saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Jul 9, 2017 23:26:53 GMT -5
How many "So-and-so can NEVER get over this" threads have you started when someone got beat clean? You're a quick trigger on "so-and-so is now buried forever and can never overcome losing clean like this" -- and now you say those finishes are the problem? I've made like one of those threads for Bayley. Also thanks for putting words in my mouth man. No, that wasn't my point at all.
A lot of wrestlers aren't beaten clean, some wrestlers lose clean in really weird or bad ways. They are not the same thing. My point was the top guys and gals have a hard time ever losing clean, and the more bottom card of the group are usually the ones that are ALWAYS losing clean, and it hurts the narrative, especially for up and coming superstars.
Take Rusev, in either of his feuds with Cena or Reigns. It took stipulations or shenanigans for him to ever get one up on either of them, while losing to both of them clean multiple times. Take Bayley's Kendo Stick match with Alexa and how that ended, that was not a great narrative nor did it help anyone. When Braun lost to Roman on a clean pin and needs either Roman to be hurt pre match or a stipulation to beat him?
Dirty Tactics are fine to win and advance plots at times, but when it's all the time and they can never seem to legit beat these handful of guys who never seem to lose clean, it creates these boring narratives that you know whats going to happen, you know how it's going to end, and no one is really helped when it's all said and done.
So trying to mush everything together like you tried to do above there? Not cool, it wasn't what I was saying at all.
I apologize if I was mistaken. I was pretty sure you had made posts or a thread along the same lines about Kevin Owens and Braun Stroman never being able to bounce back from defeats. I disagree with the idea that main event guys should lose cleanly more often. Dean Ambrose being a perfect example -- he's lost clean a bunch and people have fits when it happens. Just one example.
|
|
Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 236,054
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Jul 9, 2017 23:41:55 GMT -5
I've made like one of those threads for Bayley. Also thanks for putting words in my mouth man. No, that wasn't my point at all.
A lot of wrestlers aren't beaten clean, some wrestlers lose clean in really weird or bad ways. They are not the same thing. My point was the top guys and gals have a hard time ever losing clean, and the more bottom card of the group are usually the ones that are ALWAYS losing clean, and it hurts the narrative, especially for up and coming superstars.
Take Rusev, in either of his feuds with Cena or Reigns. It took stipulations or shenanigans for him to ever get one up on either of them, while losing to both of them clean multiple times. Take Bayley's Kendo Stick match with Alexa and how that ended, that was not a great narrative nor did it help anyone. When Braun lost to Roman on a clean pin and needs either Roman to be hurt pre match or a stipulation to beat him?
Dirty Tactics are fine to win and advance plots at times, but when it's all the time and they can never seem to legit beat these handful of guys who never seem to lose clean, it creates these boring narratives that you know whats going to happen, you know how it's going to end, and no one is really helped when it's all said and done.
So trying to mush everything together like you tried to do above there? Not cool, it wasn't what I was saying at all.
I apologize if I was mistaken. I was pretty sure you had made posts or a thread along the same lines about Kevin Owens and Braun Stroman never being able to bounce back from defeats. I disagree with the idea that main event guys should lose cleanly more often. Dean Ambrose being a perfect example -- he's lost clean a bunch and people have fits when it happens. Just one example. Owens and Braun could bounce back, they have the cadence and ability to, I was dreading Braun possibly losing this ambulance match though.
But when it comes to people like Bayley you wonder what the heck they're even doing
I get there needs to be some sort of balance but I think it also gets to a point where this guy has won like every feud he's been in the past year, maybe shift something up and have some other guys start winning/losing I guess
|
|
gbo86
Mephisto
Posts: 684
|
Post by gbo86 on Jul 9, 2017 23:48:07 GMT -5
Honest question: has WWE ever really normalized clean finishers? Austin almost never lost clean. Rock did a fair bit, but already after he was so over there was no bringing him down. When did Hogan *ever* lose clean? Warrior at WM6 and a few times during his 2002-03 run?
