The Buffer Match

[MFoy]

In Triple H's Grantland interview last summer he was asked about the idea of a buffer match and he defended it saying that it's important to bring the crowd down after a big match before bringing them up again. I've noticed that most of the best regarded events have had several great matches in a row, without any sort of buffer. I've also noticed that there have been a lot of shows in which Triple H was in a hot match second from the top, and there wasn't a buffer match before the main event. Examples I can think of off the top of my head are Fully Loaded 2000 and Wrestlemania 17, but there have been others.

 

I think that there are times when taking a crowd down after a hot match actually backfires, as it makes it hard for the crowd to come back up. What are your thoughts on the buffer match?

[(BP)]

I think buffer matches are a good idea in general. One time it certainly didn't help HHH at all was the divas match at Wrestlemania 18, but Hogan/Rock just should've gone on last.

[bradhindsight]

There was more inbetween Hogan/Rock and the main. Tag match too IIRC.

[tigerpride]

No, the tag match came before Hogan v. Rock. The chick match was the only buffer

[Johnny Sorrow]

HHH wasn't booking Mania 17 or Fully Loaded 2000. His opinion on a buffer match really has nothing to do with shows he was on.

[Jimmy Redman]

I don't think the implication was that he was booking it. It's more a question of whether a buffer match (or absence of one) has helped or hindered his own matches in the past and whether that has influenced his opinion on the subject.

 

On the topic, I don't really think there's solid evidence that either way works "better" than the other. You can't really prove that "this match would have had more heat with/without a buffer" or "this match was helped by having a buffer"...how do you know? Sometimes a buffer works. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes consecutive main events works. Sometimes it doesn't.

 

Anyway, inserting a meaningless match is not the only way to bring the crowd up or down during a show. There are plenty of things to do there, videos or skits or promos or long entrances, or just simply working for the crowd during the match. One of the recent Manias has a good example of that, I forget if it was Jericho/Edge or Jericho/Punk, but they came on after the Streak match (maybe even with a buffer beforehand) and the crowd was still dead, so they knuckled down and kept the match ticking along on simmer for the first half, until the crowd finally started to thaw and get into what they were doing, and then they kicked into high gear and got a good response.

 

Compare that to the attempted quick-fix of Hunter/Orton where they hit both their finishers in the first few minutes to try and force a reaction straight away, and it backfired and the match never recovered.

 

(It must have been Jericho/Punk actually, following Taker/Hunter. Taker/Shawn II was the main event of WM26.)

[Blazer]

I came into this thread thinking I had somehow missed a Vince Russo era, circa 2000, match with David Arquette defending the WCW belt against Michael Buffer.

[Russellmania]

I actually expected this to be asking which are the best buffer matches in history, rather than arguing the merits of them.

 

So then...what are some of the best buffer matches? I'm talking about matches that were positioned to just be "filler" between main events on paper as the OP described the concept, but ended up being really good matches or even stealing the show?

[MFoy]

They tend to get like 4 minutes to it would be hard to steal the show. The one at WM 27 where Snookie did a move was halfway memorable at least.

[jdw]

I think the best buffer matches of all time where the matches on:

 

11/01/90 between the Liger-Pegasus and Mutoh & Chono vs Hase & Sasaki and Choshu-Hashimoto matches
02/28/93 between the Hansen-Kawada and Misawa-Taue matches
07/29/93 between the Hansen-Kobashi and Misawa-Kawada matches

 

Those were five really cool buffer matches breaking those up.

 

[jdw]

More seriously... buffer matches are needed by either:

 

1. dumb bookers

2. dumb workers

3. dumb fans

4. two or all of the above

 

That doesn't mean ordering of cards isn't important. We've all seen cards where the choice of which match goes on last, or how they are pieced together, is poorly done.

 

But...

 

We've also all seen great/heated matches that could follow great/heated matches.

 

John

[Al]

I think it depends on the length of the card. A four hour Wrestlemania, you probably need something like a Piper/Downey interview segment to break up the wrestling. But if you're running a card at 120-150 minutes, you should just run the big matches straight through. Starrcade '83 where the three biggest matches ended the show comes to mind.

 

Alternatively, I would speculate the idea of the buffer match replaces intermission, which television has eliminated on live shows.

