|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 24, 2022 10:30:33 GMT -5
If somebody hits their finisher, that's enough to get a pin. Kicking out happens very rarely and is something noteworthy instead of expected. You can have exceptions if there's a delay on the pin after the move or there's a big gap between people's position (like somebody visiting from NXT hitting their finish on Brock Lesnar and he kicks out: that's fine), but generally: move>pin = win. The struggle moves from kicking out of the finish to not getting hit with it in the first place. A similar mindset goes for submissions too. We just had a few people comment on this in the (w)rest section, but I think this is a really interesting split in what psychology people look for in wrestling when it comes to finishers, pins, and match endings in general. There's an appeal to a one-shot kill finisher, of course, but I also think it's fair that not every finisher should necessarily have that effect in major matches; some finishers should work to legitimately (in kayfabe, of course) knock out your opponent for three seconds, while others should work as a culmination where your opponent is just too worn down to muster the energy to kick out anymore. To piggyback off your idea of the psychology being centered more around escape over kicking out, I think the ultimate example of that nowadays is Kenny Omega's One-Winged Angel; a move that looks brutal, takes awhile to set up, and has only been legitimately kicked out of by one person, so the drama inherent to it is "can the opponent escape before Omega drives them down?" Meantime you'll see a Cody match where he hits the Crossrhodes but doesn't get a pin off of it the first or even the second time, but it's a move that's meant to be executed quicker, so I can buy "Cody sacrificed hitting it flush for hitting it fast, and that might give his opponent a chance to kick out." Basically, I think there's a nostalgic romance for the "if this is hit the match is over, period" kinds of finishers, but I think there's room for different psychology on that front depending on the kind of move the wrestler is performing and the context in which it's hit during a match.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 24, 2022 13:15:55 GMT -5
I like what guys like Okada do. Like he has a whole bunch of Rainmakers that are quick and not as strong looking that won't finish someone off, but they do wear them down. Then he has the big, "put 100% into it" Rainmaker that's the kill shot.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 24, 2022 14:01:24 GMT -5
I like what guys like Okada do. Like he has a whole bunch of Rainmakers that are quick and not as strong looking that won't finish someone off, but they do wear them down. Then he has the big, "put 100% into it" Rainmaker that's the kill shot. Yeah, that's a thing in NJPW for a few guys, Naito included (the "full windup" Destino is the surefire finisher, the one he hits while running is for nearfalls), and the only times their full versions get kicked out of tend to be against other top-level guys at shows like Wrestle Kingdom and maybe Dominion or a G1 final match. All honestly, "super finishers" are the best when done right, but I'm also a huge mark for stuff like "Kobashi has only busted out the Burning Hammer a few times in his career, he must be desperate, this is huge!" in my wrestling psychology. Not every finisher can have a "super" version, I suppose, but it's also cool when some wrestlers have multiple potential finishers, depending on the level of their opponent/stakes of the match they're in.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,099
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 24, 2022 14:05:29 GMT -5
The big thing about any strict changes in pro wrestling (e.g. "X is an automatic DQ!", or "Y is banned!", or "all competitors MUST do Z!" or whatever) is that you are eventually going to break your own rule. It's inevitable in pro wrestling: strict rules become constraints that limit the booker/wrestlers, and at some point the rule will be broken and very likely discarded in the interest of allowing greater flexibility. It's why I try to take the view that anything can work in pro wrestling, but it just needs to be done under the right circumstances and in the proper context. ...that said, I've put this one out there before, and the big thing I'd change in WWE is that I'd get rid of the "automatic title shot at Wrestlemania" stipulation from the Royal Rumble. Just figure out some other way to make it meaningful to win the Rumble, because "I drew #26 out of 30 and managed to last 10 minutes in a gimmick match based around luck! ...and if I drew an earlier number they probably had me slide out of the ring for awhile and nap so I wouldn't be blown up by the end! Oh, and there's random joke entrants in this match to determine who gets one of the most prestigious spots and biggest paydays in our company, no biggie!" is no way to determine a main event spot for your biggest show. Like, I don't even necessarily like that NJPW has the G1 winner get a world title shot at Wrestle Kingdom, but at least you're not only going to win the G1 because Baron Corbin slipped on a banana peel or something. I like the Rumble title shot, but it does create an issue when it comes to limiting who they can have win the thing. This would be less of an issue if the Andre battle royal was used more effectively, honestly.
