Should finishers always lead to pinfalls?

[Nr1Humanoid]

I say yes. Or at least they shouldn't be kicked out of, always be broken up or do the foot/arm on the rope thing. I just hate to see kickouts on finishers.

[Deleted]

Of course not. WWE does overdo it a ton, like the pointlessness of Ziggler kicking out of the Skull Crushing Finale at SummerSlam for no real reason, but in big matches if done right it can be a huge shock. Like Taker / Michaels at Mania 25, that match while it'd still be a classic went up a ton just based on how stunning Michaels kicking out of the Tombstone was when it felt for sure like a match-ending moment.

[Allie Kitsune]

No, because they're no longer finishers.

It's become an almost staple part of a moveset to have a "finisher" that you can hit "anywhere, anytime" doing a match.

And (the vast majority of the time) I don't think the first move of the match should lay a guy out long-term.

I have a hard time buying a move as an instant knockout (aside from maybe Big Show's haymaker) at the beginning just because it was designed to be hit "anywhere, anytime".

[MrBRulzOK]

I agree. They should only be kicked out of in big time main event matches, like at Wrestlemania or something like that. And even then it should be something that happens maybe once or twice a year. It's not worth the pop you might get for how it makes said finisher look when it gets kicked out of all the time.

Alot of guys on the lower card have had theirs pretty badly devalued due to alot of people refusing to stay down from them. That's not exactly the thing you want to do with a young up-and-coming talent. Hell, even Cena's finishers have been weakened as a result. It's pretty rare nowadays that a guy stays down from a single Attitude Adjustment.

[Deleted]

I've preached that idea for a long time, but the main issue would be that it'd change the "epic WWE match" style a lot and for the first year it'd be weird whilst fans adjusted to the new idea of 'you don't kick out of finishers'.

Big kick outs should happen once or twice a year in important matches. Making midcard title matches have finisher kick-outs every month = nonsense.

[KobashiChop]

No, there shouldnt be a fixed result for finishers. It should be dependent on the situation.

One finisher shouldnt be enough at Wrestlemania. Similarly, a Raw main event shouldnt be a finisherfest.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

WWE has pushed the idea that finisher kick outs put a wrestler over and make them look strong. The farther up the card a wrestler advances, the less effective their finisher becomes once they start working "big" matches.

[Crimson]

Most times it should IMHO.

[DjZonk]

OP.... more often than not.

[Mozenrath]

Most of the time, but it kind of depends, there are stages of finishers.

Like, you can kick out of the AA from Cena, since while it often finishes matches, it doesn't always, it's like the Rock Bottom like that.

Then, you have the Clothesline from Hell, which was virtually always the end, even when Bradshaw wasn't high on the card.

[Allie Kitsune]

Oct 14, 2014 16:10:23 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Most of the time, but it kind of depends, there are stages of finishers.

Like, you can kick out of the AA from Cena, since while it often finishes matches, it doesn't always, it's like the Rock Bottom like that.

Then, you have the Clothesline from Hell, which was virtually always the end, even when Bradshaw wasn't high on the card.

If it's truly a finisher, it should be used as just that. A flash move, an exclamation point when the opponent has zero resistance left to give. Unless a guy has an an MMA or other "real world fighter" gimmick, he shouldn't be having a move that's "one-hit instant KO, no matter when it's used". I get that the "instant win condition" is supposed to add drama to a match, but it also undermines the concept of a finisher.

I'm OK with moves being kicked out of when someone goes for it too early.

[keezy]

The problem is you know someone will kick out of the first finisher at big PPVs and such, Cena hitting an Attitude Adjustment for the first time has no meaning, he might as well use a scoop slam, and you might as well scoop slam Cena too because he'll return the favor.

[Ringmaster]

Yes but only during important matches. It's a big wow moment when the guy kicks out of something that 95% puts someone out for the 3.

[Crappler El 0 M]

No. But finishers do need to be better protected.

[Deleted]

I say "yes" with two caveats:

1. Non-finishers should be able to score pinfalls now and then, especially against non-main-eventers.

2. Wrestlers need to spend less time getting beat up and more time fighting. They should be able to sell the pain they're in, and being suplexed, for example, should obviously hurt. But when a wrestler gets laid out by a suplex or something, it should be no less relevant than being laid out from an F5. It's just that different moves should have different effects on how they stumble or drop someone.