[Loss]

I don't think saying it's "needed" is proper. It's one philosophy of many as it relates to constructing a card. I don't think it's a yes or no question. It works when WWE does it most of the time. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work if they didn't do it.

[JerryvonKramer]

Further reading on this topic:

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/19708-booking-philosophies-of-match-sequencing/

 

Wrestlemania 29 is a good example of how a buffer match or two could mitigate against crowd burnout. Not saying that Triple H vs. Brock didn't blow, but putting it between Punk vs. Taker and the main event couldn't have helped.

 

Crowd sometimes needs a chance to catch their breath. They needed to "come down" after the big Taker match, and putting another marquee match on straight away after it was a mistake.

[NintendoLogic]

Whenever people mention matches that were hurt by crowd burnout, it's always the same matches that come up:

 

HHH/Jericho at WM18

HHH/Orton at WM25

HHH/Lesnar at WM29

 

All those matches seem to have something in common. I can't quite put my finger on it, though.

[dawho5]

They were all at Wrestlemania? I could see that....

[jdw]

Further reading on this topic:

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/19708-booking-philosophies-of-match-sequencing/

 

That thread is a fucking riot on re-read. Yeah, I'd strongly recommend it to people who wonder about the need for buffer matches.

 

John

[Matt Farmer]

More seriously... buffer matches are needed by either:

 

1. dumb bookers

2. dumb workers

3. dumb fans

4. two or all of the above

 

That doesn't mean ordering of cards isn't important. We've all seen cards where the choice of which match goes on last, or how they are pieced together, is poorly done.

 

But...

 

We've also all seen great/heated matches that could follow great/heated matches.

 

John

John hit the nail on the head, it's bad booking or bad workers. In WWE it's needed because matches are worked the same way. Look at last years Mania with Punk/Taker, followed by Hunter/Brock. The Brock match wasn't bad but it was laid out the same as the previous match. Same attempt at near falls, etc. WWE main event wrestlers all work the same so it hurts them on these shows. Brock should have done his best Stan Hansen imitation and attacked, or really Triple H should have attacked Brock in the aisle and it should have been a straight fast paced 10 minute brawl all around the ring. It needed to be just the opposite of the Punk/Taker match.

[NintendoLogic]

They were all at Wrestlemania? I could see that....

 

That is a point of commonality, but it's not the one I was looking for.

[dawho5]

I know, just being a smartass. Not a huge Trips fan myself.

[fxnj]

Compare that to the attempted quick-fix of Hunter/Orton where they hit both their finishers in the first few minutes to try and force a reaction straight away, and it backfired and the match never recovered.

And what always gets forgotten is that right before the match, the "burned out" crowd gave Austin the biggest pop of the show. Taker/Shawn didn't somehow rob them of their voices; HHH and Orton just worked a match no one wanted to see. Lack of a buffer match had nothing to do with the match sucking.

 

The idea that crowds need a buffer match might be the dumbest thing invented by WWE. How many people have actually been to cards and thought "Man, I sure wanna see a shit match right now to cool myself off?"

[Steenalized]

The only "buffer" type match I've ever seen that isn't a waste of time is the match after intermission at indy shows. My local show does like a 10 min intermission, and they cut it short at times, so a lot of the crowd will still be at concessions/merch when that one starts. Usually, the first match after intermission is something of a filler spot. That's a very different idea than "oh no the crowd might get burnt out if we keep giving them a good show."

[Moonsault Marvin]

My local show does like a 10 min intermission, and they cut it short at times, so a lot of the crowd will still be at concessions/merch when that one starts.

Couldn't that be the real reason for the buffer match? They want to send the crowd to the concessions stand or the merchandise table one last time before the main event.

[Loss]

The idea that crowds need a buffer match might be the dumbest thing invented by WWE. How many people have actually been to cards and thought "Man, I sure wanna see a shit match right now to cool myself off?"

 

 

Of course no one thinks that. Wrestling is about manipulation. It's WWE's job to figure out how crowds respond and try to build shows around that. There's nothing wrong with their philosophy. It's just not the only one in existence.

[MFoy]

It is interesting, though, that it seems like the buffer match theory has only really been in place when Hogan, Triple H, and Cena have been on top. Thinking back, most Hart, Michaels, Austin, and Rock era matches haven't had buffers.