Finishes

[Gregor]

How much does a match's finish affect your opinion of it? A lot of times when writing about a match people will include something like, "The terrible finish just ruins it. Makes no sense and kills all the momentum they had going toward the end." I honestly can't think of a match like that for me, one that I was all set to consider great up until the finish happened. I'd easily consider Shawn Michaels vs. Mankind from Mind Games a great match, for instance, and I have absolutely nothing positive to say about the finish to that one. Everything else makes up for it.

 

So where do you stand? What's the greatest discrepancy between how good a match was and how good its finish was? Does a match need a classic finish to be a classic match? Or if you'd rather just list your favorite/least-favorite finishes, go crazy.

[dawho5]

Lawler/Dundee LLT in 86 is a finish I don't like tacked on to a great match. Drops the match down a fair bit for me.

 

Kerry/Flair on Christmas of 82 had a finish that made me like the match more than some of the body of the match. It accomplished a lot of what they set out to do without going overboard like the body of the match.

 

Brock/Reigns the finish ruined the match for me. I understand why they did it and agree with the logic, but that doesn't make me think it works in any way with the rest of the match.

 

A lot of the AWA set was frustrating for me because all of the finishes had to be explained by the referee in big matches. Nothing was a cut and dried "win", but there would be some strange circumstance that required a DQ or no contest. A lot of the matches on that set would have benefitted from an actual finish, even if it were some kind of a roll-up.

 

The more All Japan finish runs I see the more I think they should have had things like roll-up finishes now and again. Or the occasional Kobashi moonsault or Akiyama northern lights, Misawa's frog splash, some submission wins here and there, etc. put somebody away. It would have added more to the matches in the long run I think. Because if you know what a guy has been using for a finisher at the time it ends up being a bit predictable that somebody is going to kick out of the old finisher even after the 30 minute mark.

[ohtani's jacket]

A poor finish generally sours me on a match, particularly if I've watching something random as it makes it seem like a waste of time. If it's a match I'm enjoying I can go both ways -- either sorely disappointed or philosophical -- but I don't think I've ever shrugged off a bad finish and thought "oh well." I may not be fussed if the match is mediocre, but they're almost always annoying and a match would almost always better with a proper finish. We spend a lot of time talking about the way matches build and by that we mean the way they build to a conclusion. If the conclusion's poor then it has an effect on the rest of the match. BS finishes can be effective if they're heated and well executed. I like a good BS finish if it's done right.

[Jingus]

I'd easily consider Shawn Michaels vs. Mankind from Mind Games a great match, for instance, and I have absolutely nothing positive to say about the finish to that one. Everything else makes up for it.

In cases like that one, I don't think the finish is something that felt like a slap in the face. It was just a run-in DQ, in a match where it was a bad time for either guy to lay down clean, at a time where they were still trying to build to other feuds involving the guys who were running in. It made sense. Same deal with, for example, Austin/Angle at Summerslam '01; yeah, the cheap heel ref finish was a little annoying, but it was absolutely appropriate for the story they were telling. I think a truly awful finish is something which retroactively shits on the entire match and makes it feel like there was no point in seeing this content in the first place; like, pick your least-favorite Dusty finish involving a reversed decision or "a blood stoppage for a guy who appears to have suffered a paper cut on their forehead" or two guys won't get out of the corner and one of them shoves the ref for the lame disqualification or whatever.

[NotJayTabb]

Battleground 2013 was headlined by a really good Orton/Bryan match that was ruined by a terrible finish, and I think that hurt the overall perception of the show as a whole. Give it a proper ending, and I think it gets remembered as a decent show. As it is, Big Show comes down, knocks out Bryan reluctantly, then knocks out Orton, before sitting on the top rope doing a "Yes!" chant on his own, as if the crowd should be celebrating him ruining the main event. If anyone remembers that match at all, they remember the crummy ending, and not the good work beforehand.

[Death From Above]

I think I'd say for me it depends from what perspective.

