Why Are We Obsessed With Clean Finishes?

[L@RISANO]

Really? How come John Cena lost to Dean Ambrose for a shot to compete in the main event against Seth Rollins, but is now the #1 contender?

to be fair to the WWE,
Randy Orton initially asked to face the loser of the "Who gets Rollins match" and that turned out to be Cena.
Whilst, we also got the info that it was Seth Rollins' idea to make Randy's match vs Cena into a No.1 Contender's match to ease the tensions within the Authority(specifically Rollins & Orton).

So basically, yes, Cena ended up the winner because of a second chance, but it wasn't exactly due to something being illogical in the storyline since we all know that all Ambrose wanted was Rollins, thereafter Orton failed to capitalise on his chance and is now using his fury to go after Seth Rollins in a new storyline started last night....

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Let's just look at the match in hand. People were emotionally invested. Some in one guy, some in the other, some in both. A lot of people defend WWE by saying they wanted to protect both guys. I would argue that they didn't advance either guy. Whether you are a Rollins or Ambrose fan. What does a goofy win after an entertaining match do for either guy?

Ambrose was competing with Cena and Rollins and now he is stuck with Wyatt. Wyatt just isn't what he was a year ago. He has been exposed as a guy who talks a lot but is worse off today than where he was a year ago. Rollins is nothing more than the guy who needed help from four guys to beat a guy who is looks like the worst wrestler in The Shield. He may get a cheap MitB championship win some day, but so did Jack Swagger.

I would also argue that Ambrose could have had a clean cell win and help both guys move forward. The Cell is a perfect place for his sadistic style to be dominant. Winning a cell match is not winning a one on one match. It is very different. It is easy on the mind to justify Rollins losing to a psycho like Ambrose in a place like the cell. The cell could have become Ambrose's playground. With UT and Mankind basically gone, someone can take up that image. Ambrose could become the guy to make the cell his, which gives Rollins an excuse for losing that really doesn't hurt him.

And then there is all the other supplemental reasons. Some feel that:
-PPV main events should have clean finishes
- that is two months in a row with a questionable finish is too much
- everything from Sept to Dec is shit
- there really is little basis for Wyatt to go after Ambrose
- it reminds people of Miz and Truth attacking
- a cell match is a waste of time if no one gets thrown off

In the end most fans don't care if it was the best booking decision, others like me disagree. They just want to be entertained and this finish didn't entertain them.

 

[enviousdominous]

Nothing hatched from an egg, so I guess we fans lucked out in that regard.

Here's my expectation, and I don't consider it to be expecting much: You don't have indecisive finishes at PPVs. Save that for RAW, or Smackdown even though nobody will ever see it anyway.

We got Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins into a PPV main event, we must be pretty amazing. It was a pretty big match, that ended on a big ass question mark. John Cena beat Randy as clean as you'll ever beat someone at HIAC. Dean Ambrose was haunted by a Scooby Doo villain and sold like death for Bray Wyatt. Am I really splitting hairs by making this comparison? One match actually ended, the other match was a "to be continued".

Oh look, there's a big fucking elephant everyone else is ignoring. I'll name him "Why in the fuck does John Cena, the loser in a contract on a fucking pole match, now receive a world title shot for winning an impromptu match created on a whim by Randy Orton?". His parents were remarried many times you see.

You're right Brain, getting the main event is fucking fabulous. On paper you look awesome for ever having had that main event at a PPV, a fucking stupid and forgettable PPV that was barely worth the ten bucks, but a PPV main event nonetheless. Let me ask you something though; how many more PPV main events do you see in the future of Rollins or Ambrose? Specifically; do you really fucking think that the booking of HIAC did anything positive for either man?

Dean and Bray will trade nonsensical promos that wax philosophical about who has the more unnecessarily complex metaphors in regard to their violent urges. Rollins will eventually get squashed by Randy Orton as penance for Roman's unanswered win. You know who's going to be fake saluting his way into the next ten PPV main events, the guy who gets a title shot for no fucking reason.

 

[Alastor]

That's EXACTLY the reason they did what they did and everyone seems to have missed it... The feud isn't "over", the use of Bray showed that that Wyatt/Shield stuff from earlier in the year wasn't "over" either.

I didn't miss that the ending suggested the feud is on intermission but I don't think we needed to delay the payoff from an almost 5 months feud. Which is another rant I don't want to get involved in.