Really, I'm not sure I blame WWE here. Clean losses are so often treated like a kiss of death unless both competitors are super over and established.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,076
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Jul 10, 2017 5:34:52 GMT -5
I may check it out but honestly I like my wrestling built around selling and psychology rather than spots most of the time. I won't pretend it's 80s Crockett style psychology, but NJPW probably has some of the best in-ring storytelling going in the industry right now; you honestly don't have to know any Japanese to get an idea of what's happening, since you can tell it based on how people are presented and things like facial expressions, moves that are call backs to previous encounters, stuff like that. It's very satisfying in that sense, and the clear majority of matches come with clean finishes. Back on the topic, I do think the nuances of clean vs. dirty finishes should be discussed in greater detail; at the end of the day, it's really not bad for a heel to win by nefarious means, it's not bad to make a face look superior to a heel (in most wrestling stories the reason somebody's a heel is precisely because they're insecure enough about their talents that they often feel they have to cheat), none of that precludes somebody from getting over well. Flair made a living off of winning dirty, Hogan made a living going over big, bad heels after building them up as threats for awhile, it's all fair game. I read that Wyatt won tonight by doing a thumb to the eye into a Sister Abigail...that's fine. He's the bad guy in the story. It makes sense. The catch is this: too often, the types of finishes WWE books aren't traditional clean or dirty finishes: they're more what OSW Review calls "f*** finishes", people losing because of something convoluted and absurd, like Dean Ambrose jobbing out to a hologram of Bray Wyatt and an exploding TV instead of falling to, say, his opponent doing something underhanded by himself to get the win. Instead you get the hologram/TV-go-boom, which makes Wyatt look goofy, Ambrose look like an idiot, and whomever Ambrose was facing seem utterly forgettable considering they didn't even factor into the finish. Nobody is helped, here. Also, it's ok for the heel to sometimes win CLEAN. Especially if they're meant to be a scary monster. I always remember the quote Mick Foley remembered in Have a Nice Day: "In Jaws, the shark was the heel because it went around eating people, not because it did it while the sheriff's back was turned" Why is Braun a threat? Does he cheat? A bit, but mainly because he's a massive dude who wrecks people. Bray should be the same, he is evil, gets in people's heads and has an unorthodox style so he can win without cheating, and they have to come back with a new game plan. Ric Flair cheated, but the thing is, he didn't cheat because he needed to, but because he wanted to, he could still beat you without it.
|
|
r.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,478
|
Post by r. on Jul 10, 2017 6:03:24 GMT -5
So I got to watch the last hour or so of the PPV tonight after a family function, and I'm wondering if maybe tonight was the key illustration of what's plaguing this company today. I was hyped for Lesnar/Joe tonight; I don't watch much WWE, but I've checked out the way they've been building this match and it felt like we were going to actually get a straight forward fight, with two guys who know how to make everything they do feel authentic. Yes, the build up was that Lesnar could take Joe lightly because Joe had only one-upped him via cheap shots before the match, but the build up seemed to say that these were two monsters and that the arena would be lucky to still be standing by the end. The stage was set to tell a great story: Brock is the dominant monster champion, but Joe is a guy he's taking lightly at his own peril, and regardless of whether he won or lost, a strong showing against Brock would be a way to help Joe officially "arrive" on the WWE main roster as a major player. Instead, Joe once again cheap shots Lesnar, does it AGAIN during the match, and it's the only reason he's able to compete against him because then it's Suplex City, a desperation Coquina Clutch, then F-5, over. This put a question in my head that won't go away: why have Joe go after Lesnar before the bell? Why introduce that into the match at all? All I can figure is that "it's the only way anyone will buy Joe having a chance against Lesnar." If so...bullshit. Brock's a beast, Joe's a beast, let the two beasts fight. Here's my big point: When you trust your talent enough to just turn them loose on one another, tell an interesting story, then have one go over clean, +90% of the time you end up with an outcome that makes both the winner and the loser look good, and sends a crowd home happy, but instead we have to introduce complications, excuses, and superfluous nonsense that completely throws a strong potential story out the window, because WWE is apparently allergic to clean finishes. WCW died in part because every big match had a bullshit ending after awhile. TNA has suffered over the years because they would rarely just commit and let a guy go over cleanly in a big match to get established; both companies always seemed afraid to have anybody ever "lose face", as if just losing clean means a guy could never recover in the face of the crowd, so instead we get the stupid stuff added in. WWE is getting nearly as bad about it over the past however long now, and I'm starting to wonder if it's a big reason why viewership is down. Alvarez had his Observer rant about how WWE is too obsessed with building heel heat and not interested enough in letting babyfaces go over and leave the crowd satisfied, but I think this plays into that, as well: the refusal to just book a clean, straightforward match that can elevate someone even in a loss denies the audience a clear, concise story, and introduces needless complications into the equation, and it's high time they start cutting it out. Fantastic points, but Joe makes a lot of money so apparently that's all that matters in the end.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,511
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Jul 10, 2017 6:18:44 GMT -5
I don't mind schmozz endings, provided that when the time is right, a clean finish actually happens.
