What makes a Great Wrestling Match?

[Richie Cult]

You have seen bad ones and you have seen great ones. Is there a recipe?

01) BIG NAMES: I am sure some pure wrestling fans (and independent wrestling fans) will disagree with me on this but I like superstars. I do occasionally enjoy a superstar vs. jobber squash match like the WWF in the 80's to build a character up, but then pit them vs. other superstars in the weeks to follow.

02) FEUD VS. DREAM MATCH: Some people call dream matches matches that could never take place (Andre vs. Big Show or Lou Thesz vs Kurt Angle for example) so maybe I am not calling it by the right name. When Hulk Hogan vs. The Rock took place for the first time (dream match), I thought it was so special that I was extremely excited to see it. On the flip side, Steve Austin vs. The Rock or Shawn Michaels vs. The Undertaker for the umpteenth time (feud) does not excite me as much. A little, but you feel that if you accidentally missed a Triple H vs. Mankind / Mick Foley / Dude Love match, you would be OK in life.

03) FINISHING MOVES: I am not saying that a finishing move always has to "finish the match" or even that a finishing move has to be properly executed, but I do get excited when I see at least an attempt. Same thing applies to signature moves.

04) GIMMICK MATCHES: Should be rare. Should be special. Should be rarely on free TV. Should be utilized to end feuds. I am not a fan of making a gimmick match a "theme for a PPV". I was a little forgiving with TNA Lockdown because their cage took a long time to assemble, but even then, the cage implied that all feuds were coming to a head at this PPV.

05) LENGTH OF MATCH: Are we more liberal when we view a match on free T.V. to it's length as opposed to purchasing a ticket and expecting a longer match? Or is there a good time parameter for a match?

Matches that are too short usually suck, but I can forgive them in rare cases such as:
a) One of the wrestlers came into a promoted match injured and cannot go the distance. I would rather see a short match with a "superstar" than a couple of "no names" wrestling a 20 minute match.
b) For some reason, I was sort of OK with Ultimate Warrior destroying Honky Tonk Man before he could even get his outfit off just to prove a point that Ultimate Warrior was "that damn powerful" and it made for a more impressive match vs. Hogan at WM 6. I do however wish that Ultimate Warrior did it to a "transitional champion" as opposed to the "longest reigning I-C Champion" AND I wish there was a rematch in which Honky Tonk Man got to wrestle a full match (but still lose).
c) I was totally OK with King Kong Bundy destroying S.D. Jones at WM 1 for the same reason of building Bundy up vs. Hogan at WM 2. At least this one did not come at the expense of a superstar like Honky Tonk Man.
d) I think a descent match length is 8-15 minutes for a non-main event and 15-25 minutes for a main event, UNLESS endurance is part of the angle, like a 60 minute iron man match (and those should be rare and special)

06) SPECIAL SPOTS: Mankind flying off of a Hell in a Cell cage is a good example, but I am actually more compassionate to wrestlers so I hope that really dangerous acts like that are very rare and I thank God that Mick Foley is "O.K." after that. Side note: I used to enjoy chair shots to the heads, but they are starting to bother me since the Benoit tragedy and Christopher Nowinski retirement due to concussions. Only do it if the wrestler can protect themselves (hands, arms) better.

07) PSYCHOLOGY: I like when a wrestler attacks a certain body part over an over in an attempt to weaken it. It seems to show intelligence instead of just beating up an opponent. In my opinion, it becomes a cool factor for the match.

08) BLOOD: Not a big fan of blood. Ric Flair would always bleed in his bleached white hair for a cheap effect. I think bleeding should be rare, but not as rare as gimmick matches. Maybe 1 in 16 matches should involve bleeding. What is your blood/match ratio? (LOL)

09) CLEAN VS. DIRTY FINISHES: I like both, but I must say that I enjoy A.J. Styles as a face to a heel because he does less "phenomenal moves" when he is a heel.

10) FACE / HEEL TURN DURING THE MATCH OR IMMEDIATELY AFTER: Usually makes for a special event. I remember The Dream Team breaking up and Greg Valentine & Dino Bravo leaving Brutus Beefcake abandoned, Mr. Wonderful turning on Hogan and piledriving him after the match. Shawn Michaels superkicking Hogan was also cool.

