finishers
 

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

*sigh* This company sux.