Problem is, they never actually do clean finishes when the time comes
|
|
|
Post by Raw is Doodie101 on Jul 10, 2017 6:53:21 GMT -5
They're afraid guys moving up and down the ladder per se. Instead of giving Bray a clean win over Rollins which would help him, they have him do the poke to the eye and finisher and get the win. No one gets over really as they are still stuck in the same position. Seth took a pin loss but he can justify it by saying he was cheated. No one comes out the better of the two Wait...Bray is a heel. A poke to the eye is a perfectly acceptable finish tactic for a heel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 7:38:39 GMT -5
They're afraid guys moving up and down the ladder per se. Instead of giving Bray a clean win over Rollins which would help him, they have him do the poke to the eye and finisher and get the win. No one gets over really as they are still stuck in the same position. Seth took a pin loss but he can justify it by saying he was cheated. No one comes out the better of the two Wait...Bray is a heel. A poke to the eye is a perfectly acceptable finish tactic for a heel. There was really nothing wrong with any individual finish tonight, the way they chained it all together was really bad though. Should balance that shit out. They somehow managed to have an entire ppv without a single satisfying end to a match. It was either strange decisions about who won or how they won. You shouldn't like the result of every match, if you do, that means someone else is gonna be pissed. But Great Balls was pretty goofy with the results and the way they happened from beginning to end.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 10, 2017 8:36:13 GMT -5
Honest question: has WWE ever really normalized clean finishers? Austin almost never lost clean. Rock did a fair bit, but already after he was so over there was no bringing him down. When did Hogan *ever* lose clean? Warrior at WM6 and a few times during his 2002-03 run? Really, I'm not sure I blame WWE here. Clean losses are so often treated like a kiss of death unless both competitors are super over and established. Very different situations, though: the guys you're citing were not just the people WWF booked to be on top of the promotion, they were people the crowd mostly wanted on top of the promotion. When you have a company "ace" or what have you, it makes perfect sense to have them next to never lose cleanly in singles matches, as they're your top draw and the person the fans want to see win cleanly. In that context, of course you have them win when the pressure is on, and of course you book it so that those low-down, dirty heels who aren't as good as Hogan/Austin/Warrior/Rock had to cheat to get one up on them. Beyond that, Hogan and Warrior worked during a different era where there were less huge shows to watch each month; a dirty finish here and there didn't poison the well, and most of the finishes on the cards they were on would be pretty clean. Austin and Rock worked in a more chaotic era, but I think we lose sight sometimes of the fact that their run on top was basically less than four years long, since there was so much burnout during that time as the company ran through all sorts of different angles and finishes like it was nothing. Finally, there's the factor that I mentioned before: agency on the part of the heels. If a heel cheats to win, it's really not a bad thing most of the time; the problem in a lot of the booking today is not only that the heels often don't win cleanly, it's that they often don't win cleanly while not actually doing the cheating themselves (again, the Ambrose example where he lost a match to someone else because of random Bray Wyatt shenanigans). If you want your wrestlers to seem important, they should have agency over their own finishes. Otherwise, they look weak, like they have no business being in the ring, because they simply got lucky by circumstance. That style of ending worked when Austin would fight Vince, since Vince was not supposed to have any business being in the ring with a top champ like Austin, but it doesn't work for a full-time wrestler 99% of the time. I guess I'll also throw this in: it'd be nice if more of their matches just allowed two guys to go at it, tell a good in-ring story, then let the finish go cleanly so both guys looked competitive and come off looking stronger. Joe could've been made tonight even in defeat, instead he looked like he couldn't begin to stand to Brock unless he was cheap-shotting him; if this was someone like The Miz in the match that would make sense, but Joe's been booked like a monster and now he's essentially de-fanged.
