PDA

View Full Version : What makes "Good Wrestling Shows"


JT
09-17-2007, 08:09 PM
It would have been better to say "good wrestling", but show is more acurate.

Most of the IWC has fallen in the area of "we want great wrestlers who can really move in the ring and are technically sound" from what I understand...but I'm not like that. I can appreciate a good match and a good athlete, but that's not personally why I got into wrestling. I don't watch football, baseball, basketball, hocky, and etc. I watch wrestling, and got into it for the corny entrance music, the personalities, the storylines, and even the signature finishing moves. I love it for it's corniness like someone can love a bad movie that is still entertaining.

Now this isn't to say I love the current wrestling products. I love corny...but even corny can become stale and unbelievable to a point of boring. Still...is it really just the wrestling matches that get you into it, or a mixture of things. With Steve Austin, he could place on a decent match, but wasn't it more his buildup of the match that made you love him? Same with DX? I loved Chris Jericho, but it was as much him making the wild claims like being the master of 1004 holds and going to the Library of Congress to find a way of getting the Cruiserweight Championship back that you love as you love him as an in-ring preformer. I love good storylines and suprises, and someone getting what they diserve (reason we all hope for Cena to lose every week).

What do you love about wrestling...what do you think makes a great show? Don't just answer it...push all opinions of what you've every heard from others aside...what do YOU love about wrestling?

Mercury Bullet
09-17-2007, 08:15 PM
I watch for the storylines first and foremost, but there should be a certain level of acceptable in ring ability to go with that.

Lord-Of-Darkness
09-17-2007, 08:50 PM
Definitely agree. I need a certain amount of in ring skill, but stories, characters and the like are what bring me to the product the most for sure :y:

Xero
09-17-2007, 09:01 PM
I watch for the storylines first and foremost, but there should be a certain level of acceptable in ring ability to go with that.
Totally agree. You can have the best ring work in the world, but I'm not going to bother to follow a (new) promotion unless they have good, solid stories to go along with it.

Mr. Nerfect
09-18-2007, 02:24 AM
Good wrestling first, with great storylines to support it.

Shadow
09-18-2007, 02:28 AM
I want something that entertains me. Me. Not the wrestlers, not the agents in the back, not even Vince, me. If it entertains me, I will watch. If it doesn't, well I do what I'm doing now and don't watch.

What Would Kevin Do?
09-18-2007, 02:38 AM
Jimmy Jacobs.

http://www.pwinsiderelite.com/images/rohppv3.jpg

Mr. Nerfect
09-18-2007, 05:14 AM
Hahaha, Jimmy Jacobs is indeed awesome.

JT
09-18-2007, 10:04 AM
Good wrestling first, with great storylines to support it.

I'm not taking away from your opinion, but I feel you picked the average IWC response without supporting why you prefer wrestling first. Just curious as to why you prefer the wrestling to the stories or characters?

BigDaddyCool
09-18-2007, 10:42 AM
It is a combination of things. Actaul wrestling ablility is alway nice but it has never been cruicial...well let me correct that, as long as the workers aren't sloppy and piss pour to the point it hurts to watch, that is all that really maters. It is more about good story telling. It needs to be like a good book, not a good movie cause movies always end with the good guy winning, books often don't and neiter does wrestling. Also, the outcome doesn't always mean nearly as much as the journey too it. Keeping the audience entertained for 2 hours is way more important than putting on a techincal yet boring masterpiece of a match.

IC Champion
09-18-2007, 10:44 AM
Jimmy Jacobs.

http://www.pwinsiderelite.com/images/rohppv3.jpg
They said good wrestling, not garbage wrestling.

