The Death Rattle
Why So Serious?
A common complaint that is apparent in both WWE and TNA is how main eventers rarely, if ever, lose cleanly to midcarders and their ilk. I will use the example of John Cena, as I feel he would best illustrate this point. Cena is rarely booked to lose without outside interference or some type of nefarious action against him. Additionally, matches seem to end in only 4 ways: someone hits their finisher, someone pulls a quick move (like a small package), disqualification, or count-out.
That being said, I wanted to put out an idea I have to change this type of booking. It involves elements of MMA and/or boxing, both sports that are legitimate fights that produce legitimate winners.
1. Anyone could beat anyone on a given night.
Yes, there would still be guys who win the majority of their matches. Let's use Cena again. He could still be the top guy in the company, with a rather high winning percentage. That being said, he would still suffer losses fairly and without the overbooking we commonly see. Think of any UFC card you have ever seen. Without fail there will always be an upset, be it major or minor. Sometimes the favorite loses, as no one is going to be undefeated forever.
2. Do away with count outs, strengthen disqualification rules.
How many times do we hear before a match that it's "one fall to a finish"? I think we need to re-emphasize the significance of there being a winner and loser. Disqualifications must stay in place, as without rules it would essentially be street fight after street fight. There has to be some kind of code in place to ensure the integrity of the match. Low blows, foreign objects, etc. would still be cause for a DQ. I feel count outs are simply a lazier use of the booking of a DQ. It's one thing to have a heel cheat to win or preserve a title, it's another to have a competitor walk away from a fight. That goes against the grain of athletic endeavors.
3. Implementing more than 1 set finisher.
Every wrestler has moves that are unique to them, which I wouldn't want to change. But it gets tedious and tiresome to see every match end after a wrestler hits one move. Sure, a wrestler may have a move he trusts and goes for on a regular basis. For example, Randy Orton has a great thing going with the RKO. I'll cite a UFC match again. No fighter goes for just one type of victory, like a guillotine choke. They have a variety of strikes or holds in their arsenal they can use to try to win a match. I think if wrestlers had more impactful slams, strikes, and submissions that could win a match that the interest and intrigue in matches would rise due to the unpredictable nature of the finishes.
I'm not calling for a total remake of how wrestling works, just suggesting altering some of the current formula could add new interest to the product. It would be easier to move guys up and down the card because of what they accomplish in a match. A wrestler could easily go on a short winning streak, which could justify him getting a shot at a title or wrestler ranked higher on the card then him. Let's use Evan Bourne as an example. Bourne could win 4 straight matches on Raw, which could easily translate into a shot at the United States Title. Conversely, a wrestler on a losing streak could snap out of it with one win over a wrestler and more realistically be perceived as a future threat. Let's use Wade Barrett here. He hasn't been winning much lately, but a victory over a higher perceived wrestler (say someone like Sheamus) could start him back towards the top.
Curious for your feedback, thanks.
That being said, I wanted to put out an idea I have to change this type of booking. It involves elements of MMA and/or boxing, both sports that are legitimate fights that produce legitimate winners.
1. Anyone could beat anyone on a given night.
Yes, there would still be guys who win the majority of their matches. Let's use Cena again. He could still be the top guy in the company, with a rather high winning percentage. That being said, he would still suffer losses fairly and without the overbooking we commonly see. Think of any UFC card you have ever seen. Without fail there will always be an upset, be it major or minor. Sometimes the favorite loses, as no one is going to be undefeated forever.
2. Do away with count outs, strengthen disqualification rules.
How many times do we hear before a match that it's "one fall to a finish"? I think we need to re-emphasize the significance of there being a winner and loser. Disqualifications must stay in place, as without rules it would essentially be street fight after street fight. There has to be some kind of code in place to ensure the integrity of the match. Low blows, foreign objects, etc. would still be cause for a DQ. I feel count outs are simply a lazier use of the booking of a DQ. It's one thing to have a heel cheat to win or preserve a title, it's another to have a competitor walk away from a fight. That goes against the grain of athletic endeavors.
3. Implementing more than 1 set finisher.
Every wrestler has moves that are unique to them, which I wouldn't want to change. But it gets tedious and tiresome to see every match end after a wrestler hits one move. Sure, a wrestler may have a move he trusts and goes for on a regular basis. For example, Randy Orton has a great thing going with the RKO. I'll cite a UFC match again. No fighter goes for just one type of victory, like a guillotine choke. They have a variety of strikes or holds in their arsenal they can use to try to win a match. I think if wrestlers had more impactful slams, strikes, and submissions that could win a match that the interest and intrigue in matches would rise due to the unpredictable nature of the finishes.
I'm not calling for a total remake of how wrestling works, just suggesting altering some of the current formula could add new interest to the product. It would be easier to move guys up and down the card because of what they accomplish in a match. A wrestler could easily go on a short winning streak, which could justify him getting a shot at a title or wrestler ranked higher on the card then him. Let's use Evan Bourne as an example. Bourne could win 4 straight matches on Raw, which could easily translate into a shot at the United States Title. Conversely, a wrestler on a losing streak could snap out of it with one win over a wrestler and more realistically be perceived as a future threat. Let's use Wade Barrett here. He hasn't been winning much lately, but a victory over a higher perceived wrestler (say someone like Sheamus) could start him back towards the top.
Curious for your feedback, thanks.