|
|
gbo86
Mephisto
Posts: 684
|
Post by gbo86 on Jul 10, 2017 8:57:00 GMT -5
Honest question: has WWE ever really normalized clean finishers? Austin almost never lost clean. Rock did a fair bit, but already after he was so over there was no bringing him down. When did Hogan *ever* lose clean? Warrior at WM6 and a few times during his 2002-03 run? Really, I'm not sure I blame WWE here. Clean losses are so often treated like a kiss of death unless both competitors are super over and established. Very different situations, though: the guys you're citing were not just the people WWF booked to be on top of the promotion, they were people the crowd mostly wanted on top of the promotion. When you have a company "ace" or what have you, it makes perfect sense to have them next to never lose cleanly in singles matches, as they're your top draw and the person the fans want to see win cleanly. In that context, of course you have them win when the pressure is on, and of course you book it so that those low-down, dirty heels who aren't as good as Hogan/Austin/Warrior/Rock had to cheat to get one up on them. Beyond that, Hogan and Warrior worked during a different era where there were less huge shows to watch each month; a dirty finish here and there didn't poison the well, and most of the finishes on the cards they were on would be pretty clean. Austin and Rock worked in a more chaotic era, but I think we lose sight sometimes of the fact that their run on top was basically less than four years long, since there was so much burnout during that time as the company ran through all sorts of different angles and finishes like it was nothing. Finally, there's the factor that I mentioned before: agency on the part of the heels. If a heel cheats to win, it's really not a bad thing most of the time; the problem in a lot of the booking today is not only that the heels often don't win cleanly, it's that they often don't win cleanly while not actually doing the cheating themselves (again, the Ambrose example where he lost a match to someone else because of random Bray Wyatt shenanigans). If you want your wrestlers to seem important, they should have agency over their own finishes. Otherwise, they look weak, like they have no business being in the ring, because they simply got lucky by circumstance. That style of ending worked when Austin would fight Vince, since Vince was not supposed to have any business being in the ring with a top champ like Austin, but it doesn't work for a full-time wrestler 99% of the time. I guess I'll also throw this in: it'd be nice if more of their matches just allowed two guys to go at it, tell a good in-ring story, then let the finish go cleanly so both guys looked competitive and come off looking stronger. Joe could've been made tonight even in defeat, instead he looked like he couldn't begin to stand to Brock unless he was cheap-shotting him; if this was someone like The Miz in the match that would make sense, but Joe's been booked like a monster and now he's essentially de-fanged. I see where you're coming from, though I have to quibble a bit with the Joe characterization. I think it fits him that he's willing to fight dirty. He wants to hurt people and he's going to do it however he can. I think he still came out looking like a monster, though I think on balance it could have been booked better.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 10, 2017 9:04:33 GMT -5
So I got to watch the last hour or so of the PPV tonight after a family function, and I'm wondering if maybe tonight was the key illustration of what's plaguing this company today. I was hyped for Lesnar/Joe tonight; I don't watch much WWE, but I've checked out the way they've been building this match and it felt like we were going to actually get a straight forward fight, with two guys who know how to make everything they do feel authentic. Yes, the build up was that Lesnar could take Joe lightly because Joe had only one-upped him via cheap shots before the match, but the build up seemed to say that these were two monsters and that the arena would be lucky to still be standing by the end. The stage was set to tell a great story: Brock is the dominant monster champion, but Joe is a guy he's taking lightly at his own peril, and regardless of whether he won or lost, a strong showing against Brock would be a way to help Joe officially "arrive" on the WWE main roster as a major player. Instead, Joe once again cheap shots Lesnar, does it AGAIN during the match, and it's the only reason he's able to compete against him because then it's Suplex City, a desperation Coquina Clutch, then F-5, over. This put a question in my head that won't go away: why have Joe go after Lesnar before the bell? Why introduce that into the match at all? All I can figure