WWE is trying to create new rivalries that will last YEARS... not be over in a few months. They want Rollins v Ambrose to be like Edge v Cena was, Bray v Ambrose to be a Cena v Orton... if we're all serious about "we want these guys" then we're gonna have to see them face off a lot over the years... WWE let's Ambrose use the cinderblock last night...what good does it do? if he pins Rollins he gets a measure of payback... but it's done... onto the next feud and you can say he "vanquished" Rollins...

I can see how Rollins and Ambrose can be like Edge/Cena with the constant sniping at each other but how is Bray vs Ambrose going to be like Cena v Orton?

Now of course if the plan is to involve all 3 Shield guys at Mania in the title match...last night was perfect... it left unanswered questions... Ambrose still has to get that revenge on Rollins, Rollins can't say he vanquished him without help...the feud continues so the next time they do it, be it in 6 months, a year or 4 years...there is something to play for.

How is it perfect? I would argue the better one would be Rollins beating Ambrose clean so there is a hierarchy of who is the 'better man'. Reigns already beating Rollins clean so he argue he is the best among them. And have Ambrose as the wild card ala a Mick Foley type.

Look back at some of the best feuds that never got a pay-off... Rick Martel vs Tito... they never got that one on one resolution... but every year without fail in the Rumble they'd go right for each other and it was on again... they split at Mania 5 but could have reignited the feud at Mania 8 if WWE had wanted to cos they didn't just have Martel go over, which would have been the obvious.

It's like how Jericho went right back to Orton punting him all those years ago in his promos last month after the seemingly "random attack" started the feud again... it wasn't random... Orton likes to take cheap shots at Jericho and it means they will always be foes.

HHH vs Austin got a payoff. Rock Austin got a payoff. Not every best feud never got a pay-off.

Rivalries don't just "end" if they're done right, a battle gets won or lost... but the war goes on... Cena v Orton perhaps has finally now reached it's end with that match.

Except they do when the wrestlers switch alignment and end up both faces or heels at the same time.

Clean finishes can be valuable but not all the time, Ziggler proved at HIAC that anyone can, on a given night get a surprising clean win. Cesaro will be back in his future, he'll want revenge for that embarrasment, not skulk off cos Zig has to fight someone else now... he might bide his time but that's how you create stars and rivalries that last the ages... sometimes people have an off night, or get screwed by a hologram or a friend you should have seen turning on you attacks.

And I think it is valuable at HiAC UNLESS WWE plans to revisit this rivalry soon and don't want Ambrose/Rollins to become stale. Wyatt was used as a stopgap again. (remember last year with Bryan?)

Guys like Cena and Brock have had years of these kind of matches to build to the point where now the storylines are less important. Guys like Ambrose and Rollins need those stories early to get to that stage so if you're having too many clean wins now, it'll prevent them getting there.

In other words WWE has no faith in Ambrose recovering from a clean loss. Gotcha.

 

[LBGetBack]

I agree that some have what's almost a borderline fetish concerning clean finishes. Every match on the HIAC card with the exception of the main event had a clean finish, yet I've heard some gripe about this match, the only match on the card without a clean finish, hurt the entire ppv because it wasn't a clean finish. Wish I could say that I was surprised but it's pretty typical 'cuz WWE just can't win. Business as usual. Hell, if Rollins had won clean, I'm sure there'd be fans or various dirt sheet writers complaining about how Ambrose losing clean made him look weak or vice versa.

Here's the thing: heels cheat. It's a simple, age old concept in professional wrestling that some fans just don't want to grasp or seen done away with for some reason. It's almost as if some fans are only going to be happy if every single wrestler on the roster is this nigh invincible, take no shit from anybody anti-hero. Ric Flair cheated in every way imaginable to win so many big matches and he's a legend, but guys today are held to different standards. Why? Just because we're older?

It was a VERY unsatisfying finish, and not just because of the lack of clean finish.

That was part of it, solely because it was the blowoff match in a long feud. Would rather see a clean finish(and IMO the story called for Ambrose to win, but whatever).

Wyatt interfering sucked. He had nothing to do with the feud. If it was someone in the Authority helping Seth....that would actually make sense and fit the story. Wyatt makes no sense.

And then the presentation sucked. Smoke and holograms? C'mon. Ridiculous. We go from a brutal, intense feud to some supernatural BS just like that.