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Dec 24, 2022 14:10:08 GMT -5
The big thing about any strict changes in pro wrestling (e.g. "X is an automatic DQ!", or "Y is banned!", or "all competitors MUST do Z!" or whatever) is that you are eventually going to break your own rule. It's inevitable in pro wrestling: strict rules become constraints that limit the booker/wrestlers, and at some point the rule will be broken and very likely discarded in the interest of allowing greater flexibility. It's why I try to take the view that anything can work in pro wrestling, but it just needs to be done under the right circumstances and in the proper context. ...that said, I've put this one out there before, and the big thing I'd change in WWE is that I'd get rid of the "automatic title shot at Wrestlemania" stipulation from the Royal Rumble. Just figure out some other way to make it meaningful to win the Rumble, because "I drew #26 out of 30 and managed to last 10 minutes in a gimmick match based around luck! ...and if I drew an earlier number they probably had me slide out of the ring for awhile and nap so I wouldn't be blown up by the end! Oh, and there's random joke entrants in this match to determine who gets one of the most prestigious spots and biggest paydays in our company, no biggie!" is no way to determine a main event spot for your biggest show. Like, I don't even necessarily like that NJPW has the G1 winner get a world title shot at Wrestle Kingdom, but at least you're not only going to win the G1 because Baron Corbin slipped on a banana peel or something. I like the Rumble title shot, but it does create an issue when it comes to limiting who they can have win the thing. This would be less of an issue if the Andre battle royal was used more effectively, honestly. I’d merge MiTB and the Andre Battle Royal stakes in that the winner of the ABR wins a title shot they can cash in at their choosing.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,099
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 24, 2022 14:53:06 GMT -5
I like the Rumble title shot, but it does create an issue when it comes to limiting who they can have win the thing. This would be less of an issue if the Andre battle royal was used more effectively, honestly. I’d merge MiTB and the Andre Battle Royal stakes in that the winner of the ABR wins a title shot they can cash in at their choosing. I guess that they'd feel like that'd deviate too much from the concept to share the MITB name, given money in the bank is money you can cash in when you need/want, but I do think they could stand to connect something to it, like one of the lesser PPVs or something.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 24, 2022 15:29:29 GMT -5
The big thing about any strict changes in pro wrestling (e.g. "X is an automatic DQ!", or "Y is banned!", or "all competitors MUST do Z!" or whatever) is that you are eventually going to break your own rule. It's inevitable in pro wrestling: strict rules become constraints that limit the booker/wrestlers, and at some point the rule will be broken and very likely discarded in the interest of allowing greater flexibility. It's why I try to take the view that anything can work in pro wrestling, but it just needs to be done under the right circumstances and in the proper context. ...that said, I've put this one out there before, and the big thing I'd change in WWE is that I'd get rid of the "automatic title shot at Wrestlemania" stipulation from the Royal Rumble. Just figure out some other way to make it meaningful to win the Rumble, because "I drew #26 out of 30 and managed to last 10 minutes in a gimmick match based around luck! ...and if I drew an earlier number they probably had me slide out of the ring for awhile and nap so I wouldn't be blown up by the end! Oh, and there's random joke entrants in this match to determine who gets one of the most prestigious spots and biggest paydays in our company, no biggie!" is no way to determine a main event spot for your biggest show. Like, I don't even necessarily like that NJPW has the G1 winner get a world title shot at Wrestle Kingdom, but at least you're not only going to win the G1 because Baron Corbin slipped on a banana peel or something. I like the Rumble title shot, but it does create an issue when it comes to limiting who they can have win the thing. This would be less of an issue if the Andre battle royal was used more effectively, honestly. Yeah, ultimately a win at the Rumble can't usually be used to fully elevate someone; your winner needs to be a wrestler you can bank on people already wanting to see in a main event spot, which either means an established star or someone who's already quickly risen through the ranks (e.g. Lesnar was already a world champion before he won his first one). They have had someone not quite at the tip top level win, but ever since they started having two world titles they just take someone like that and have them wrestle for the "lesser" world title at WM, instead, which in turn makes the Rumble seem less significant, anyway. I'd say just find another way to make winning the Rumble valuable; play it up as its own accomplishment, but figure out other things a winner could ask or wish for based on their victory, instead of having a 30-person match where they can only realistically be around 3-5 likely winners in a given year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2022 18:27:44 GMT -5
No DUIs. Immediate release.
f*** Jimmy Uso.
|
|
|
Post by ISO Mid Thigh Pull on Dec 24, 2022 19:10:49 GMT -5
Babyfaces that high five kids on their way to the ring also have to offer their mom or dad a smoke. Builds relationships.
|
|