is that "it's the only way anyone will buy Joe having a chance against Lesnar." If so...bullshit. Brock's a beast, Joe's a beast, let the two beasts fight. Here's my big point: When you trust your talent enough to just turn them loose on one another, tell an interesting story, then have one go over clean, +90% of the time you end up with an outcome that makes both the winner and the loser look good, and sends a crowd home happy, but instead we have to introduce complications, excuses, and superfluous nonsense that completely throws a strong potential story out the window, because WWE is apparently allergic to clean finishes. WCW died in part because every big match had a bullshit ending after awhile. TNA has suffered over the years because they would rarely just commit and let a guy go over cleanly in a big match to get established; both companies always seemed afraid to have anybody ever "lose face", as if just losing clean means a guy could never recover in the face of the crowd, so instead we get the stupid stuff added in. WWE is getting nearly as bad about it over the past however long now, and I'm starting to wonder if it's a big reason why viewership is down. Alvarez had his Observer rant about how WWE is too obsessed with building heel heat and not interested enough in letting babyfaces go over and leave the crowd satisfied, but I think this plays into that, as well: the refusal to just book a clean, straightforward match that can elevate someone even in a loss denies the audience a clear, concise story, and introduces needless complications into the equation, and it's high time they start cutting it out. Fantastic points, but Joe makes a lot of money so apparently that's all that matters in the end. That is not at all what people were arguing with you about in the show thread.
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Jul 10, 2017 9:57:43 GMT -5
I hate the lack of clean matches and run ins and indecisive bullshit just to drag out stories and "protect" people but I loved Joe attacking him. I took it just as he was so amped up that he just wanted to kill him straight away. I thought it was awesome.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 10, 2017 10:06:04 GMT -5
I hate the lack of clean matches and run ins and indecisive bullshit just to drag out stories and "protect" people but I loved Joe attacking him. I took it just as he was so amped up that he just wanted to kill him straight away. I thought it was awesome. Yeah, I do think they could've still made it all work; having the first few minutes of the match be a wild brawl or something could've been perfectly fine. Just felt it was wasted by adding in the nut shot later, plus the match getting cut off before it hit, what, seven minutes? Felt like they just could've done so much more.
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Jul 10, 2017 10:22:19 GMT -5
I hate the lack of clean matches and run ins and indecisive bullshit just to drag out stories and "protect" people but I loved Joe attacking him. I took it just as he was so amped up that he just wanted to kill him straight away. I thought it was awesome. Yeah, I do think they could've still made it all work; having the first few minutes of the match be a wild brawl or something could've been perfectly fine. Just felt it was wasted by adding in the nut shot later, plus the match getting cut off before it hit, what, seven minutes? Felt like they just could've done so much more. I didn't mind him doing the low blow since he's still a heel trying to win by any means but yeah it did feel like it could have gone a lot longer. I agree that the first few mins should have been a brawl and maybe they should have had Joe storm him and start wrecking him the split second AFTER the bell had rang so it was part of the match.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 11:11:48 GMT -5
They're afraid guys moving up and down the ladder per se. Instead of giving Bray a clean win over Rollins which would help him, they have him do the poke to the eye and finisher and get the win. No one gets over really as they are still stuck in the same position. Seth took a pin loss but he can justify it by saying he was cheated. No one comes out the better of the two Wait...Bray is a heel. A poke to the eye is a perfectly acceptable finish tactic for a heel. It depends on what kind of heel though. They always talk Bray up as an unstoppable psychopath, equally strong and fast who will also get in your head and make you doubt yourself. Why would a guy with skills like that need to take a cheap shot, or even want to given having to cheat diminishes the point he's trying to make about being superior?
|
|
|
Post by Baby, it’s Jes outside on Jul 10, 2017 11:38:14 GMT -5
"Wins and losses don't matter."