 

[BuriedByCena]

Because I am too smart for my own good. I wish I still thought wrestling was real. It has gotten to the point where the only clean finishes now happen at Wrestlemania and Summerslam. I expect every other PPV to end in a screwy finish of some sort.

It is just this time I was hoping it would end in a clean finish just because the feud has been going on for so long. Plus we had the 2 stooges and Kane already interfere so adding Bray just felt like overkill. He could have shown up after the match ended.

Add in the fact that the past 8 years of PPV have ended in either Cena winning clean or Cena only losing because of screwy finish and it just adds to frustration.

It gets annoying after awhile when every single match on every PPV ends clean except the main event.

 

[Good Golly It's Ollie]

I agree that some have what's almost a borderline fetish concerning clean finishes. Every match on the HIAC card with the exception of the main event had a clean finish, yet I've heard some gripe about this match, the only match on the card without a clean finish, hurt the entire ppv because it wasn't a clean finish. Wish I could say that I was surprised but it's pretty typical 'cuz WWE just can't win. Business as usual. Hell, if Rollins had won clean, I'm sure there'd be fans or various dirt sheet writers complaining about how Ambrose losing clean made him look weak or vice versa.

I have to agree with Jack's suggestion here and call it that while one crowd of fans are unhappy with the immediate payoff now, there would be other fans eventually dissatisfied with the longer-term ramifications of having either Rollins or Ambrose lose, then look weaker.

The most conventional path, and perhaps this was the majority expectation, is that hero defeats villain of course, unless this is not the final act in which case hero is undone by villain's scheming/access to greater resources etc. What we essentially saw was Act 2 again, when people were expecting Act 3 and denouement.

However, I completely understand that what happened was essentially the promise of a climax, only to have a "tune in next time for our thrilling conclusion!!!" at the end. There wasn't a real resolution to the plot, only a further complication. And people are quite hungry for payoffs now as Authority angles have been going on a while.

So fans like my main men Georgie-Porgie, Alastor and Navi were quite annoyed at the culmination of Hell in a Cell. They thought we were through to World 8 when really the princess was still in another castle.

I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as "this booking makes sense" or "the ending was lacklustre". It's the fact that both can be true at the same time that has everyone so up in arms. You might then ask, did WWE write themselves into a corner, or move on with Ambrose/Rollins too early? Blow their load before their girl is fully into it? I don't think so, but you might well do.

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

And the talk of protecting guys thru finishes has always drove me crazy. If two guys put on a hell of a match and the finish is that one guy hits his finisher and scores the pin fall, how does that hurt the loser? You're wrestling in the main event or a top match, so it's understood your opponent is quality. And if you go toe to toe with your opponent and lose because of one mistake it doesn't hurt anyone going forward, in fact I'd argue it makes the character better by allowing them to use the learn from my mistakes mentality, or the it was his night mentality. Unless you get squashed, a clean loss doesn't hurt a character.

Ironic isn't it?

Back in the day when there were still lots of people who thought wrestling was real, a clean loss in this or that match wasn't considered a big deal ("Dusty lost to Flair this week? No big deal he'll return the favor next week.")

Flash forward to today when NO ONE over the age of ten believes wrestling is real, a clean loss in a single match means instant loss of credibility ("OMG! Rollins lost! His momentum is gone and his career is dead! Mid-card jobber!")

I mean WTF? Talk about how all logic has been turned on it's freaking head.

 

[OYDK]

I was just thinking about this today. Pro wrestling has RARELY had clean finishes in their main event matches since 20-30 years ago. The screwy finish has ALWAYS been around and used a lot more predominantly in the past than it is today. Some people just don't understand that this is the only way to keep both competitors strong and most of the time is the most logical ending to a match.

I'll admit, I hate a screwy finish as much as the next mark but I understand why it is done.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I also want to point out that Rollins lost clean to Reigns about a month or so ago in a standard traditional one on one match and yet he still has all this heat everyone points out. He lost that match on Raw which had maybe five times as many viewers.Wrestling fans generally have short memories but his rep survived. Losing to Ambrose in a violent cell match would not have hurt him.

I'm starting to think some experts on this forum are stuck in 1970s wrasslin.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I was just thinking about this today. Pro wrestling has RARELY had clean finishes in their main event matches since 20-30 years ago. The screwy finish has ALWAYS been around and used a lot more predominantly in the past than it is today. Some people just don't understand that this is the only way to keep both competitors strong and most of the time is the most logical ending to a match.