 

In terms of looking at an overall company, finishes matter, because they're the device that set up a lot of your stories. But even then I think some people really overreact to things like who got pinned on a B-show. On the big shows, finishes do matter.

 

In terms of evaluating workers, I don't think the finishes to matches are swaying me much, because the finish more about them executing what they've been asked to do by the booking staff than a tool to look at their overall skills.

 

Basically I guess I'm saying I think finishes say a lot more about a company in general than they do to me about any individual worker. This is probably a reason I find a lot of the 70's/80's DCOR or DQ finishes so palatable compared to some. As long as the workers get there in an interesting way I am pretty tolerant because those workers are always the meat of why I'm here to begin with.

[Loss]

Finishes matter to me, but I'm more interested in whether it fits the tone and layout of the match than I am someone that thinks we always have to have clean and decisive finishes. Shawn-Mankind didn't bug me one bit because the whole match was a powder keg just barely being kept under control anyway. It didn't feel out of place.

[Laz]

Finishes absolutely matter. I'd dare say they may be the most important part of the match since everything prior is supposed to build to that point.

[Gregor]

Shawn-Mankind didn't bug me one bit because the whole match was a powder keg just barely being kept under control anyway. It didn't feel out of place.

I've heard this opinion before and I've never gotten it. The contest ended when a third wrestler ran down to the ring too late to break up the pin and immediately got dumped outside. I don't mind a DQ finish if it's interesting and fits the match, but this one wasn't and didn't. If the match was a powder keg, the finish was a bowling ball rolling in from the side and smashing it to bits before it could explode. They had to have had better options for getting out of there without either guy losing. The Undertaker's appearance was cool, though.

 

That said, in the end it was just one weak moment capping off 26 minutes of stuff that had really connected with me. That tiny little bit isn't enough to override all the stuff that I'd thought was great. From a standpoint of work, the finish wasn't the two wrestlers' fault. All they could do was work a good and exciting closing stretch before the DQ, which I think they did.

[thebrainfollower]

Finishes matter but sometimes clean finishes aren't important. A lot of people think the worst thing about HIAC I is the finish, but realistically what were they going to do? Shawn would not job, nor should he have in that case, and having him pin Taker clean in that match in that setting would have killed Taker's aura off worse than ending the streak ever did. So you get what you get. As for Shawn-Mankind I probably would have gone with a wrestling pin rather than Sweet Chin Music but I am not sure why Shawn winning that one would have been a bad idea.

 

Now I sound like a Michaels apologist.

[Slasher]

To me a finish is part of the match that is probably the most important. I equate it to like films. A crappy ending can just totally kill a movie dead and people are like "what the fuck is this? I sat through two hours for this nonsense? Fuck them". I think its the same thing. But obviously pro wrestling does allow for more forgiveness to finishes if it isn't so egregrious and the work was pitch perfect up to that point. But yeah it does matter a lot. Look at that Summerslam elimination chamber match in 2003. Compare how people felt about the match because of that finish to the Survivor Series 2002 version because of the finish. Goldberg had the crowd eating out of his hands big time with how destructive of a force he was, then Triple H is given a sledgehammer and it ends like a fart in a church with the pope present. Whereas in 2002 Shawn Michaels got to pay off part of the storyline he had going with Triple H by taking the belt off him after his comeback at Summerslam and the postmatch ending where Triple H tries to take out Shawn with the shot to his back.

[thebrainfollower]

Is there a HHH winning finish in that time period that WAS a great finish and didn't deflate a hot crowd? But yeah that 2003 finish is one of the all time worst.

[JerryvonKramer]

One annoying AJPW trope from the 1970s and early 80s is the way they tumble outside for the double co and brawl finish as if by rote. The transition into that is often sudden and not very well done.

 

It's not the finish that is the problem, but the execution.

[Slasher]

Is there a HHH winning finish in that time period that WAS a great finish and didn't deflate a hot crowd? But yeah that 2003 finish is one of the all time worst.

