Khan on "Matches with No Story", cites WCW/Bischoff

[HMARK Center]

I've seen a lot of talk of late concerning AEW's booking strategies, and one of the complaints that's made the rounds is "too many matches that are happening for no reason". While I'm glad to criticize "wrestling for wrestling's sake", I've felt for awhile like this isn't really what's going on in AEW, and that it's more that people have difference expectations and definitions of what constitutes a "story" for a match in pro wrestling.

Lo and behold, it appears Khan got asked about it in an interview and said the following:

"There's a lot of really interesting stories happening in AEW. There's this fascinating thing happening. I've noticed that things have changed a lot in the perception of how a wrestling card is built over the years. Now there's this perception, I think because this is the way people have seen it done for most of the last 20 years, to some extent it has become an industry standard if only for lack of competition. There's this perception that every match on every show should have a long storyline built on why it takes place. It doesn't necessarily need to be the case for every single match. I think there's absolutely a lot of story in most of the matches on this show and most matches on a lot of our shows. But sometimes you can see something that's the start of the new issue."

Khan continued, "Frankly, the person who I think has been the most incendiary and contradictory and hypocritical on this entire point is Eric Bischoff. If you watch Nitros, especially the good Nitros from 95 to 98, a lot of the quality of the show was seeing Lucha matches and things that you didn't expect and there was a certain exquisite randomness to the lineup of the card. You turn the show on and it would be Rick Martel against Perry Saturn, that's pretty cool. Or hey, Randy Savage against Bobby Eaton, okay. And various Lucha matches that didn't necessarily have build-up but were fun matches. They weren't the big story matches. Sure, there were a lot of stories happening in WCW but probably less than half the matches on Nitro had a story going into them. And that was fine. It was the industry standard show. Then it really tried to copy its competition and put lots of story where every single match had to have two guys having a fight over a cup of coffee in catering. That just doesn't need to be the case. Sometimes it can be as simple as a challenge or two people fighting to be the best. The majority of the time or certainly a large percentage of the time you should have a lot of story built into a match. You know, this perception that you can't just have two people come in and fight, it could be the start of something. It could be lead to something with two completely different people, who knows. But there's a lot of different ways to skin a cat. In this case, to see the person who probably put more cold matches on TV, and did it successfully and did it well, say that it's an abomination to do it, it's pretty contradictory. So I found it really ironic when I hear Eric Bischoff talk about why is this match happening. Why did 60 percent of the matches on Nitro happen honestly, that was when Nitro was a better show and they tried to change it to something else."

To be honest, I'm kind of glad he cited that bit about Nitro; go back and read the results of tons of Nitros during the "golden era" and tell me how many of the matches really served much of a purpose, i.e. that they had a built up backstory, or served as a springboard for a new story or character arc, or anything like that. Some weeks you did just kind of see the Macho Man beat Bobby Eaton, and then five minutes later it might as well never have happened.

But more to the point, I think I like the way he cited the whole "two guys having a fight over a cup of coffee in catering" thing; it feels like a shorthand for "this is the kind of booking people have gotten used to over the last 20 years, now when someone is doing something different they feel it's weird and wrong to them." I feel like we could make a thread of "things from WWE's booking since 2001 that everyone's expected to accept as standard now" and fill it up with a lot of examples, but that's more for the (w)rest section. But for me, I've usually been a bigger fan of matches telling their own story in the ring; it's a big reason why I gravitated towards ROH and NJPW over the years, you'd get some matches that feel "random" or what have you, but ultimately were used as launching pads for angles, character beats, or even just builds towards eventual bigger matches down the line, and I've never seen anything wrong with that.

None of which is to say people can't take issue with booking in AEW or any other promotion, of course, but it does strike me sometimes how I feel like some of the louder complaints can feel like "this isn't what I'm used to". The current rallying cry of many is to be angry that Ricky Starks has been away for a month and now has popped back up on Dark...yet the idea of having a couple of wrestlers, in this case Hobbs and Starks, finishing a feud and then taking a month off before coming back to start a new story really isn't that weird. That doesn't mean you have to agree or like it, of course; there's a legitimate argument to be had that after winning the Lights Out match, Ricky should've been right back on TV to capitalize on that. But the fact they handle it differently isn't automatically bad, either.

