What makes a good match?

This is something I've always wondered about - when you watch wrestling, what makes a good match for you?

I've never really been one for stunt matches (although I do like MITB matches, and the occasional Hell In A Cell), I'm not overly bothered about WWE's banning of blood - I've never thought that a guy bleeding can be the making or breaking of a match (Bret vs Stone Cold aside). Guys like Ric Flair blading during a promo have used blood far too much now, and I guess I'm desensitized to it.

For me, my favourite matches have just been straightforward one-on-one matches with clean finishes. Bret vs Bulldog at Summerslam '92, Kurt Angle vs Undertaker at No Way Out 2006, Shelton Benjamin vs HBK on Raw a few years back... each of these were basic one-on-one matches, but the psychology of what they were doing just sucked me in. Edge vs Undertaker is for my money the greatest Mania world title WWE have ever put on going be the quality of the actual match, whereas it always gets overlooked by Warrior vs Hogan, Bret vs Shawn (dull as hell), Rock vs Austin...

On the other hand, Mick Foley vs Taker's Hell In A Cell match I've always found to be hugely boring. So many people rave about it, due to Foley virtually killing himself at the start is what ruined it for me. it slowed the match down, and apparently a Tombstone is a more devastating move that going off the top of a cell... twice.

Give me believable, psychology before crazy stunts every time.

The first thing that I need in a match is the most obvious in that I have to be emotionally invested in the people in the match.

Psychology is a must. When it just becomes a spot fest of just going to from move to move without any selling it does nothing for me, which is why I dont really watch TNA as the X-Division doesnt interest me.

I like it when the wrestlers will actually use psychology that makes sense, e.g. work over the body part which will help them hit their finish. I like the way Del Rio always works over the arms of his opponents which is why I think hes one of the most talented that WWE has.

I like Money In The Bank and some of the cage matches that WWE put on but as for spot fests, thats about it.

I also hate when wrestlers just punch and kick each others. It bores the hell out of me which is why I thought Miz vs Alex Riley from sunday was garbage.

I think you both make valid points, I think something that is very underrated is crowd reaction and also the commentary. If the crowd aren't into a match it is hard when watching it to get into likewise if the commentators are bickering or not calling moves or emphasizing certain things it's hard to get into the match. That is why JR was so good, he understood what to say, how to say it and when to say it.

Gimmick matches still have their place for me but only as a feud ender, and that, for me is where blood should come into play. What's the point of a Christian vs Del Rio ladder match? They hadn't feuded beforehand. A perfect end to the Cena vs Barrett feud would have been inside a Hell in a Cell where none of the Nexus could get in, not in a stupid chairs match. Even the I Quit Miz vs Cena made hardly any sense, it wasn't a blood feud it was just Miz being lucky or cheating. Have a gimmick match as something special and don't ruin it otherwise all gimmick matches become the same and nothing new or innovative can come of it. Think TLC 2, one of the best Mania matches ever and at that time the gimmick hadn't been overplayed so everything was still fresh.

Also a solid story or lengthy build, if you don't know about it; Kevin Steen vs El Generico in RoH is a good example. They were tag team partners for about 2 years before Steen turned heel on Generico. It took them a whole year to build up to the feud ender which at the time was such a bitter rivalry Steen put his career on the line against Generico's mask. Even though the build was a year it didn't feel old and boring. Something for WWE's creative to look at and learn from, give any two good wrestler the right build and storyline and they will have an amazing blowoff match.

Commentary is something that's massively under-rated, and part of why I stopped watching RAw for quite a while after Mania; the whole Lawler vs Cole aspect was getting irritating. They utterly over-shadowed everything that wasn't John Cena or the Rock.

Lengthy builds can be good or bad - Orton vs Triple H at Mania 25 had a fantastic build that kept it pretty fresh, despite the fact they've faced each other many times before. The match just didn't live up to it at all, just a generic kick-and-punch affair. Same with Triple and Batista before it, the slow build that was great the whole way through, but the match couldn't live up to it.