I'll admit, I hate a screwy finish as much as the next mark but I understand why it is done.

So why did Rollins supposedly come in strong if he lost to Reigns about a month ago? How is Ziggler still have his strength in a match with Cesaro when he lost to him in the past couple of weeks?

 

[OYDK]

So why did Rollins supposedly come in strong if he lost to Reigns about a month ago? How is Ziggler still have his strength in a match with Cesaro when he lost to him in the past couple of weeks?

Rollins lost to Reigns in one match on one Raw a month and a half ago. Reigns was being pushed to the moon and even the most casual of fans could see that. After this, Roman Reigns got injured and Seth Rollins got the "better" of him by winning by forfeit at NOC. Besides, before he lost to Reigns, he beat the likes of Jericho, Sheamus, and he also beat Ambrose in a Falls Count Anywhere match (screwy finish). One loss to somebody like Roman Reigns on Raw does not really make Rollins look weak. If it had happened at a PPV, it WOULD have weakened Rollins image. Also Ambrose had technically never beaten Seth Rollins in a one on one match whereas Seth had beaten Dean 3 times including the forfeit. You see how that loss kind of gets jumbled in there?

As for Ziggler, I don't know what you mean by, how does he still "have his strength"? If you're referring to Ziggler looking strong heading into HIAC, he didn't look strong. I assume that's the reason why Ziggler won 2 falls in a row.

 

[DCLXVI]

Simple... so one guy gets protected because "they didn't really lose" and the feud can carry along further or they don't loose their belt.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Rollins lost to Reigns in one match on one Raw a month and a half ago.

So why didn't Rollins need protection from Reigns but he needed from Ambrose?

Reigns was being pushed to the moon and even the most casual of fans could see that.

Not sure what your point is.

After this, Roman Reigns got injured and Seth Rollins got the "better" of him by winning by forfeit at NOC.

So Rollins lost to a guy who was in need of surgery at the time. Again, in front of a much bigger audience in a non-gimmick match.

Besides, before he lost to Reigns, he beat the likes of Jericho, Sheamus, and he also beat Ambrose in a Falls Count Anywhere match (screwy finish).

And he still has wins over those guys. What changed? He has still collected wins since then.

One loss to somebody like Roman Reigns on Raw does not really make Rollins look weak.

So how does one loss in a gimmick match, personal feud, in front of about a fifth of the audience really make Rollins look weak?

If it had happened at a PPV, it WOULD have weakened Rollins image.

Why? What is different about a guy wrestling on a Sunday vs a Monday? Is part of Rollins story is that he gets magical powers on a PPV like UT at WM? Is it really important that he wins when less people are watching? I haven't been watching much wrestling lately, is this the story WWE is selling on Seth Rollins?

Also Ambrose had technically never beaten Seth Rollins in a one on one match whereas Seth had beaten Dean 3 times including the forfeit. You see how that loss kind of gets jumbled in there?

And yet Ambrose was able to come in to HiaC with huge support from the fans. Do you see how you are not helping your argument?

As for Ziggler, I don't know what you mean by, how does he still "have his strength"? If you're referring to Ziggler looking strong heading into HIAC, he didn't look strong. I assume that's the reason why Ziggler won 2 falls in a row.

So now he does look strong again despite suffering a loss very recently. Is Rollins so shitty that he can't recover from a gimmick match loss to Ambrose? Or does Ambrose suck so bad that a loss to him would put a stink on Rollins so bad that he can't recover?

 

[Rusty]

to be fair to the WWE,
Randy Orton initially asked to face the loser of the "Who gets Rollins match" and that turned out to be Cena.
Whilst, we also got the info that it was Seth Rollins' idea to make Randy's match vs Cena into a No.1 Contender's match to ease the tensions within the Authority(specifically Rollins & Orton).

So basically, yes, Cena ended up the winner because of a second chance, but it wasn't exactly due to something being illogical in the storyline since we all know that all Ambrose wanted was Rollins, thereafter Orton failed to capitalise on his chance and is now using his fury to go after Seth Rollins in a new storyline started last night....

It's still pretty freakin' illogical when you consider Dean Ambrose won the contract on a pole match but has nothing to show for it, while Cena lost the match and gets a WWE Title shot, regardless of how it came about.