Anyway, just thought this quote was interesting and good discussion fodder, and a break from talking about whether the Young Bucks superkicked Larry the Dog's teeth out and forced him onto a pureed diet.

[CeilingFan]

Bischoff is just angry that Tony Khan won't hire him.

[Kalmia]

Sometimes I think AEW tries too hard to give random matches reasons. I don't need a promo to explain why one of the Rampage matches between two unconnected wrestlers is happening.

Just give me a match where one (or both) is trying to get some wins together to move up the card. That's it. That's a decent enough story for me. Pushing a wrestler and giving them a win is enough.

[ASYLUMHAUSEN]

And yet one of the most compelling matches in the companies immediate future has 2 years of story 😂

twitter.com/PAvalon/status/1585083811653898240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1585083811653898240%7Ctwgr%5E34c53b478c45f8cb63be6b6a375cd9c0d070fc89%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fofficialfan.proboards.com%2Fthread%2F623810%2Favalon-cutler-4

(I get what you’re saying…I just wanted an excuse to post this amazing tweet in another thread 🤷🏼‍♂️😁)

[carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army)]

"You just don't like it because it's not what you've been TRAINED to enjoy by the WWE!" is an extremely lame way to try to strawman your way out of criticism.


People liked the opening-match-cruiserweights on Nitro because they were doing astounding shit most people hadn't seen before. It's not like storylines would have hurt those matches; there were no storylines there because WCW saw no point to wasting energy writing stuff for small people and Mexicans. When WCW changed and started giving everyone motivations and characters and stories, people hated it... because all that stuff was Russo and it sucked, not because they wanted the meaningless matches back. (Also WCW was such a chaotic place, fans could actually react strongly to someone and cause the bookers to kinda push them. There was an accidental, hidden story to all those matches: "We cheered La Parka and Juventud, hopefully they'll get a title shot on a PPV!" This sort of thing is... not really how AEW works.)

Dude's out here saying "By coincidence, the thing where I don't have to be organized is better, actually. If you disagree, you probably just forgot how great it is because of watching the WWE." Just lame.


It isn't even hard. Just know the characters you're working with and have a reason why each time they appear on screen, their actions are meant to progress those characters' goals in a way the audience groks. There's a huge amount of variety there; it doesn't have to be set up by a backstage skit. It just has to be more than nothing. To hold up the lucha matches from Nitro, which had no stories because they explicitly existed to kill time and the audience was not supposed to give a shit about little guys compared to the Real Stars, as some sort of booking positive is baffling.

[Denny Zen]

This is kind of nuanced so if I do a terrible job articulating this point, I apologize in advance.

I agree with Tony Khan that TV matches happening just for the sake of happening is not a valid criticism of AEW. AEW is very good about always having a number of compelling and interesting storylines going at any given time, and they are often interwoven with one another. Just having great wrestling matches without any real build against that backdrop is not an issue at all.

Where I think AEW draws fair criticism is the number of championship matches that happen just for the sake of happening. Just last night, for example, we had a World Title match with Moxley and Penta that had absolutely no televised build, whatsoever and an All-Atlantic Title match was booked, basically, because some dudes were arguing with each other and Orange Cassidy showed up to challenge them. Which, incidentally, is the exact same way Orange Cassidy's first title defense was booked, also within the same week.

That, specifically, is an issue to me because it makes almost every single televised championship match feel like a foregone conclusion, which takes away a lot of the intrigue from the title defenses.

[Ronny Rayguns Is All Elite]

Not every match on the card needs to have a storyline leading up to it or be the start of a new feud, but each match should be used as a showcase for the talents involved and if nothing else the announcers should be selling the general story that Wrestler A & Wrestler B are both trying to win so they can move up the ranks to get a title shot/go to Da Pay Winnduh (Daddy!)

[Fade is a CodyCryBaby]

Oct 27, 2022 14:17:16 GMT -5 Denny Zen said:

This is kind of nuanced so if I do a terrible job articulating this point, I apologize in advance.

I agree with Tony Khan that TV matches happening just for the sake of happening is not a valid criticism of AEW. AEW is very good about always having a number of compelling and interesting storylines going at any given time, and they are often interwoven with one another. Just having great wrestling matches without any real build against that backdrop is not an issue at all.