Did I miss anything?
Please contribute your thoughts, agreements, and disagreements.

(coming soon: What makes a Great Wrestling Card / Event?)

 

[neildittmar]

Truly great wrestling matches are made over years of development and investment... and not just in the culminating match itself. You hit on many of the "key points" that might make a simple match a bonafide classic. Here is my personal formula that has a tendency to catapult a simple "feud" or "program" or "series" into a legendary encounter for the ages:

1st (and foremost): The history of the two combatants (ie; how you draw in the general fans). Why was Hogan/Andre so memorable? Because Hogan was extremely popular at the time, and Andre was a Giant? Almost, but not quite. It was because of the history... the legacy that these two individually had already left before facing one another at WM3. Hogan was the biggest star the business had ever seen on a national scale and his track record in promos, in-ring, etc. solidified this position. Hogan was the "unstoppable force" that seldom ever lost and never lost clean. Andre on the other hand played the role of "immovable object" to perfection, was a bonafide giant, and manhandled everyone he came in contact with... including Hogan at key points in their feud. This set up a "battle for the ages" type feel that is very hard to recreate and is a critical component in a Great Wrestling Match.

2nd (and almost as important) is equal parts simplicity and accessibility (how you draw in casual and non-fans). Using the same Hogan/Andre WM3 example, it's easy to see why this match was a classic. EVERYONE knew who Hulk Hogan was as he was EVERYWHERE... on television, in movies, on talk shows, in the newspapers. People knew who he was and even if they didn't, it took but a few minutes for ANY individual to find out what Hogan was all about. Andre on the other hand needed no words. He was a great big guy that could literally destroy anything and everyone in his path. Sight unseen, his name even envoked certain emotions. This man isn't big... he's not even "really tall", he's a GIANT. Anyone can understand this concept, which makes the match instantly appealing.

3rd is a combination of realism and suspending disbelief (ie; how you draw in jaded fans or smarks). I personally think you'd have to look far and wide to find a fan that believes everything he/she on a pro-wrestling show is real. A large majority of the fans know the show is entertainment first, athleticism second, and "real" somewhere a distant third at best. As long-time fans though, there is something that makes us want to believe despite things like common sense and rationale. We want to think that Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were such great competitors that they could go non-stop for 60 minutes, only to see Shawn win in "overtime" and fulfill his boyhood dream. It was coregraphed, scripted, and dare I say "fake"... but we didn't care. It told a believable story, while being fairly simplistic and accessible and also had history behind the two competitors indivdually.

In short, a "Great Wrestling Match" needs to cater to all three to be categorized as such in the first place. That's why we don't see them too often, as the formula is extremely hard to "get right" much of the time. TNA being a fairly young company and WWE in the midst of its so-called "youth movement" makes it surprising that ANY truly great wrestling matches have taken place in recent years. Perhaps this is why a star like Hogan, a charismatic showstopper like HBK, or a logic-defying monster like Andre the Giant really haven't bursted onto the scene to make those great matches a reality... too soon, too inaccessible, and too little ability to suspend disbelief.

 

[vertigolowe]

01) Big Names: To me the names aren't all that important. The thing with the names though is that in general the reason you've heard of the stars and not the jobbers is because the stars are better at what they do. So it would seem natural to me that the better wrestlers are the ones who get famous and therefore have name recognition. That being said there are underutilized and/or held-back talent that are very good but for whatever reason (politics, too new, etc) they aren't stars.

02) Feud vs Dream Match: I have to go with the feud matches here, but with the caviot that the feud makes sense. During the Mick/HHH fued I remember being very excited for Cactus vs HHH in the Street Fight at Royal Rumble because of how they reintroduced Cactus. Then when they did HiaC at No Way Out I was still pumped for the match. But that was where it went off the tracks. At Wrestlemania we have HHH vs Rock vs Big Show vs Mick. I personally think they should have had Mick win HiaC and then lose the belt (and career) to HHH at Wrestlemania. But the point is that the feud was built well and you wanted to see Mick wipe the smug grin off HHH's face. "Dream Matches" to me should by definition make you want to shell out money to see on the names of the guys alone. Rock/Hogan was a dream match, but the actual build-up or feud leading into it made it even better.

