What makes a good match? The crowd or wrestling?

[hellohumanoids]

It's mostly because of the crowd that makes a good match, but there's times when it seemed like a good match but not much of a reaction. Plus is it true that the popular main eventer's, have an unfair advantage over good but unpopular wrestlers because they are more likely to have 4 star-5 star match thanks to the crowd.

Another thing, how would we decide if say, a wrestler, who in his career never got popular with the crowd, but was talented in the ring and used a large array of moves. Where would his best matches fit in with the best matches ever? If the wrestling in a low-noise crowd match was superior to a loud match, what would you rate above the other?

Whenever i rate matches, i usually base it on the crowd.

[The Wrestling Rambler]

The crowd does make a hell of a difference to how the match is percieved by the TV audience.

People laugh at the TNA crowd, and how over-excited they are, but in my mind this all plays for a better match. If I see a chair shot, or a sickish bump and hear nothing it never seems as bad, but when you start hearing the "Holy S**T" chants going, it kinda makes you think, "Damn that must have been good"

[-Lithium-]

The crowd is prolly more important the match. The crowd made Rock/Hogan and Cena/HHH memorable matches...

[hellohumanoids]

So i'm right then, i always use the crowd to say which matches were bad, ok, good, very good or great.

[Richard]

The crowd decides it IMO. The best example being Rock/Hogan from WM. The in ring itself wasn't good but, the crowd and how they changed things when they cheered Hogan made that an all time great IMO.

[King of the Indies]

Having been to an indy show at the weekend where there was literally 0 crowd reaction to face/heels or to anything done during the match, I'm going to go with the crowd. The audience can make a technically poor match seem a lot more exciting - for example, Rock vs Hogan at WMXVIII. The emotion and reactions are what contribute to the overall quality, and I think it helps the wrestlers as well. In a number of shoot interviews I've seen, wrestlers have mentioned how the crowd has dictated the pace and flow of thematch for them.

Of course, if a match is really poor from a wrestling standpoint, it affects the crowd reaction...but if you give the crowd two characters they can get behind and cheer/boo, the rest writes itself.

[MGH]

Depends on who you ask.

For me a crowd can make a great match better but if they are dead I'm not going to suddenly not enjoy the match. There was a thread similar to this in the (w)rest section not too long ago, and I said I enjoyed the hell out of the Delirious/Sydal match at Suffocation, despite that damn Long Island crowd not giving a crap about anything for 90% of that show. Matches like Rock/Hogan and HHH/Cena were made in to what they are remembered as because of the crowd, but it doesn't take a bunch of loud fans for me to judge whether I think a match was great or not. It's the performer's job to pop the crowd, but at the same time you do occasionally run in to a dead crowd who won't get up for anything you do which is a shame.

[RandomHero]

I think the audiance can definatly play a part in making a match more memorable, but really, the audiance has nothing to do with the overall technical quality of the match. That's all about who's in the ring, and what they are doing.

[hellohumanoids]

Let's not also forget the essence of time. This is were things get more complicated. A match in the old days (like the 80s) that was great back then, but if it was the exact same match today it might only turn out as an ok match thanks to the crowd. It's about adapting to the type of wrestling the crowd wants to see. People wants to see fast matches now, not long rest holds, not just punch, kick, punch, kick, and a basic bodyslam as the finishing manouvre.

So if great matches happened elsewhere on the time line, then the greatest matches ever could be a much different breed. Damn, i'm so intelligent...

['Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada]

I'll admit that a really dead crowd can hurt my enjoyment of a match, but in the end, I'm watching for the match itself. The crowd plays an important but lesser part in this.

[thegame415]

I think not having Lashley or Test involved makes a good match

[Garee]

Everything, the combination of the two

[Thread Pirate Roberts]

well not having a crowd reaction is does not neccesitate a bad match.

Example 1 : The Boiler Room Brawl with Mankind Vs Taker was a great brawl and no crowd noise at all til the end.

Example 2 : The Empty Arena Match with Mankind Vs The Rock damn great match if you ask me and ther was no Freakin crowd.

Maybe the exception to the rule is Foley?

[nisi]

I say the wrestling--I've seen too many dead crowds or small indy crowds where the ring work was still top notch.

[REDUNBECK~!]

It's a combination of the two, though sometimes one can be strong enough to compensate for the other's lacking.

[Austin's Middle Finger]

Without a doubt the crowd can make the match a lot more entertaining.

Some of the PPVs from 2000 are so fun to watch all the way through because everybody was so over and the crowd were letting them know.