The matches against Scott Steiner? But only because the actual body of the matches deflated the crowds that the finish was a mercy killing. Also the match against Kevin Nash for the same reason. But yeah, Triple H was a guy where they keep building matches up so that it seemed impossible to put Triple H over...then they put him over, killing the matches and storylines. Heck, it was pretty amazing that although they had no prayer following the Rock/Hogan match that Triple H deflated the crowd even more for winning...as a babyface. This happened too a few years later against Randy Orton when Orton got red hot with the renegade head kicking heel act. As well as Punk after the Summer of Punk angle.

[goc]

Finishes matter but sometimes clean finishes aren't important. A lot of people think the worst thing about HIAC I is the finish, but realistically what were they going to do? Shawn would not job, nor should he have in that case, and having him pin Taker clean in that match in that setting would have killed Taker's aura off worse than ending the streak ever did. So you get what you get. As for Shawn-Mankind I probably would have gone with a wrestling pin rather than Sweet Chin Music but I am not sure why Shawn winning that one would have been a bad idea.

 

Now I sound like a Michaels apologist.

People complain about that finish? It was not only an incredibly effective way to debut the Kane character but like you said, that was a match where neither guy should have really lost anyway so it was the perfect "out."

[Slasher]

I think the complaints that people had with the finish to HIAC are the kind of complaints that illustrated how effective it actually was. Shawn Michaels was this unlikable juvenile douchebag who was being forced to get locked in a confinement with the Undertaker, who had plans to rip him apart limb by limb and for Shawn to not only escape that fate, but to WIN outright, earned the fans' ire. So I would argue that finish was just as effective to the plan as any clean finish the fans have enjoyed over the years.

 

Mind Games though? Just a case where Michaels and Foley built a match up so well that it changed what the fans wanted out of the outcome. No one expected Mankind to win and yet they had such a good match as far as building Mankind up goes as the stuff he had with Undertaker in his debut, that the finish, which the fans wouldn't have been bothered by if the match wasn't as good as what it was. The fact it was that good, it kinda have to have had a better way to end the match and preserve the mojo both guys had going for it. Mankind was built up as such a danger to Michaels and the finish kinda makes him an afterthought, which hurt the match slightly (but not that much).

[drew wardlaw]

 

Basically I guess I'm saying I think finishes say a lot more about a company in general than they do to me about any individual worker.

I agree with this. If it's a booking issue, like Brock vs Cena from Extreme Rules, it doesn't hurt the match for me at all. If it's a flat finish because of the work in the ring, that's when I think a match is hurt. As a side note, I think some people tend to think a non-clean finish equals a bad finish.

[thebrainfollower]

I would have had Michaels somehow convert the Mandible Claw into a pin, maybe ala the sleeper kick out in the corner (though they used that 2 months later for Bret-Austin) and get a fluke win and then immediately Mankind destroys him until UT makes the save. If you want to continue the Vader feud, have Vader attack Shawn after that until Sid makes the save and then accidentally KO Michaels.

[Zenjo]

One annoying AJPW trope from the 1970s and early 80s is the way they tumble outside for the double co and brawl finish as if by rote. The transition into that is often sudden and not very well done.

 

It's not the finish that is the problem, but the execution.

The way the audience would collectively groan whenever the wrestlers went outside late in the match was akin to WCW fans standing up and looking towards the entrance for the run in. Bad conditioning.

[Jingus]

Yeah. That's the worst, when the finishes are so lame so often that even the marks-en-masse know exactly what bullshit is on its way.

 

...actually, on second thought, the WORST is when the finish nonsensically violates every rule of how wrestling is supposed to work. Like, in almost every single Hogan match that ever happened on a WCW Uncensored show. Hogan's creative control is apparently so strong that he can pin you in a match with no-pinfall rules, or even win a match by beating a guy who wasn't booked to compete!