You know what REALLY grinds my gears more than anything else:

What's the point of having an enclosed gimmick match when interference can happen at any time.

I mean fuck, Hell in a Cell matches and Elimination Chamber matches are supposed to keep other superstars from interfering. They are doing anything but that lately it seems. It really defines down the point of a gimmick match.. and let's not start on cage matches.

 

[OYDK]

So why didn't Rollins need protection from Reigns but he needed from Ambrose?

Man, really? The crowd knows that EVERYBODY is going to lose to Roman Reigns. He is almost to the level of untouchable as John Cena right now. Roman Reigns has beaten Randy Orton in a PPV match, went final 2 in the Rumble, and has actually had a PPV title match. Like it or not, he was being booked as a tier above Rollins and Ambrose after the split so the loss means a whole lot less coming from Reigns than it does Ambrose.

Not sure what your point is.

See above

So Rollins lost to a guy who was in need of surgery at the time. Again, in front of a much bigger audience in a non-gimmick match.

What does the injury have to do with anything? Reigns wasn't injured at the time, he didn't even have any pain until a few nights before his surgery. Much bigger audience in a non-gimmick match? HIAC is a MUCH bigger stage than Monday Night Raw, don't you get that? The PPV's are what people remember, not random singles matches on Raw. Rollins got the better of Reigns at a PPV which is why Reigns still wants to kick his ass...

And he still has wins over those guys. What changed? He has still collected wins since then.

Don't understand. Nothing changed? Those wins made him look strong? I don't get what you're trying to say here...

So how does one loss in a gimmick match, personal feud, in front of about a fifth of the audience really make Rollins look weak?

Because it's a PPV match as I've said numerous times, and the blowoff match to boot. Not to mention we're heading straight into Wrestlemania season and you want your 2 of your main pieces to look as strong as possible. You act like just because people don't watch it live, it means they don't watch the PPV. I don't watch the PPV's live, yet SOMEHOW I manage to watch it the next day... It's called the internet. Everybody that watches Raw weekly will eventually see HIAC. Plus, like I've said, the fans usually remember the PPV's... no matter how many people are watching. Disagree?

Why? What is different about a guy wrestling on a Sunday vs a Monday? Is part of Rollins story is that he gets magical powers on a PPV like UT at WM? Is it really important that he wins when less people are watching? I haven't been watching much wrestling lately, is this the story WWE is selling on Seth Rollins?

See above numerous times.

And yet Ambrose was able to come in to HiaC with huge support from the fans. Do you see how you are not helping your argument?

Ambrose never lost to Rollins CLEANLY. Do YOU see how you're not helping YOU'RE argument? Rollins beat Ambrose 3 times, each time with a screwy finish. SO, Rollins looks strong because he's beaten Ambrose 3 times. Ambrose has the support of the fans because he's been screwed 3 times. Thus the magic of the dirty finish. Not to mention, Ambrose is a face...

So now he does look strong again despite suffering a loss very recently. Is Rollins so shitty that he can't recover from a gimmick match loss to Ambrose? Or does Ambrose suck so bad that a loss to him would put a stink on Rollins so bad that he can't recover?

Yes, Ziggler looks strong again because he beat the man that beat him in dominant fashion. He also just beat Kane so, yeah he's being booked strong. You're second point is imbecilic and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Stop saying gimmick match like it was some "Street Fight" match, it was Hell in the Cell, probably the most high profile match of all time. Third point is just as imbecilic as the second.

 

[SquizzRodgers]

Now that I think about it more, the ending of the Ambrose-Rollins HIAC match was just plain stupid for both Ambrose and Rollins...

From the Seth Rollins side; the interference makes him look weak. Scoring the pin fall after that does zero to make him seem the winner. It comes off that he had the match lost anyway.

From Dean Ambrose side; he gets attacked before finishing off Rollins so ultimately doesn't get the win. Has the upper hand but that final steam is stolen by not getting the 1 2 3.

If Rollins is inside a Cell with Ambrose, a match that should be tailor-made for Ambrose's character, and he is able to go toe to toe with him for the whole match, does his character lose anything by ultimately being pinned? Not in my mind. As a fan I say, damn Rollins showed guts and fight by leaving it all out there in an Ambrose-style environment. It in no way leads me to believe that Rollins couldn't score a win in any number of other matches against Ambrose.
The finish they went with, the Wyatt interference, not only sends the message that Ambrose couldn't get the job done, but also that Rollins was beat too. I think Ambrose should have gotten the pin, and than do the Wyatt attack after with Dean Ambrose all busted up from a grueling battle. Rollins credibility would be sky high having battled in Deans environment and living to fight another day, Ambrose would have won his style of match giving everything he had in the process, and Wyatt-Dean feud could have been started with post-match interference anyway. Than all 3 things are accomplished better.