IC Champion
09-18-2007, 10:46 AM
It is a combination of things. Actaul wrestling ablility is alway nice but it has never been cruicial...well let me correct that, as long as the workers aren't sloppy and piss pour to the point it hurts to watch, that is all that really maters. It is more about good story telling. It needs to be like a good book, not a good movie cause movies always end with the good guy winning, books often don't and neiter does wrestling. Also, the outcome doesn't always mean nearly as much as the journey too it. Keeping the audience entertained for 2 hours is way more important than putting on a techincal yet boring masterpiece of a match.
That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

BigDaddyCool
09-18-2007, 10:48 AM
Good wrestling first, with great storylines to support it.I'm not taking away from your opinion, but I feel you picked the average IWC response without supporting why you prefer wrestling first. Just curious as to why you prefer the wrestling to the stories or characters?

I completely disagree, wrestling has never been first to making a good show. It always helps, but never has it been nessicary. If that was true people like Bret Hart, Benoit, William Regal, Dean Malenko, and so on would dominate the sport, but last time I checked guys Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash bring more people in and they stink up the ring.

IC Champion
09-18-2007, 10:49 AM
In all fairness, Alienoid is a RoH mark, so what does he know...:roll:

Loose Cannon
09-18-2007, 11:03 AM
I completely disagree, wrestling has never been first to making a good show. It always helps, but never has it been nessicary. If that was true people like Bret Hart, Benoit, William Regal, Dean Malenko, and so on would dominate the sport, but last time I checked guys Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash bring more people in and they stink up the ring.

Storylines, characters, presentation all come first and foremost for me. Long matches can bore me. I love to watch the finishes more then the matches itself really.

But I was going to sat in response to BDC that Bret's best year was 1997 when the WWE was in the middle of one of the best angles they ever did.

BigDaddyCool
09-18-2007, 11:27 AM
Storylines, characters, presentation all come first and foremost for me. Long matches can bore me. I love to watch the finishes more then the matches itself really.

But I was going to sat in response to BDC that Bret's best year was 1997 when the WWE was in the middle of one of the best angles they ever did.

During '97 and Bret's riegn as champion WWF was having extermely low ratings, but that is niether here nor there. The point is, if wrestling ability was first and foremost for a good wrestling show, Bret would have dominated they way Hogan or Cena does. And Warrior would have been a nonevent. But Hogan, Cena, and Warrior did dominate, which throws the wrestling ability theory right out the window.

Then every once in a while a total package like Flair and HBK come along.

Also, this might just be me, but I call it the WWF when it was called the WWF and I call it WWE after those faggot Panda's sued. And if I was to ever talk about it when Vince Sr. owned, I would call it WWWF.

Mr. Monday Morning
09-18-2007, 11:35 AM
Lumping Cena in with Hogan and Warrior is pretty fucking harsh

BigDaddyCool
09-18-2007, 11:55 AM
Yeah, Warrior is way more watchable than either.

Loose Cannon
09-18-2007, 12:06 PM
During '97 and Bret's riegn as champion WWF was having extermely low ratings, but that is niether here nor there. The point is, if wrestling ability was first and foremost for a good wrestling show, Bret would have dominated they way Hogan or Cena does. And Warrior would have been a nonevent. But Hogan, Cena, and Warrior did dominate, which throws the wrestling ability theory right out the window.

Then every once in a while a total package like Flair and HBK come along.

Also, this might just be me, but I call it the WWF when it was called the WWF and I call it WWE after those faggot Panda's sued. And if I was to ever talk about it when Vince Sr. owned, I would call it WWWF.

actually, during Bret's reign and by mid 1997, ratings started to rise. This was the year that started the whole boom period.

Xero
09-18-2007, 12:28 PM
As said in the first post, I give you the example of Steve Austin. Yeah yeah, he was a great wrestler before the Stone Cold gimmick, but the Stone Cold gimmick, aside from a few matches, was always a big brawl and big spots.

It's about the characters, and characters are what makes life long wrestling fans, and in turn those fans learn to enjoy the matches themselves instead of JUST the storylines and angles.

As seen with Hogan, you can have the worst wrestling skills this side of CZW (it's a joke, let's not get into it) but if you're entertaining enough and captivate enough fans, you can get the business over.

