Matches Should Finish With Less Finishers

[Steve-O-Matt]

Y'know, in every match, there's a formula: back and forth until one guy hits his finisher. If the guy who took the finisher is face, there's a 50/50 chance he'll kick out. Am I the only one who thinks there should be less finishers ending matches?

I think I would rather that most of the time, matches would end with a big spot, or a roll-up, or something. To have every match end with a finisher, in my opinion, doesn't make the finisher look good. I always thought it looked stupid every time someone does a move, then goes for a pin for a 2 count. With people rolling their eyes and thinking, "You're only gonna win without your finisher so why bother pinning?"

If they build the move more as a move the guy has to bring out in order to beat this guy, then it will mean more. Plus, when you have more matches end with a big move or roll-up, it means the match could end at any time. It just makes it more exciting for me.

Now it's far too late now for them to change that formula, but this is your question:

Would you rather have seen throughout the WWE a system of less finishers, or the system they have now?

 

[PeterSellersSTL]

less finishers for sure but I'm wondering when should a match absolutely end with a finisher? You can't end the main event of Wrestlemania on a roll up. I just don't know how to workout a system for less finishers, should shows/ppvs have a quota? It kinda depends match to match, and what purpose you're trying to fulfill. But I would prefer a system with less finishers and more clean finishes. I think everyone wwe and fans worry about protecting guys a little more than they should.

 

[Alastor]

Then the fans of the losing wrestlers will bitch that their favourite were 'buried' because the lost to a non-finisher or non-multiple finisher finish.

You can't win with either or.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Yup. Simple changes like this would help bring a little bit of surprise back to things. I miss moves like small packages, sunset flips, inside cradles, and reverse rollups being able to end a match if pulled off at the right time. But again, this was back when wrestling was still called wrestling and not sports entertainment.

 

[James]

Would anyone have been satisfied with Bryan-HHH at WM30 if it ended on a small-package?

I kinda thought it would go down like that because Hunter wouldn't like to be put down cleanly. Also it wouldn't been a huge surprise as many wouldn't expect it to be honest. With the Kenta knee it was kinda no surprise.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Personally, I definitely think there should be more variety to how matches finish. Things like roll ups, victory rolls, defeating your opponent with their finisher would all add that extra bit of unpredictability. Anything but were we've reached now were even the most established finished doesn't necessarily mean a victory.

 

[MCMG]

There should be more varied endings to matches. A superstar winning every match with the same move is stupid. Guys have so many signature moves that should mean he has more ways of winning a match. Think how many times Ziggler has defeated Sandow... could one of those victories not been with a fame-asser. What about the sleeper? The jumping DDT is an option to but no, the Zig-Zag is always the preferred method. If he wins one of these matches with a different move then it makes him look better. That is just an example and the same applies for pretty much everyone on the roster.

If you have more than one move that can win a match you are more dangerous. Taker, by the end of his career, had about four moves that at one point was his finisher and that adds to the match and to his credibility as a threat.

The majority of matches should end with the finisher (unless it's a DQ/count-out) but every so often a wrestler should win a match with a signature move.

 

[FickMoley]

I'll copy/paste what I wrote in the thread "The Little Things Which Bother You Far More Than They Should Do?" a few days ago

#2. Matches always end with a finisher. If there are never surprise endings, crowds sit on their hands until a finisher is coming, knowing that it's just tricks & show until the big finale. It takes away from investing in each match, and limits the finisher's power (it's like overusing a curse word). I think top guys should hardly ever use their finishers against guys lower on the card.

I'd like to add that certain moves used to be regarded as universal, non-exclusive finishers: power bomb, DDT, piledriver, & electric chair are past examples. It'd be fun to see surprise "big moves" win matches here and there.

Certain guys would absolutely benefit from surprise wins in very character specific ways. Kofi Kingston and Adam Rose as faces and Fandango and Heath Slater as heels would draw unique heat for winning in a non-linear way.

 

[USMNT]

A good guy wining with an out-of-nowhere roll-up has, throughout wrestling history, garnered one of the biggest reactions in the sport.

You can name hundreds of examples, but just a few:

Hart - Bulldog: Wembley erupted for the sunset flip reversal. The reaction was way better than had Bulldog won with the running powerslam.

Steamboat - Savage: The back and forth nature and speed of the bout created a great moment when Steamboat pinned Savage on the slam reversal.

Hart - Diesel: Great storytelling in the finish, allowing Bret to get the win, but protecting the realism of the bigger guy dominating.

Hart - Hart: Showed how slipping up, even for just a second, against a technically proficient guy can create defeat.

Angle - Eddie: Is there a better way to steal victory than luring the aggressive, heated heel right into the clutches of a roll-up?

Funk - Flair: Flair reversed Funk's small package into his own for a win.

Funk - Raven: No finish imaginable would have garnered a better response than Terry Funk using a small package to win the ECW title. The fans response is golden.

Pillman - Liger: Liger missed a top rope move and Pillman pounced with a la magistral cradle to cap a great match.

HBK - Y2J: The old man showed he was still one step ahead of the young lion as he used a roll up to get a win on the grandest stage of them all.