 

[L@RISANO]

It's still pretty freakin' illogical when you consider Dean Ambrose won the contract on a pole match but has nothing to show for it, while Cena lost the match and gets a WWE Title shot, regardless of how it came about.

You know what REALLY grinds my gears more than anything else:

What's the point of having an enclosed gimmick match when interference can happen at any time.

I mean fuck, Hell in a Cell matches and Elimination Chamber matches are supposed to keep other superstars from interfering. They are doing anything but that lately it seems. It really defines down the point of a gimmick match.. and let's not start on cage matches.

No, I don't see how it can be illogical. It makes perfect sense given the storyline that was being told. Whether someone likes it or not is a different story, however.


As for interferences during matches...I do agree that at times it is overdone, but then, this generation seems suckers for the Underdog stories, so no surprise that is the way they seem to be going most of the time in the Main Event matches including the more over babyfaces...regardless of the match type.

 

[Aeon Mathix]

I think most people were upset including myself because Hell in a Cell seemed like the perfect way to end the Ambrose vs Rollins feud. Then I got to thinking and was reminded that Hell in a Cell is just a pit stop for a feud now for the last several years save for Triple H vs Undertaker. Looking back it was actually quite obvious this match wasn't going to be the end of the feud. Dean simply won a match to get Rollins in the Cell. It wasn't Ambrose saying lets finish this in the Cell where Rollins can't escape or anything, the storyline was simply the Authority saying hey we have a Hell in a Cell ppv coming up lets put some matches in there for the sake of doing it.

Yeah the Bray Wyatt thing was cheesy and a letdown for me but I have cooled off of it. Ambrose and Rollins are still finding their footing as main eventers which they will be full time soon enough. Rock vs Triple H and Rock vs Austin went on for years even when they were just feuding for the Intercontinental titles. They have stood the test of time despite them never having a match billed or built up to as the last match against each other. I can't count how many times Triple H lost to Rock or Rock lost to Austin in that span of time but it didn't hurt either of the losers.

This is just simply a way to save more of the feud for later on. Ambrose hasn't forgotten about Rollins but now he has another enemy to deal with before he can go after Rollins again. It's far from over and could even lead to a Wrestlemania match between the two or even some title matches down the road all while in a few years the time will come again for Sierra Hotel India Echo Lima Delta to play when they find a common enemy.

 

[Mudlup50]

It's still pretty freakin' illogical when you consider Dean Ambrose won the contract on a pole match but has nothing to show for it, while Cena lost the match and gets a WWE Title shot, regardless of how it came about.

Add to that the fact Cena and Ambrose feuded for a match against Seth Rollins, Cena lost just to get his match with him the night right after Ambrose got his chance. In theory, that is the more desirable chance, after he's all beat up from the Hell In A Cell, Cena is pretty much 100% fine and got a 20 minute match with him...so I agree most definitely with you

 

[FlairFan2003]

It's pretty clear in the history of wrestling that losing kills your momentum. Look at Randy Savage, his career was crushed after he spent months losing to Hulk Hogan followed by losing to Ricky Steamboat. He was barely heard from again.

has anyone seen Hulk Hogan since he suffered the double whammy of cleanly putting over Piper & Luger in late 96/97 ?

I think we all remember the damage it did to HBK's career when he cleanly submitted to the Sharpshooter at S-Series 92 vs Brett Hart. Amazing WWE would make that mistake so soon after ruining Ric Flair's career by having him submit clean the same way vs Hart a month and half earlier.

Actually winning or losing isn't everything. Look at Bray Wyatt, give him a great opportunity to shine against John Cena and he leaves that fued looking like the next big super star. Even though he lost 2 of 3 big matches. Have him win multiple times vs Chris Jericho and he's lost on the mid card. Why ? The storyline wasn't as good, Jericho isn't as big a star as Cena and working part time fans are not invested in him. Wyatt got way more of a rub and improved standing losing to Cena than he did beating Jericho.