Loose Cannon
09-18-2007, 12:34 PM
exactly.

BigDaddyCool
09-18-2007, 01:27 PM
Jimmy Jacobs.

http://www.pwinsiderelite.com/images/rohppv3.jpg

Who?

Stickman
09-18-2007, 01:34 PM
light tubes

Loose Cannon
09-18-2007, 01:51 PM
looks like he's from Pirates

Mr. Pierre
09-20-2007, 10:13 PM
Good characters, good wrestlers, and matches that actually mean something.

br0ken
09-20-2007, 10:31 PM
If the wrestling made deeper storys and more better storys than it would be better. The matches today are not bad, even the people I don't know or care about when youwatch it, they still do good in the ring. That part is ok, it's the lead up that is not catchy enuff

Kane Knight
09-20-2007, 10:36 PM
I think the thing I want most is psychology.

I mean, the storylines hook you, but it all falls apart if the in-ring storytelling is ass. I can overlook a bad wrestler if he's entertaining or works with some level of psychology. The in ring action has to feel intense, even if it's just Austin with the five moves of doom. Showmanship's a must. If you're a good wrestler, even better. If you're not? I don't really care, unless you're abysmal, or not entertaining.

20 minute acrobatic matches do not sell with most people. Austin being beaten within an inch of his life, setting it up for his big PPV win? That sells it for most people.

BigDaddyCool
09-20-2007, 11:00 PM
I think the thing I want most is psychology.

I mean, the storylines hook you, but it all falls apart if the in-ring storytelling is ass. I can overlook a bad wrestler if he's entertaining or works with some level of psychology. The in ring action has to feel intense, even if it's just Austin with the five moves of doom. Showmanship's a must. If you're a good wrestler, even better. If you're not? I don't really care, unless you're abysmal, or not entertaining.

20 minute acrobatic matches do not sell with most people. Austin being beaten within an inch of his life, setting it up for his big PPV win? That sells it for most people.

Exactly. And on top of that, people forget that the actaul match is the way to move the story along. Say you and your opponent hate each other. The they should be trying to kill each other or injure. If it is a title match, then the challenger should be doing everything he can to pin or make his opponent submit. Those are just 2 examples of how thought should be put into a match. You should just go out and wrestle the same match you always do. But no one does that anymore...execpt Chavo.

IC Champion
09-20-2007, 11:01 PM
I think the thing I want most is psychology.

I mean, the storylines hook you, but it all falls apart if the in-ring storytelling is ass. I can overlook a bad wrestler if he's entertaining or works with some level of psychology. The in ring action has to feel intense, even if it's just Austin with the five moves of doom. Showmanship's a must. If you're a good wrestler, even better. If you're not? I don't really care, unless you're abysmal, or not entertaining.

20 minute acrobatic matches do not sell with most people. Austin being beaten within an inch of his life, setting it up for his big PPV win? That sells it for most people.
I couldn't put it any better really.

Innovator
09-21-2007, 12:16 AM
Exactly. And on top of that, people forget that the actaul match is the way to move the story along. Say you and your opponent hate each other. The they should be trying to kill each other or injure. If it is a title match, then the challenger should be doing everything he can to pin or make his opponent submit. Those are just 2 examples of how thought should be put into a match. You should just go out and wrestle the same match you always do. But no one does that anymore...execpt Chavo.Case in point for trying to kill someone. Rey was taken out of action by Chavo for attacking his knee. Chavo has been bad mouthing Rey all the time while he was out....so what does Rey do when he gets in the ring? A basic match! Rey should have gone for Chavo's neck

BigDaddyCool
09-21-2007, 12:23 AM
Case in point for trying to kill someone. Rey was taken out of action by Chavo for attacking his knee. Chavo has been bad mouthing Rey all the time while he was out....so what does Rey do when he gets in the ring? A basic match! Rey should have gone for Chavo's neck

