What's your opinion on multi-man matches?

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I was reading an article recently by a former wrestling personality, wherein he mentioned that he doesn't like multi-man matches. And I'm not talking tag team matches, but triple threats, or fatal 4-ways. Matches where the goal is to have one individual winner, where more than two competitors are present. And that struck me as odd because I'd never heard of somebody just flat out disliking those types of matches before.

So I thought to myself, maybe it's just an old school mentality, or maybe it's opinion I have that potentially isn't as universally shared as I previously thought it was. So, I thought I'd bring it up here. What are your opinions on multi-man pro wrestling matches? Do they add more excitement to a feud? Do they convolute things? Do they take away from the one-on-one storytelling?

What do you think?

 

[Slash-LN]

I personally don't mind them.

They can be exciting when done right.
I prefer the elimination ones over a single pinfall/submission one.

It can be a decent way to add to the build in a feud. Two wrestlers are feuding and a third gets thrown into the mix. Neither of the main wrestlers in the storyline has to take the fall from the other. The third guy can eliminate them both or eliminate one and then take the fall from the other. So you get to see the two main wrestlers in the feud go at it but not in the same way it would be in a one on one match.

And although I know it's not exactly what you mean traditional Survivor Series matches are one of my favorite match types.

You can also have a Wrestlemania type deal with Angle losing both titles yet never taking a fall.

 

[Reflection]

They add variety. And variety makes things interesting. Imagine all matches being one-on-one or 2-on-2 matches- how boring it would get after some time. No Royal Rumble, no Money in the Bank, no Elimination Chamber, no traditional Survivor Series match, and no 6 men tag, playa. Stipulations could be thrown in to spice things up from time to time, but too many stipulations without sufficient build up come off as forced, like the yearly Hell in a Cell, Extreme Rules matches etc. So I think its just an old school mentality on that person's part, like you mentioned.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Dave Meltzer has been giving out 5-star ratings since 1983, but the first and only mutli-man match to earn that distinction was Styles-Joe-Daniels from TNA Unbreakable. Why do you think that is?

 

[Mustang Sally]

I can tolerate multi-man matches, but I've never been a fan. Nothing much ever seems to get accomplished because there are too many people in the ring for anyone to get a true edge. They tag in and out, take turns pounding one another and running around the ring......and trying to take advantage of situations outside the ring.....without having viewers able to determine who was truly superior in that contest.

Incidentally, when it comes to title matches, I like 'em one-on-one. To my mind, that's the way to determine who's the best in a given match. For example, you can keep the Fatal-Four kind of match in which the champion puts up his title against three other guys. Hell, he doesn't even have to be the one pinned to lose his championship! Man, I hate that. No one should have to lose his title belt that way.

But, just to give more people backstage a chance to see some ring time.....in a match which has no particular consequences or reward.....I suppose multi-person contests are okay, especially if they've all got the timing down for some of the crossing maneuvers that are a visual treat when done well.

 

[MCMG]

I like the idea of using triple threat/fatal-4-ways instead of generic singles match every single month. With the right wrestlers they can be some of the most entertaining matches of the year (without using an over the top gimmick)

The best Intercontinental Title match of the last few years was the triple threat between Barrett/Miz/Axel. It was a lot better than any regular singles match they could have thrown together. Moreover, a triple threat or indeed fatal 4 way can protect several names including the champion.

My favourite triple threat of all time was Benoit/HBK/HHH at WM20. Three of my favourite wrestlers in what was such a fantastic match. Benoit was getting the title; we had seen HBK/HHH already and a regular singles match with Benoit may not have been as big. Unsurprisingly it delivered.

They were able to ensure it wasn't just a mass brawl. Each 2 person combination was given time and I loved it. Another triple threat I really enjoyed was Benoit/Jericho/Austin at KotR 2001. A lot of the match was Benoit and Jericho beating down Austin but the match was extremely entertaining. The match also had Booker T attack Austin and the match continued while he was out on the floor.

Of course, in some cases multi-man matches are a hindrance. Big Show, Edge ,Cena comes to mind. A rather average match and I think many would have preferred to see Cena vs Edge one-on-one.

It doesn't take good wrestlers to have a decent multi-man match. The wrestlers just need to be smart. Having a mutli-man match should make it easier to put on an entertaining match. Singles matches are fine but we need a change every so often. For example, if they wanted to have Orton/Bryan at WM it would be great, no doubt. However, if they added someone like Punk surely it would be more anticipated and, in all likelihood, more entertaining.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Triple H-Shawn Michaels-Chris Benoit was great. Styles-Joe-Daniels was, as mentioned, probably the best triple threat ever. Both of these matches had three guys with tons of backstory and a reason to be fighting. And while I do like multi-man matches, there's a tendency to under-book them just because there's three guys in there to work. Very few triple threats actually have a reason for more than two of them to be in there.

I'm a big fan of triple threat and four-way tag team matches. There's usually not a lot of story going on in tag team divisions regardless, so it's not a huge problem. There was a triple threat tag title match at Hell in a Cell, which I thought was pretty good. The four-way at TLC wasn't nearly as quality. There was a surprisingly small amount of multi-man matches on PPV this year. The IC title match that has been mentioned was among them, and there was a forgettable Divas 4-way. I'm struggling to remember any decent matches on Raw or Smackdown either.

 

[The Brain]

I assume we’re talking more about triple threat and fatal fourway matches that take place at any given time rather than the once a year gimmicks like MITB and Elimination Chamber. I usually prefer a one on one match but multi man matches can be good too if the story makes sense. Sometimes they’re just thrown together as lazy booking and other times they build up for weeks and make sense. They’ve also become somewhat of a necessity with all the wrestling that’s on. If everything was just one on one they would go through all their options too quickly. Sometimes a third guy is thrown into a match to save the one on one for another show. If there were only four or five PPVs a year like there used to be I wouldn’t care for the multi man match so much. With 13 or 14 PPVs and Raw and Smackdown every week I think it’s good to have them once in a while.

 

[$Mr. 100%]

Triple threats and fatal 4ways r exciting only when they r elimination matches as well as all men r n da ring 2gether w/da rules being bent or thrown out all 2gether. My pet peeve w/em is when wrestlers pair off way 2 much instead of all wrestlers involved interacting w/each other at least 80%of da match or when it turns n2 a glorified handicap match w/da heels beating up da face/s. Also a 5 or 10 minute spot fest can get old fast as well. hhh/rock/angle ss match ddp/raven/Benoit uncensored ravens rules and of course hhh/hbk/benoit r some of my favorites. Can't 4get tlc w/dudleys/hardys/ec either