Where I think AEW draws fair criticism is the number of championship matches that happen just for the sake of happening. Just last night, for example, we had a World Title match with Moxley and Penta that had absolutely no televised build, whatsoever and an All-Atlantic Title match was booked, basically, because some dudes were arguing with each other and Orange Cassidy showed up to challenge them. Which, incidentally, is the exact same way Orange Cassidy's first title defense was booked, also within the same week.

That, specifically, is an issue to me because it makes almost every single televised championship match feel like a foregone conclusion, which takes away a lot of the intrigue from the title defenses.

Yeah, I barely paid attention to Mox & Penta last night cuz the result was obvious as f***. And there was nothing beyond that. No caveat, no beef, no story. It just happened.

Compare that to the aftermath where it’s like “oh damn, MJF’s conflicted. But he still hates Mox? But he’s changing!” And “oh damn, the firm are legit bad guys now. Ethan and Morrissey looked like bosses!” And “how the f*** is Mox going to react to this?!” Story. Characters. Conflict. Dilemma.

Having matches for the sake of having matches is fine..but I think with the majority of cases, it’s a disservice to their own product 🤷

[nickcave]

I think the thing he's trying to get at here is that each match does serve a purpose regardless of whether every single match has a story. Sometimes the match serves a person of showcasing one or two guys they are trying to build for future programs and that's fine. That's like standard booking 101 lol

[markymark]

Oct 27, 2022 14:17:16 GMT -5 Denny Zen said:

This is kind of nuanced so if I do a terrible job articulating this point, I apologize in advance.

I agree with Tony Khan that TV matches happening just for the sake of happening is not a valid criticism of AEW. AEW is very good about always having a number of compelling and interesting storylines going at any given time, and they are often interwoven with one another. Just having great wrestling matches without any real build against that backdrop is not an issue at all.

Where I think AEW draws fair criticism is the number of championship matches that happen just for the sake of happening. Just last night, for example, we had a World Title match with Moxley and Penta that had absolutely no televised build, whatsoever and an All-Atlantic Title match was booked, basically, because some dudes were arguing with each other and Orange Cassidy showed up to challenge them. Which, incidentally, is the exact same way Orange Cassidy's first title defense was booked, also within the same week.

That, specifically, is an issue to me because it makes almost every single televised championship match feel like a foregone conclusion, which takes away a lot of the intrigue from the title defenses.

The World Title match was more about making up for Hangman getting hurt last week, idk whats the issue with OC when it just fits his character, they are going to make it a running gag until it bites him in the rear and loses the title.

[Denny Zen]

Oct 27, 2022 14:34:59 GMT -5 markymark said:

Oct 27, 2022 14:17:16 GMT -5 Denny Zen said:

This is kind of nuanced so if I do a terrible job articulating this point, I apologize in advance.

I agree with Tony Khan that TV matches happening just for the sake of happening is not a valid criticism of AEW. AEW is very good about always having a number of compelling and interesting storylines going at any given time, and they are often interwoven with one another. Just having great wrestling matches without any real build against that backdrop is not an issue at all.

Where I think AEW draws fair criticism is the number of championship matches that happen just for the sake of happening. Just last night, for example, we had a World Title match with Moxley and Penta that had absolutely no televised build, whatsoever and an All-Atlantic Title match was booked, basically, because some dudes were arguing with each other and Orange Cassidy showed up to challenge them. Which, incidentally, is the exact same way Orange Cassidy's first title defense was booked, also within the same week.

That, specifically, is an issue to me because it makes almost every single televised championship match feel like a foregone conclusion, which takes away a lot of the intrigue from the title defenses.

The World Title match was more about making up for Hangman getting hurt last week, idk whats the issue with OC when it just fits his character, they are going to make it a running gag until it bites him in the rear and loses the title.

I don't have an issue with it in a vacuum, but I think AEW does it a little too frequently to "beef up" its television shows.

If OC ends up losing his title in one of these random defenses, I'll eat my crow, but I suspect that he won't actually be at any risk of losing until he gets into a proper feud. That's kind of been AEW's MO throughout the company's existence. 

