNOW Tommy will lose and Kurt will win?&#8221;

Some may want to see how the storyline advances, or some may want to see an entertaining match. But like others have said, unpredictability adds another dimension of entertainment to a match, and it doesn&#8217;t exist with matches involving these two wrestlers in TNA right now.

It really ends up being me watching them do their trademark spots in route to them getting pinned (Dreamer) or winning (Angle). With so many hours of wrestling on television, I can do without seeing it, and just find out what happens, because the match essentially means nothing when it comes to total entertainment. I can watch something else.

 

[D-Man]

It's called using prior evidence to back up a point. So what if Tommy Dreamer always loses? Perhaps the allure of what Dreamer vs Styles would be like is more important than the scripted outcome. Perhaps if we were still in the days where the majority believed wrestling was real, then people would probably get bored of seeing the same wrestler always losing over and over, but the pretense of wrestling being based on pure athletic competition is gone. It's more about the how and the why, not what actually occurs. Based on this I believe including other examples is completely valid, because it shows that people generally do not mind knowing the outcome of the match before they actually see it. It doesn't matter if it is Cena, Kurt Angle or someone like Amazing Red. Wrestling fans are exactly that, fans of the wrestling. When the pretense of athletic competition is gone then all that is left is the journey, the match itself. Everyone knew that in the film Titanic the ship was going to sink, did that stop it being one of the most successful films of it's time? No, because people wanted to watch the build up, the journey through the film, even though they all knew the ending beforehand.

Ok, now THIS is a good reply. However, I see a few flaws.

First of all, I highly doubt that the casual wrestling fan views matches without caring about the outcome. And my point is that if this outcome is always the same, why bother watching it? Adding to this thought, anyone that views a match to see "who gets put over" or "how technical the match turns out to be" is obviously a smark and not a casual fan.

Secondly, your comparison to the Titanic is apples and oranges. It's a historical fact versus what is portrayed to be a sporting competition. Two different things.

it's apples and oranges.

 

[RD_21]

I think it depend if you take Angle storyline it's true that it's lame and I would prefer if TNA had leaked report that Kurt was about to retire playing to the smark wondering if that match could be his last.

For Dreamer, even if I didn't knew the outcome I wouldn't care so it's not really a good pick, then again maybe I don't care of Dreamer because he's always been a jobber who knows...