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jul 10, 2017 11:52:59 GMT -5
It used to be where you'd have some clean matches here and there on Raw but you'd expect the DQ or countout or Dusty finish to happen, but that was OK because PPV's where everything got resolved and matches would have a clean ending.
But now? Shady finishes and non-finishes are perfectly ok for PPV's in WWE's mindset. I guess it's supposed to be somewhat easier to justify with the WWE Network basically making the concept of PPV's business model obsolete. But all these shady finishes, DQ's, and countouts in even the lesser PPV events makes the possibility of them being showing up in the Rumble, Summerslam, Survivor Series, or Wrestlemania more of a common thing. And, well, unsatisfactory matches are a big part of WCW's decline in the late 90's.
WWE is REALLY fortunate that they're the only real game in town because the closest thing they have to competition is even less competent than they are.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,875
|
Post by Dub H on Jul 10, 2017 11:57:44 GMT -5
I won't pretend it's 80s Crockett style psychology, but NJPW probably has some of the best in-ring storytelling going in the industry right now; you honestly don't have to know any Japanese to get an idea of what's happening, since you can tell it based on how people are presented and things like facial expressions, moves that are call backs to previous encounters, stuff like that. It's very satisfying in that sense, and the clear majority of matches come with clean finishes. Back on the topic, I do think the nuances of clean vs. dirty finishes should be discussed in greater detail; at the end of the day, it's really not bad for a heel to win by nefarious means, it's not bad to make a face look superior to a heel (in most wrestling stories the reason somebody's a heel is precisely because they're insecure enough about their talents that they often feel they have to cheat), none of that precludes somebody from getting over well. Flair made a living off of winning dirty, Hogan made a living going over big, bad heels after building them up as threats for awhile, it's all fair game. I read that Wyatt won tonight by doing a thumb to the eye into a Sister Abigail...that's fine. He's the bad guy in the story. It makes sense. The catch is this: too often, the types of finishes WWE books aren't traditional clean or dirty finishes: they're more what OSW Review calls "f*** finishes", people losing because of something convoluted and absurd, like Dean Ambrose jobbing out to a hologram of Bray Wyatt and an exploding TV instead of falling to, say, his opponent doing something underhanded by himself to get the win. Instead you get the hologram/TV-go-boom, which makes Wyatt look goofy, Ambrose look like an idiot, and whomever Ambrose was facing seem utterly forgettable considering they didn't even factor into the finish. Nobody is helped, here. Also, it's ok for the heel to sometimes win CLEAN. Especially if they're meant to be a scary monster. I always remember the quote Mick Foley remembered in Have a Nice Day: "In Jaws, the shark was the heel because it went around eating people, not because it did it while the sheriff's back was turned" Why is Braun a threat? Does he cheat? A bit, but mainly because he's a massive dude who wrecks people. Bray should be the same, he is evil, gets in people's heads and has an unorthodox style so he can win without cheating, and they have to come back with a new game plan. Ric Flair cheated, but the thing is, he didn't cheat because he needed to, but because he wanted to, he could still beat you without it. Win if you can,Lose if you must but always cheat!
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jul 10, 2017 13:02:35 GMT -5
I only saw the last two matches but they both had clean finishes. There no run on or shenanigans. I get the point of the thread but not the timing.
|
|
|
Post by sdoyle7798 on Jul 10, 2017 13:09:15 GMT -5
I think we need to qualify what a "clean finish" is.
If Joe had won with that last Kokina Clutch, would it have been clean? Or would the pre-match beat down have tainted it?
Also, there are some guys who really, per their character, should rarely win clean. Early Miz, for example.
Don't get me wrong, I think they rely too much on distractions and interference to directly cause a pin. I just wanted to qualify what it takes to have a "clean" win.
|
|