Also, I want to emphasize that I absolutely love AEW's product and usually enjoy even the random title matches. Just, within the context of this thread, I do think that the storyline-free title matches (or "Eliminator Matches") added to round out TV cards is something that happens frequently enough to be a fair criticism.

["Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik]

I mean yes, Eric is usually full of shit with a lot of his criticism and this is another example of that.

[polarbearpete]

Oct 27, 2022 14:04:12 GMT -5 carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) said:

"You just don't like it because it's not what you've been TRAINED to enjoy by the WWE!" is an extremely lame way to try to strawman your way out of criticism.


People liked the opening-match-cruiserweights on Nitro because they were doing astounding shit most people hadn't seen before. It's not like storylines would have hurt those matches; there were no storylines there because WCW saw no point to wasting energy writing stuff for small people and Mexicans. When WCW changed and started giving everyone motivations and characters and stories, people hated it... because all that stuff was Russo and it sucked, not because they wanted the meaningless matches back. (Also WCW was such a chaotic place, fans could actually react strongly to someone and cause the bookers to kinda push them. There was an accidental, hidden story to all those matches: "We cheered La Parka and Juventud, hopefully they'll get a title shot on a PPV!" This sort of thing is... not really how AEW works.)

Dude's out here saying "By coincidence, the thing where I don't have to be organized is better, actually. If you disagree, you probably just forgot how great it is because of watching the WWE." Just lame.


It isn't even hard. Just know the characters you're working with and have a reason why each time they appear on screen, their actions are meant to progress those characters' goals in a way the audience groks. There's a huge amount of variety there; it doesn't have to be set up by a backstage skit. It just has to be more than nothing. To hold up the lucha matches from Nitro, which had no stories because they explicitly existed to kill time and the audience was not supposed to give a shit about little guys compared to the Real Stars, as some sort of booking positive is baffling.

This is where I’m at on it. There are ways to try and defend AEW’s booking of “cold matches” but saying it’s only being criticized because people have been trained otherwise by WWE in the last 20 years is not hitting right to me.

[Deleted]

I blame Vince Russo for so much of this.

Now, before you say "How is this Russo's fault?", hear me out:

The biggest compliment that people would give Russo is that he "always found storylines for everyone on the card", which is great and all, but most of those stories were puerile edge-lord hot garbage that just made wrestling look even more stupid than it already is. Yeah, he had a higher batting average with the main event stories, but Austin/Rock/Taker and all other top guys from that era could have gotten ANYTHING over.

Sometimes the only story you need is "The promoter made this match and I want to win it so that I can move up the card" or something similar. Personal issues usually sell best for the main event scene, I can't lie about that, but Tony's right: it made Nitro feel like a sports presentation and it was fresh and it was frankly cooler to me than attitude-era WWF.

[markymark]

Oct 27, 2022 14:55:19 GMT -5 polarbearpete said:

Oct 27, 2022 14:04:12 GMT -5 carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) said:

"You just don't like it because it's not what you've been TRAINED to enjoy by the WWE!" is an extremely lame way to try to strawman your way out of criticism.


People liked the opening-match-cruiserweights on Nitro because they were doing astounding shit most people hadn't seen before. It's not like storylines would have hurt those matches; there were no storylines there because WCW saw no point to wasting energy writing stuff for small people and Mexicans. When WCW changed and started giving everyone motivations and characters and stories, people hated it... because all that stuff was Russo and it sucked, not because they wanted the meaningless matches back. (Also WCW was such a chaotic place, fans could actually react strongly to someone and cause the bookers to kinda push them. There was an accidental, hidden story to all those matches: "We cheered La Parka and Juventud, hopefully they'll get a title shot on a PPV!" This sort of thing is... not really how AEW works.)

Dude's out here saying "By coincidence, the thing where I don't have to be organized is better, actually. If you disagree, you probably just forgot how great it is because of watching the WWE." Just lame.


It isn't even hard. Just know the characters you're working with and have a reason why each time they appear on screen, their actions are meant to progress those characters' goals in a way the audience groks. There's a huge amount of variety there; it doesn't have to be set up by a backstage skit. It just has to be more than nothing. To hold up the lucha matches from Nitro, which had no stories because they explicitly existed to kill time and the audience was not supposed to give a shit about little guys compared to the Real Stars, as some sort of booking positive is baffling.