As for clean finishes, they are not that important. The Attitude Era was one big cluster of crazy outside interference, even in W-Mania main events. Of course, WCW was doing the same (and kicking WWE's butt) two years earlier during the NWO hey day so why not ?

Huge feuds, they deserve a clean finish. We're talking Mania time or S-Slam. We are also talking super heroes like Cena finally coming out on top against ruthless heels. Ambrose at HIAC, that feud is nice but either way the clean finish doesn't matter much. One guy needs to be positioned as uber - heel going forward and the other as a sympathetic face. Fact is, both are relative newbies and only die hard fans care about them at all. The finish in this match means much less than the storyline and the work the two of them are allowed to do.

Clean finishes all the time are just boring and take away huge storyline potential by eliminating the "screw job".

 

[Boring]

Yes, the IWC is obsessed with clean finishes along with all sorts of other booking non-sense. Hopefully with the network, people cool down with that now only having to pay 120 a year rather then the 5 or 600 they're use too.

Isn't a heel never suppose to win clean anyway? What would be the point without clean finishes, this isn't MMA.

I think the obsession is because people want to believe it's an actual contest, like MMA/Boxing?

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

For me, there's a couple things.

First, Seth had "won" every match between these two leading up to this match. Seth won at MITB, he "won" at Battleground, he won at SummerSlam... it was time for Dean to finally pick up the win and settle the score. Heels winning dirty is common, and expected. But it felt like this feud was over and time for the face to win.

Second, because it's the best way to book a babyface as a convincing main eventer, especially in the payoff match. It doesn't need to be "clean" if the babyface wins, as long as the face overcomes all of the interference and still gets the pinfall.. ie when Kane tried to interfere.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Frankly my issue isn't that it wasn't a clean finish, it just wasn't well executed. The truth is you can do damn near ANYTHING in wrestling and get away with it as long as its executed good enough and at the end of the day that's what makes or breaks the good from the bad. As long as it has good execution I'm all for it, what we saw on Sunday was not well executed, not even CLOSE.

Since I see so many people compare this ending to the 1st HIAC I am going to describe what the big difference is. In late June/early July '97 Paul Bearer revealed a big secret involving The Undertaker, that secret was he burned down his house and murdered his mother, father and younger brother, the catch however was his younger brother survived the fire and was coming for revenge, you didn't know when, you didn't know where, you just knew it was happening. In the meantime HBK cost Taker the title, accidentally cracking Taker over the head with a chair and literally handing the title over to his #1 rival Bret Hart. Obviously Taker was pissed and went after Michaels, during that time HBK started DX and the month before they had a match thrown out. Every time Taker tried to get his hands on Michaels there was constant interference, the answer to this problem; Michaels has to face Taker in a match where there is no escape, where DX couldn't interfere, Michaels had to go straight to Hell and face The Undertaker, the winner gets a title match against current champ Bret Hart (Michael's biggest rival).

Cue the match, they have a great match, Taker beats HBK within an inch of his life (which is all Taker wanted to do for costing Michael's the title), Taker's about to finish him off, the lights go out, Kane comes out, tombstones Taker and Michaels gets the pin even though he was pretty much dead at that point. We got to see Taker beat Michaels so bad he had to get dragged to the back and most of all it transitioned into 2 feuds that people were dying to see (Hart/Michaels and Taker/Kane), 2 feuds that people cared about more than HBK vs. Taker. So the ending of the 1st HIAC gave us:

- HBK vs. Bret Hart (a feud built for years)
- The debut of Kane (someone people were dying to see)
- Kane vs. The Undertaker (a feud build for months)
- HBK getting destroyed (which is what people wanted to see most)

Now lets see what we got with the ending of HIAC between Ambrose and Rollins:

- Rollins getting 3 consecutive victories over Ambrose (which is the opposite of what people wanted)
- Ambrose vs. Rollins feud ending (or at least cooling off) so we can get a feud people aren't nearly as excited for
- Ambrose (the 2nd most popular guy in WWE) vs. Wyatt (a good heel, but also a heel that has been completely cold for months)
- Ambrose not beating Seth within an inch of his life (which to be fair could be for reasons out of his control)
- Ambrose going from main event (at a time he was damn close to breaking through the glass ceiling) to mid card