For the most part, I don't enjoy the "working on a body part" thing that Saint Jimmy described. It's dull seeing continuous stomps or generic submission holds until the inevitable 30 second burst of energy from the opponent who is stopped in his tracks after holding his leg/arm/whatever.

I agree about commentary being important. Nowadays, it seems like instead of hearing the disbelief of the commentators that a competitor kicked out of a 2 count, you hear King chuckling away instead. I want someone to go mental when a RKO doesn't get the 3 count, not point out Booker fucking up another proverb/saying.

I don't like tag matches that simply involve putting two feuds into the same match (RAW is absolutely guilty of this). It's unrealistic to expect heels to always be willing to work together. They're heels, they have big egos, why would they be willing to share the limelight.

Rocky wrote:

For the most part, I don't enjoy the "working on a body part" thing that Saint Jimmy described. It's dull seeing continuous stomps or generic submission holds until the inevitable 30 second burst of energy from the opponent who is stopped in his tracks after holding his leg/arm/whatever.

I agree about commentary being important. Nowadays, it seems like instead of hearing the disbelief of the commentators that a competitor kicked out of a 2 count, you hear King chuckling away instead. I want someone to go mental when a RKO doesn't get the 3 count, not point out Booker fucking up another proverb/saying.

The whole working on a body part is what get me into matches as it will help me with the "suspension of belief part" as I just think its more realistic for e.g. Del Rio to work over Ortons arm for the whole match but for him then to go for an RKO but not be able to hit it or not hit it properly as I think it makes sense and adds to the drama of the match. I'd much rather watch that than 20 minutes of Cena getting hammered for him only to jump up and hit his 5 moves of doom without any selling of the beating hes taken anyway.

Completely agree about the commentary. The commentary lately has been shockingly bad in WWE as they just seem to sit there an chuckle to themselves instead of calling whats going on in the match.

As stated above by others, crowds are so important to a match as well. A great example would be Hogan vs Rock from Mania 18. The crowd made that match as, if you watch it now, its actually a really poor quality match but with the crowd being super-hot it makes it the classic that it is, well thats my opinion anyway.

I think everyone makes pretty solid points here, but for me it's simple. The matches i enjoy the most, are ones where i don't know what's going to happen. The matches where both competitors could win, and the outcome isn't completely obvious to any brainless oaf watching it in their spare time.

It's such a rare feature nowadays though because WWE are simply too focused on building up one superstar at a time. Which is okay in some situations but when you have the likes of Cena and Orton winning almost every single match then you get pretty bored of it, hence the fan backlash when Orton supermanned Christian a month ago. No matter how well liked or over with the crowd a superstar is, you give them a 30 match win streak they WILL get boring.

For me, there are only a few occasions off the top of my head that i can think of when this has actually occured, the first being the first Shawn Michaels Vs Undertaker match at Wrestlemania, you could argue that it was obvious from the beginning that Taker was going to win, and i won't lie, I did think that too. But over the course of the match, something happened that made me doubt my decision and think that HBK was gonna get the win!

Another situation was when the incident with Chris Benoit occured, and CM Punk, instead of facing Benoit for the Vacant ECW title, had to face the then named Jonny Nitro. I was so sure that it was gonna be Punk's title that i never even thought about Nitro winning, but he did. And for me that was unpredictable.

Anyone else got any matches to add where they had absolutey no idea who was gonna win? These matches are definately the best in my opinion!

Wrestlemania 24 Orton Vs Triple H Vs Cena, didnt even consider Orton winning that

hodge13 wrote:

Wrestlemania 24 Orton Vs Triple H Vs Cena, didnt even consider Orton winning that

That match came into my head too, but because I thought all 3 could win. I think at the time, I saw Orton as the slight underdog too (he had the title for about 6 months at that point so was probably due to lose it soon) but I didn't completely rule him out.