03) Finishing Moves: I agree that a finisher doesn't have to finish a match. I actually like when we get to see another move win a match, but I wish people would pull out something different to do that. We get a lot of school boys and roll ups and things like that for a cheap win these days. ECW overdid it at times with people kicking out of finishers left and right, but they got it right too with stuff like 3D and the Tazzmission. I want to believe that your finisher will end the match if you hit it.

04) Gimmick Matches: Totally agree here, even had the same thoughts about Lockdown.

05) Length of Match: I remember watching that Warrior match as a kid and I was fan immediately. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. The positive way to look at it for me would be to say that Honky's title run served the purpose of getting Warrior over. I can enjoy a match whether it's a 10-second squash or hour-long marathon, but I like people to be utilized correctly during that timespan. If you are going to have a 6-diva tag, at least let everyone in the match (even illegaly) before it's over. If you are going to have to fill 20 minutes out of 30 with headlocks and rest holds, maybe you should only be giving that match 10 or 15 minutes. Just use the time well and I'm happy.

06) Special Spots: TO me the special spots are cool. I do not want them to happen very often though. I used to watch chair shots and be amazed that these guys could take the hits, but as the years have passed we're finding out that they really can't take the hits. I do hate that they do the chair shot to the back and the guy is unconscious. Writhe around a little, hold your back and grimace in pain. Do something.

07) Psychology: Also another great part of wrestling. It also helps when the guy who is getting a body part worked on continues to sell it throughout the match. There was a match on Raw in the early 2000's where whoever he was fighting worked the leg. RVD kept selling and even hopped to the top rope on one leg and did the 5-star without moving that leg to get the win. It was cool. Too often the guy getting beat on just forgets that his leg is hurt when he makes his comeback.

08) Blood: Don't really miss it in WWE. Wouldn't mind if they let it happen on ppv though. If a guy gets busted he gets busted.

09) Clean vs Dirty Finishes: Prefer the clean finish, but unless they result in a DQ or no contest I'm ok with the dirty finish. I just hate when the end of a good match is ruined by a run in that takes away a conclusion to the match. It doesn't make me want to see a rematch, a match against the run in or anything else besides this match with a finish. Because how often do the rematches of really good matches turn out to be really good matches? HBK/Cena & HBK/Taker are two cases that spring to mind, but those first matches weren't wrecked by run-ins anyway.

10) Face/Heel Turn During or Immediately after the Match: Absolutely fine with it. Just don't have people consistently shifting from good to bad. Let it run its course so that when they do turn it means something more.

and my own add-on

11) The Fans: The crowd at the show can have a huge impact on how good a match is. Hogan/Rock was better than the match itself because the crowd was so completely into it. There have been Raws where the crowd is practically dead despite good matches. So although it's something that's sort of a random element, I think the fans have a lot to do with how good a match is.

 

[jholcomb22]

I think a lot of your points are good for the build up, but don't make the match great. Big names don't always guarantee anything. Lesner vs Goldberg, for example, was garbage and they were the 2 biggest names at the time. Same with Steiner and HHH.

The dream vs feud thing. Rock and Hogan had great build but the match itself wasn't necessarily great. And I agree that long feuds can build to great matches, but which Rock Austin match was the great one? All of them? One of them?

Finishing moves are great to end matches, but the matches that usually become great are the ones when one superstar hits there finisher. It looks over. But somehow the other superstar kicks out.

Gimicks are just that. Gimicks. They can lead to great spots, like Moriison in the rumble, or Edge and the hardy's in the TLC matches. But a lot of great matches are simply 1 on 1. Michaels vs Taker I and II, Cena vs Michaels on raw.

The things that are spot on are the length of the match and Special spots. They are essential in every great match.

I like the psychology aspect, but a lot of times it slows down the match so much and almost always takes the crowd out of it.

Blood is a pointless aspect to a great match. It has no effect one way or another.