This is where I’m at on it. There are ways to try and defend AEW’s booking of “cold matches” but saying it’s only being criticized because people have been trained otherwise by WWE in the last 20 years is not hitting right to me.

Ive seen this excuse used in current HHH era with how the crowd doesnt react to certain acts/matches/segments, blaming Vince booking.

[polarbearpete]

Oct 27, 2022 15:27:31 GMT -5 markymark said:

Oct 27, 2022 14:55:19 GMT -5 polarbearpete said:

This is where I’m at on it. There are ways to try and defend AEW’s booking of “cold matches” but saying it’s only being criticized because people have been trained otherwise by WWE in the last 20 years is not hitting right to me.

Ive seen this excuse used in current HHH era with how the crowd doesnt react to certain acts/matches/segments, blaming Vince booking.

Not reacting to certain acts makes sense at least, if the idea is that they’ve seen them already be used in such a poor fashion that they’re not seen as credible or interesting, which makes it harder for new booking to overcome.

But saying a whole style of booking cold matches doesn’t work because WWE conditioned them not to doesn’t seem to make much sense to me.

[HMARK Center]

I mean, it's inescapable fact that WWE shaped a *ton* of the current audience's expectations for what counts as the norm in TV booking. That's the nature of being the only legitimate game in town for so long, expecting anything else is unrealistic. It doesn't excuse all poor booking by other promotions, but the effect is there in some corners, for sure.

On Penta vs. Mox, I don't know, I just feel like just about any title match that happens has an automatic story - there's the obvious surface story of "this is a title defense, which lends to the aura of the current champion because they're putting their prize on the line here", but there's typically the next tier story, even if the outcome of the match isn't in doubt, that says "the way the champion wrestles this match may shape the way he/she fights future matches, setting up future spots or sequences that might lead to a payoff at a climactic point." I get that going into a show knowing what the outcomes are gonna be hurts excitement, but the story there is told within the match itself, even if in this case it's something as simple as "Penta is getting his first singles title match in AEW and is proving he's got more than enough ability to win at some point." That goes back to my whole "it doesn't really matter who wins, what matters is what happens in the match" thing, though.

But yeah, my bigger thing is I see the whole "there's no *story* here" card and 99% of the time I'm not seeing what they're getting at, because I think the expectations of what constitutes a "story" end up varying.

[thehottag]

One thing I absolutely agree with is that Bischoff is a massive hypocrite here. I remember watching WCW back in the day, & they'd throw two randomers out there to have a match all the time. Often you wouldn't see them for weeks afterwards too, making the whole thing pointless.

No less annoying when AEW does it, mind.

[Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]]

For me, most matches in AEW have had a point, whether it's in the moment or not

Some matches happen, and then get called back to when wrestlers develop or move up the cards, maybe they lost what was an exhibition to this guy and now they need to show how far they've come! Some are matches that lead to post match storyline or even pre-match shenanigans. People on commentary judging their soon to be opponents, or what have you.

It's hard for me to say what is a match happening for the sake of a match when a lot of times a champion simply wants a good fight, or it's a match to try and prove themselves and move up in the ranks of the roster, justify title matches, beat good opponents for their own personal gain... essentially just wrestling at its core values

Mox vs Penta was a vehicle to have Mox be Mox, and then have a big post match segment, and it didn't hurt Penta to have a main event match to show out.

Will it always land for everyone? No. Do I think it hurts their product? Not in the slightest, throw out bangers for possible new viewers to see especially, you have a stacked roster, and you have the ability to create so many new matches per week alone, I am absolutely fine if they keep doing so.

[Bo Rida]

Seemingly random matches are important for a more realistic sports feel and to prevent wrestlers getting stuck in bubbles. Real sports have a lot of crappy and lopsided matches between the big ones.

Wardlow in particular needs more random title defenses. Stuff like Dax's singles matches or Dustin/Billy Gunn offering something different can be welcome changes of pace.

Everything being a heated personal rivalry waters down the real blood fueds.

But really very few matches have no story whatsoever, they're usually part of bigger arcs