WWE: The Case for Ending Matches with Non-Finishers

facebooktwitterreddit

Should more matches be ended with non-finishers? We take a look below.

There are certain things we are trained to believe as wrestling fans. The bad guy will get his comeuppance. Refs don’t see things they really should see. Music comes on when good guys make the save because it just does. And finally, the key to a good match is a bunch of close calls.

It”s true that false finishes add to the drama of a match. The more kick outs that occur in a match, the more anticipation there is for the big ending. A lot of classic matches have these in spades on top of good in ring psychology and great backstory. In the past few years, WWE has developed a habit of needing more and more intense close calls in their matches, which has lead to more and more people kicking out of finishers.

This past week on RAW, two different matches on the card ended after non-finishers. Ryback bested Mark Henry after a top rope splash, and the Show Off Dolph Ziggler put away Adam Rose with a Superkick. The endings to these matches were unexpected due to this constant stream of finisher endings that WWE has presented us with over the past years. These matches do present a good alternative for the WWE: start ending matches with non-finishers again.

The reasons for doing this are twofold. The first one is that it adds suspense to a bout. I have become trained in my viewing of “the WWE way” that I’m not going to see a Cena match end unless an AA is hit or a sloppy STF is locked into place. Why? Well because that’s how all of Cena’s matches end when he wins. It’s not just John either; the entire roster seems incapable of putting people away unless they hit their finishers.

This logic just doesn’t make sense to me. You’ve fought hard for 12 or so minutes. You’ve been hit with everything they’ve got. Shouldn’t a Float-Over DDT from Ziggler or a Rebound Clothesline from Ambrose be enough to put you down for the count? I’d believe it. It would sell the action more and make it seem like more of a legitimate fight.

Have some matches end like they did on Monday. Now as a member of the WWE Universe, I am intrigued by any move that gets hit hard. A flying clothesline does not automatically mean a two count anymore. It would add suspense and make the meat of the match that much more exciting.

Secondly, having matches end this way solves another problem with WWE matches: too many people kick out of finishers. They are called finishers or finishing maneuvers. They are supposed to end the match. Finish it. Done. Instead, we see people kick out of AA’s, Pop-Up Powerbombs and Dirty Deeds. This doesn’t sell their legitimacy. These moves should be protected in the way that Roman Reigns is. They should look like the end, period.

This will also give more substance to when people do kick out of them. It has less value when it happens all the time. It should be a huge moment when someone kicks out of an RKO. Instead, it has become commonplace and takes away from the importance of the finisher.

I understand what some will say: “It’s part of the brand, it’s what we expect from the wrestler.” While that is true, it also should be something we see only in big matches. If Sheamus has a tune up match against Zack Ryder there is no way he should be using the Brogue Kick because he won’t need it. Simply destroy Ryder with an Irish Curse Backbreaker, and I’ll believe it. Yes the moves are associated with the character, but it shouldn’t be all that a character is (looking at you, Roman).

If WWE could commit to ending some more competitive matches with signature moves or other strong moves, both wrestlers would look strong and it would bring back some unpredictability to the matches. Until they do it with consistency, I will still patiently wait through ten minutes just to see who hits their finisher first.

Do you agree with my sentiment? Think they should protect finishers more, or leave the product as is? Let us know in the comments!

Next: ROH Wrestling Review

More from Daily DDT