Also, it has to be a clean finish. A dirty finish feels cheap and tainted. It feels like the first 20 minutes of the match were for nothing. And with the face/heel turn, it seems to draw more light on the match. Keeping it in people's memories longer.

All in all, I think the most important things in a great match are length, special spots, crowd reaction, and most importantly, chemistry between the wrestlers.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I think the crucual aspect missing is the false finish/flash pinfall... Think back to Steamboat and Savage or Smith v Hart... Those matches had lots of moves that could easily have ended the match but at that final microsecond, the shoulder goes up.... When done right, the crowd pop the win, then immediatly have to stop, but they stay up in their seats. Its similar to a very near miss in Football when you think the ball is in the net...

When several false finishes are used together, the effect multiplies with each one... then comes the flash fall Take Davey Boy's simple pin on Bret or Owen's shock pin on Bret... suddenly just when you think the next near fall is coming...bang its done... and you are stunned that it's so simple...so theres that milisecond of silence followed by a massive pop.

 

[Tech N9ne]

I think a combination of all those things listed in the OP play a part. Also, sometimes a crowd's mood could be a major role in how a match is perceived.

Perception... That is probably an overlooked attribute in most things in life, let alone a match. You want to be entertained, or else why would you watch? Many things are a factor is someone's perception of something. Sometimes it could be a negative perception or positive perception based on the smallest thing.

Word of mouth, rumors and other people's opinions play a major role in how some people perceive things. If a match you just watched was horrible, you kind of have lower expectations for the match following it.

No matter who is in the match. Whether it be a big star or a mid carder or even a jobber, if you watch a botch fest and then a match that goes along like clock work, that could have an emphasis on how you thought it went overall. You are going to have a higher opinion of the mid carders that just executed things flawlessly as opposed to the stars that botch their way to the end or do the same old shit.

Innovating endings, wrestlers and moves in general, tend to go over well. I think people get tired of repetition and like to see things they haven't already seen.

Some things could even just be left to coincidence as to why it went over so well...

 

[WWE.IS.AWESOME]

To have a good match, you need a few things.

1. Big Names: I think big names are important for it to become a MEMORABLE match, but a good match can be gotten out of Evan Bourne even though he's not that big of a name. Normally good matches come out of big superstars but even no-names can preform well.

2. Fued vs Dream Match: Either of these can have good matches. It's more special in a Dream Match (ex. Hogan/Rock) because you may only see it once. In a fued (ex. Rock/Mankind) then you can witness it more often and it's not as memorable, but either can put on good matches.

3. Finishing Moves: It makes a person's finishing move look stronger when they finish a match, but sometimes I like it when we see a different type of ending.

4. Gimmick Matches: I also think these should be more rare. It's special when we see a gimmick match because it gives us something more exciting to look foward to. The more time imbetween gimmick matches, the more willing people are to see them. I always like a good gimmick match, though.

5. Length of Matches: For me this is a big factor. You can have two fantastic wrestlers and have them put on an amazing match, but if you drown it out to long then the fans will begin to lose interest. If you have a good match going and you end it to quickly, that will disapoint the fans. WWE needs to plan out the match and determine a good amount of time it should go on for.

6. Special Spots: Special Spots always entertain me, but to much of them can just be an overkill. WWE should save these spots for just the right moment and in just the right fued to make an epic memory.

7. Psychology: I for on am not a fan of wrestlers focusing on weakening a certain are of their opponet. I guess it makes sense, but it just seems so boring to me.

8. Blood: Oh, blood. It should be saved for a special moment. It's unnecessary to have blood in every match, on every show. Wrestlers should only bleed to show how bad they are trying to win and to make them seem more tough. Wrestlers should bleed make a match special. Wrestlers shouldn't bleed just because.

9. Clean vs Dirty Finishes: I always like a good, clean win. It makes the victor more credible and the fans respect that. Dirty wins, again, should only be saved for certain events. Dirty wins can be used to get someone over as a heel or to keep a fued going. We don't need to see one on every show.

10. Face/Heel Turns During A Match or Immediately After: Yet again, save these WWE! This should only happen to really get someone over and make it a more memorable day in wrestling history.

Good Thread.