I could go on and on. I think the lack of the heel-face dichotomy is the real reason behind the kind of dumbing down styles. WWE does bang up work for an entertainment company, but when it comes to good guy/bad guy narrative, the ship has sailed. Without solid good guy/bad guy narrative, how the matches end becomes vanilla, and we see the same finishes over and over.

I'll end this way-too-long post with a wrap up about my thoughts on heel/face and the lack of different finishes.

With absolutely no one wrestling as heels or faces, the rules to wrestling as a heel/face don't apply.

Example: When I was in training, if you were a heel, you never hooked the leg in an uncompetitive match. In a competitive match you'd only hook the leg in the case of a false finish (2 9/10) or an actual finish. If you were a baby face, you hook the leg every single time. If you were bigger than your opponent, you never dropped down after an irish-whip. Why avoid interaction with a smaller guy? If a heel was noticeably bigger than the baby, the baby could never slam him on the first try. Often it would take 3-4 tries. Build the story, build to the moment. If a face was noticeably bigger than the heel, the heel never slammed him. If the baby has an advantage, the heel HAS to cheat to get around it. If the heel overcomes the advantage, that makes the heel the baby and throws the psychology of the match all off. (Unless you make the strength of the heel the story of the match with a heel like Cesaro).

Regardless, I'm old. I mostly lurk, but this thread struck a chord. I've often thought about starting a thread titled "Stop doing that you're a heel/face" just to point out some of the little things that get overlooked.

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

A good guy wining with an out-of-nowhere roll-up has, throughout wrestling history, garnered one of the biggest reactions in the sport.

You can name hundreds of examples, but just a few:

Hart - Bulldog: Wembley erupted for the sunset flip reversal. The reaction was way better than had Bulldog won with the running powerslam.

Steamboat - Savage: The back and forth nature and speed of the bout created a great moment when Steamboat pinned Savage on the slam reversal.

Hart - Diesel: Great storytelling in the finish, allowing Bret to get the win, but protecting the realism of the bigger guy dominating.

Hart - Hart: Showed how slipping up, even for just a second, against a technically proficient guy can create defeat.

Angle - Eddie: Is there a better way to steal victory than luring the aggressive, heated heel right into the clutches of a roll-up?

Funk - Flair: Flair reversed Funk's small package into his own for a win.

Funk - Raven: No finish imaginable would have garnered a better response than Terry Funk using a small package to win the ECW title. The fans response is golden.

Pillman - Liger: Liger missed a top rope move and Pillman pounced with a la magistral cradle to cap a great match.

HBK - Y2J: The old man showed he was still one step ahead of the young lion as he used a roll up to get a win on the grandest stage of them all.

I could go on and on. I think the lack of the heel-face dichotomy is the real reason behind the kind of dumbing down styles. WWE does bang up work for an entertainment company, but when it comes to good guy/bad guy narrative, the ship has sailed. Without solid good guy/bad guy narrative, how the matches end becomes vanilla, and we see the same finishes over and over.

I'll end this way-too-long post with a wrap up about my thoughts on heel/face and the lack of different finishes.

With absolutely no one wrestling as heels or faces, the rules to wrestling as a heel/face don't apply.

Example: When I was in training, if you were a heel, you never hooked the leg in an uncompetitive match. In a competitive match you'd only hook the leg in the case of a false finish (2 9/10) or an actual finish. If you were a baby face, you hook the leg every single time. If you were bigger than your opponent, you never dropped down after an irish-whip. Why avoid interaction with a smaller guy? If a heel was noticeably bigger than the baby, the baby could never slam him on the first try. Often it would take 3-4 tries. Build the story, build to the moment. If a face was noticeably bigger than the heel, the heel never slammed him. If the baby has an advantage, the heel HAS to cheat to get around it. If the heel overcomes the advantage, that makes the heel the baby and throws the psychology of the match all off. (Unless you make the strength of the heel the story of the match with a heel like Cesaro).

Regardless, I'm old. I mostly lurk, but this thread struck a chord. I've often thought about starting a thread titled "Stop doing that you're a heel/face" just to point out some of the little things that get overlooked.

Being older like myself you may well remember this: Back in the '70s and early '80s matches didn't routinely end via the finisher. That really didn't start until Junior took over the WWF from daddy and all of a sudden every Hogan match ends with the "Legdrop of Doom" and it trickled down to the rest of the roster. By the time the early '90s rolled around other promotions like WCW et al were doing it too and it pretty much became rare to see any match that wasn't a DQ or countout that didn't end with a finisher.

 

[MAHGAWD]

Finishers have killed the suspense of matches. I remember as a kid when wrestlers would beat the hell out of each other for 15 minutes and hit someting like a snap suplex and go for the pin and I would be on the edge of my seat thinking is he gonna beat him?!?! Now you know no matter how many moves they do they will not get the three unless its followed by the finisher. Want an example? Watch Steamboat vs Savage at WM 3. Every move they did when they went for a pin the crowd was standing in suspense. Didnt matter if it was a bodyslam, gutwrench suplex..whatever.Point being the finishers killed the suspense.