The worst part as it doesn't make any sense why Wyatt attacked Ambrose. I didn't see RAW so its possible that was explained but at the ending it seemed like it was done just because. One was well thought out and well executed, one wasn't thought out and was poorly executed. It felt like they threw a great feud out the window for one that people are not as excited for because there is no back story, there is no reason to care about it . Wyatt vs. Ambrose could turn into a great feud but at this point it seems like a feud that was thrown together last minute because WWE didn't think things through. The ending shows WWE just doesn't have their shit together creatively and it was the same thing they do every time a feud gets hot. Call me old fashioned but sometimes its best for a feud to have a beginning, middle, and end not a beginning, middle and fuck the ending here's some shiny tin foil. Its easy to see why people didn't like this ending and honestly I don't think its unreasonable for fans to want feuds and characters that actually have some decent thought put into them.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

Frankly my issue isn't that it wasn't a clean finish, it just wasn't well executed. The truth is you can do damn near ANYTHING in wrestling and get away with it as long as its executed good enough and at the end of the day that's what makes or breaks the good from the bad. As long as it has good execution I'm all for it, what we saw on Sunday was not well executed, not even CLOSE.

Since I see so many people compare this ending to the 1st HIAC I am going to describe what the big difference is. In late June/early July '97 Paul Bearer revealed a big secret involving The Undertaker, that secret was he burned down his house and murdered his mother, father and younger brother, the catch however was his younger brother survived the fire and was coming for revenge, you didn't know when, you didn't know where, you just knew it was happening. In the meantime HBK cost Taker the title, accidentally cracking Taker over the head with a chair and literally handing the title over to his #1 rival Bret Hart. Obviously Taker was pissed and went after Michaels, during that time HBK started DX and the month before they had a match thrown out. Every time Taker tried to get his hands on Michaels there was constant interference, the answer to this problem; Michaels has to face Taker in a match where there is no escape, where DX couldn't interfere, Michaels had to go straight to Hell and face The Undertaker, the winner gets a title match against current champ Bret Hart (Michael's biggest rival).

Cue the match, they have a great match, Taker beats HBK within an inch of his life (which is all Taker wanted to do for costing Michael's the title), Taker's about to finish him off, the lights go out, Kane comes out, tombstones Taker and Michaels gets the pin even though he was pretty much dead at that point. We got to see Taker beat Michaels so bad he had to get dragged to the back and most of all it transitioned into 2 feuds that people were dying to see (Hart/Michaels and Taker/Kane), 2 feuds that people cared about more than HBK vs. Taker. So the ending of the 1st HIAC gave us:

- HBK vs. Bret Hart (a feud built for years)
- The debut of Kane (someone people were dying to see)
- Kane vs. The Undertaker (a feud build for months)
- HBK getting destroyed (which is what people wanted to see most)

Now lets see what we got with the ending of HIAC between Ambrose and Rollins:

- Rollins getting 3 consecutive victories over Ambrose (which is the opposite of what people wanted)
- Ambrose vs. Rollins feud ending (or at least cooling off) so we can get a feud people aren't nearly as excited for
- Ambrose (the 2nd most popular guy in WWE) vs. Wyatt (a good heel, but also a heel that has been completely cold for months)
- Ambrose not beating Seth within an inch of his life (which to be fair could be for reasons out of his control)
- Ambrose going from main event (at a time he was damn close to breaking through the glass ceiling) to mid card

The worst part as it doesn't make any sense why Wyatt attacked Ambrose. I didn't see RAW so its possible that was explained but at the ending it seemed like it was done just because. One was well thought out and well executed, one wasn't thought out and was poorly executed. It felt like they threw a great feud out the window for one that people are not as excited for because there is no back story, there is no reason to care about it . Wyatt vs. Ambrose could turn into a great feud but at this point it seems like a feud that was thrown together last minute because WWE didn't think things through. The ending shows WWE just doesn't have their shit together creatively and it was the same thing they do every time a feud gets hot. Call me old fashioned but sometimes its best for a feud to have a beginning, middle, and end not a beginning, middle and fuck the ending here's some shiny tin foil. Its easy to see why people didn't like this ending and honestly I don't think its unreasonable for fans to want feuds and characters that actually have some decent thought put into them.

this

I agree with you 100%
I saw raw, it was only a 5 min segment with ambrose and wyatt. And we still dont know why the feud even started. Or why wyatt attack ambrose.

I hate when people compare ambrose/ wyatt to shawn/taker