finishers

[Aussie Skier]

OK, so finishers are so-called because they finish off a match.

However, do you ppl think that more matches should be decided without using a finisher. Say, if a wrestler does a super-plex, should that not, on occasions, then lead to a pin fall?

[Mr. Nerfect]

I agree. I would like to see moves that makes the commentators go "OMG that has to be it!" win matches occasionally. Superplexes, DDTs, Powerbombs, Piledrivers, etc. Have a few moves play the role of "universal" finishers.

[HeartBreakMan2k]

They only really do that with guys they're building heavily, Brock for example when he was being built up won his matches with 3 or 4 different moves. Hell he beat Hulk F'n Hogan with a bearhug.

[Ferocious]

If Petey Williams went to the WWE at any point he would have to use these so called 'universal' finishers.

[Gouda]

The problem is after years of seeing people kick out of anything that isn't a guy's finisher people will go "What teh hell? [name] lost to THAT move? What a weak guy!"

[Funky Fly]

The problem is after years of seeing people kick out of anything that isn't a guy's finisher people will go "What teh hell? [name] lost to THAT move? What a weak guy!"
That's WWE's problem. If you watch puroresu, lucha libre or half of anything done in WCW, a lot of the time they ended mathches without the use of finishers. They would often use submissions on a heavily worked on body part, a desperation move during a series of near falls or a move with just as much impact as a finisher but is probably a counter to the opponent's finisher.

They keep/kept their matches interesting because they're not totally formulaic.

[Afterlife]

*sigh* This company sux.