Which is why I hate Rey Mysterio. Everytime Rey and Chavo hook up, it seems like they are wrestling 2 different matches in 1 match. Chavo hates Rey and is out for blood. Rey just goes for his same dumb moves and gets a pin, then pretends to clutch his leg as he walks briskly back to the locker rooms. Even my mark ass girlfriend see this and questiones why is Rey such a pussy. Up until Chavo got banned, Rey have never had a definitive win over Chavo. Chavo destories Rey every time, only for the match to be ending with a hurricarana into a pin. Rey might as well school boy him so they both look like idiots. But yeah, Rey v Chavo are the best examples. Of how to tell a story and not tell a story all in one match

What Would Kevin Do?
09-21-2007, 02:52 AM
Which is why I hate Rey Mysterio. Everytime Rey and Chavo hook up, it seems like they are wrestling 2 different matches in 1 match. Chavo hates Rey and is out for blood. Rey just goes for his same dumb moves and gets a pin, then pretends to clutch his leg as he walks briskly back to the locker rooms. Even my mark ass girlfriend see this and questiones why is Rey such a pussy. Up until Chavo got banned, Rey have never had a definitive win over Chavo. Chavo destories Rey every time, only for the match to be ending with a hurricarana into a pin. Rey might as well school boy him so they both look like idiots. But yeah, Rey v Chavo are the best examples. Of how to tell a story and not tell a story all in one match

Thank you! Another thing I hate is in non grudge ladder matches, when someone like Jeff Hardy, instead of reaching up and taking the belt, decides to jump off the ladder onto someone... WHY? Why not just win?

That's one of the reasons I LOVE HBK's return match at SS against HHH. They told such a great story and both played their parts brillantly. In the end, HBK gettng a quick pin shows now only can he still fight, but he still has the ability to pull out a quick win, was great. HHH's assault in the match was awesome...

Same thing with the HHH/Flair match from Survivor Series a few years back. Say what you will about HHH, but he knows when to go from "a basic match" to "a feud/hate filled match"

Another great one was the Bret Hart HBK Iron Man match. The slow build towards the end, as Shawn grows more desperate, taking bigger risks, etc.

And honestly, I do have to mention ROH here. Some people may think I'm blindly hyping ROH, and so be it, but hear me out. ROH has the great ability when it comes to feuds, to make feud ends actually MEAN something. For one, people feuding don't end up fighting each other again a few weeks later (See Umaga/Cena, Edge/Cena, etc). Also, ROH doesn't use big gimmick matches constantly. They've had a handfull of Steel Cage matches, and when they do, they almost always end the feud, like the Jimmy Jacobs/BJ Whitmer feud. ROH uses gimmick matches with a purpose not just because they can. Hell, they just had their first ladder match at the last show. That's one thing I hate about TNA. Every fricking PPV seems to have a gimmick match.

The One
09-21-2007, 02:57 AM
What makes "Good Wrestling Shows"?

NASH.

What Would Kevin Do?
09-21-2007, 03:03 AM
If they replaced Don West with Nash in TNA, I'd watch religiously.

BigDaddyCool
09-21-2007, 09:58 AM
Every fricking gimmick match seems to have extra stipulations.

I agree, I hate how TNA just keeps pilling gimmicks onto their gimmick matches. It can't just be a cage match, it has to be an electric cage match with a special guest enforcer surrounded by fire with the title hanging above the ring on a wire, and the first man to take the title off the wire and place it in Judy Bagwells hand wins. Oh, and did we mention, Judy Bagwell will be on a 16 foot unclimbable pole! But then there is nothing but run ins and cheating at the end.

Indifferent Clox
09-21-2007, 12:36 PM
I want good wrestling. I love it to death, but good wrestling won't make up for shitty shitty storylines like in WWE today. If you had ROH matches with WWE Superstars and then put in WWE storylines it would be better than it is, but still blow.