[Deleted]

Oct 14, 2014 17:25:56 GMT -5 @mightykretzler said:

I say "yes" with two caveats:

1. Non-finishers should be able to score pinfalls now and then, especially against non-main-eventers.

2. Wrestlers need to spend less time getting beat up and more time fighting. They should be able to sell the pain they're in, and being suplexed, for example, should obviously hurt. But when a wrestler gets laid out by a suplex or something, it should be no less relevant than being laid out from an F5. It's just that different moves should have different effects on how they stumble or drop someone which is why Bryan & Punk were mentioned by me.

I think your second point is well worth focusing on, not enough wrestlers actually sell the impact of moves, from Sheamus to Cena to Bryan to Punk to The Usos to Bray Wyatt to...well, almost everyone aside from Chris Jericho and Christian or a legitimately injured wrestler. Even people who sell half of the match tend to have the "comeback spots" where all injuries get forgotten.

Superplexes should end matches to me, having sudden comeback spots 60 seconds after one irritates me for the same reason I don't like when someone flies to the outside of the ring, half misses an opponent, and then gets up all cheery and pumped up. Yes, Usos, you should stop that.

[wallabylikeyou]

If it's going to mean something, do the kick out. If it won't, don't. I remember last year Jericho wrestled Cody Rhodes on Main Event and they both kicked out of each other's finishers and it was like, "lads, it's only Main Event."

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Oct 14, 2014 17:47:03 GMT -5 wallabylikeyou said:

If it's going to mean something, do the kick out. If it won't, don't. I remember last year Jericho wrestled Cody Rhodes on Main Event and they both kicked out of each other's finishers and it was like, "lads, it's only Main Event."

But then again I think if they worked a certain way because "It's only Main Event", people would complain that they "don't care" and are "half assing" in the ring.

[Derk!]

Finishers should remain protected. The main time they should be kicked out of is at Wrestemania (preferably a high-profile match). And should it happen, the person whose finisher was kicked out of, should dig deep and bust out something different to put their opponent away(a Super-Angle slam for example)..

[Deleted]

Oct 14, 2014 20:47:10 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Oct 14, 2014 17:47:03 GMT -5 wallabylikeyou said:

If it's going to mean something, do the kick out. If it won't, don't. I remember last year Jericho wrestled Cody Rhodes on Main Event and they both kicked out of each other's finishers and it was like, "lads, it's only Main Event."

But then again I think if they worked a certain way because "It's only Main Event", people would complain that they "don't care" and are "half assing" in the ring.

I think that's the downside to a lot, people need to build to peaks on shows within their wrestling style.

Just like Cactus Jack & Terry Funk asking people not to bleed too much on an ECW show back in the day to sensibly make their match in the main event seem more brutal (which most people were there to see), before tons of guys went out and bladed and bucketed, it's a law of diminishing returns in general. The main eventers had to go much further when they sensibly shouldn't have had to should the wrestlers/bookers have gone "wait...is this all pointless?"

The state of the WWE's epic match-style that we see month-in-month-out is like going to an independent house show: everyone's pulling out their best shot in the WWE match-structure style, people will buzz about said match for a week or two, but then forget it happened, thus making the multiple finisher kick outs worthless whilst making both guys offense seem weaker. It's why people -including me- think the quality of the performances most WWE talent puts in is at a possible all time high, but due to similar match-ups/structure/a lack of variety in interesting gimmicks/ideas we forget most of the good matches because they mean less than zero in story terms or in unique set ups.

The idea IS to make people seem stronger via "wow they kicked out of that!" but given 50% of the roster kicks out of finishers, it makes the guys hitting their moves seem like fools or bad tacticians.

In psychology terms it makes no sense. It's why I felt every CM Punk vs Chris Jericho post WM/Extreme Rules match has felt like a complete waste of time. If you need too many finishers, similar spots, and it doesn't feed into the psychology outside of 'wow! How tough and exciting!" then it should not be done. Save your best for the kayfabe best, make the head line matches feel bigger via those being the only ones where insane kick outs or spots are needed. If you want a more recent confused me-reference, why did the Usos keep decisively beating the Wyatts but then keep hitting over the top rope moves to the outside? Just roll them in, hit a kick, get the pin. The Wyatts lost decisively every other week but the Usos had to make them seem like a threat, which made zero sense when you look at the internal logic of it all. It's almost like the WWE has become "the spotfest place" when it used to be a criticism of ROH and such.

Wrestling is more about the story told in the drama and in your ring psychology than it is about shooting your load every time you compete. Everyone looks worse by everyone looking great every night, add in most feuds involving traded wins/losses to make both guys seem as good as one another, and you have a kayfabe laziness/glass ceiling already in place. It's the Miz/Dolph Ziggler/Cody Rhodes/Sheamus/Kofi etc conundrum. Why is Dolph/Cody kicking out of big finishers but then losing to Sheamus after one kick?