How important is the finish in giving a match five stars?

[JerryvonKramer]

Don't want to clog up Last Battle thread with this. But I did think this was interesting:

 

Well the Sarge/Sheik finish was a big payoff to the whole thing as a big part of the feud was Iron Sheik kicking Sarge with his "loaded" boot and then the final match ended with Sarge taking Sheik's boot away from him and hitting him with it. So I would put that one in the iconic finish category. Taste of your own medicine and whatnot.

Slaughter/Patterson ended when the Grand Wizard threw in the towel because Slaughter had lost too much blood. I'd classify that as iconic. And the loaded boot in Slaughter/Sheik was iconic enough for Slaughter to do a callback to it in the Desert Storm Match with Hogan. Basically, I think any match finish centered around a MacGuffin (like the boot or the coal miner's glove in Duggan/DiBiase) qualifies as iconic.

Are these iconic finishes or have they become iconic because they ended classic matches?

 

How much did they help make these matches classics?

 

And how much does a match need a finish like this to get the full five stars from people?

 

I got no answer myself, need to look over the matches I've given the full five to and think about it. When I think of Clash 6, I tend to think of Ric in the double chickenwing, 16 elbow drops, or them just locking up as the iconic moments in that match, rather than the actual finish, but then when I think of Magnum - Tully, the image of the finish with the spike flashes into view.

[supremebve]

I think the finish of a match is kind of like the last act in a movie or a book. I think the only time a finish is important is when the finish is either spectacular or dreadful. A match like Austin vs. Hart from Wrestlemania XIII will be remembered forever, because the finish was absolutely perfect, but Austin vs. Rock from Mania X-Seven doesn't get the credit it deserves, because of the finish. If the entire match is utter shit, the finish isn't going to put it over the top, but a bad finish to an otherwise great piece of work can fuck it all the way up. Ultimately, I think matches can be great without great finishes, but to become iconic I think the finish is one of the most important parts.

[fxnj]

Having rewatched Sarge/Sheik a few weeks ago I thought the finish added a lot to the match. A very cinematic feel with the camera zooming in on the boot as both guys crawled on the ground, desperately inching their hands towards it. Something like that really helped cement the match as a classic in my mind and I think if you look back at what gets touted as all-time great matches you'll find a similar situation of a great match body with an iconic finish to get them over the top. Matches widely pimped as ***** in spite of a weak finish are a definite exception and I can't think of any off hand.

 

On the subject of Rich/Sawyer, I'll add that a finish doesn't need fireworks at the end to qualify as iconic. Hokuto/Kandori had a similar exhaustion finish with Hokuto pretty much just falling on top of Kandori and getting the pin because neither had anything left. It still qualifies as iconic, though, because of how they earned that finish with the work prior. Much of the complaints about the Rich/Sawyer center around how they didn't earn the finish with them selling themselves as having gone through a similar war of attrition as Hokuto/Kandori despite the match only going 12 minutes and not featuring anything out of the ordinary from brawls of the era.

[Grimmas]

Finishes, to me, is one of the most important parts of a match. I liken it to a movie where even if the whole thing is great, if the ended stinks I late the movie lower.

[Matt D]

Semantic issue: I think maybe this match shouldn't have "five stars" in it. I don't give star ratings, but if I did, a match would have to hit in every area, or at least almost every, to get five stars. That's the highest mark. Plus, despite what was discussed, I think you can find matches from the 70s-back that have great finishes. It's not all that uncommon.

[GOTNW]

These days it's pretty much taken for granted a *good* finish is clean and decisive. I believe this is obviously false.

 

In terms of how important a finish is.......it's very important. The last minute of a match is probably more important than one in the middle of it. I don't think a "perfect" match can have that minute of coasting in the middle, but a lot of people aren't as rigid as I am and throw out more stars more easily. It's human nature that the end holds more value to us, I believe it could even be easily proven if we were to conduct an experiment/poll, so no, a match coming as close to perfection as is possibe can't have an outright bad finish. Many of my favourite matches of all time (including my favourite) have a finish that isn't clean or decisive but they are all memorable and make sense in the context of the match. Except Maeda-Fujinami. That one just has enough blood that I don't really care whether it makes sense or not.

[Phil Schneider]

I don't care if a finish is clean, but if they are going to end on bullshit I want it to be good bullshit. Something like Reigns v. Lesnar ending with that stupid MIB cash in really hurts it.

[InYourCase]

These days it's pretty much taken for granted a *good* finish is clean and decisive. I believe this is obviously false.

 

In terms of how important a finish is.......it's very important. The last minute of a match is probably more important than one in the middle of it. I don' think a "perfect" match can have that minute of coasting in the middle, but a lot of people aren't as rigid as I am and throw out more stars more easily. It's human nature that the end holds more value to us, I believe it could even be easily proven if we were to conduct an experiment/poll, so no, a match coming as close to perfection as is possibe can't have an outright bad finish. Many of my favourite matches of all time (including my favourite) have a finish that isn't clean or decisive but they are all memorable and make sense in the context of the match. Except Maeda-Fujinami. That one just has enough blood that I don't really care whether it makes sense or not.

Maeda vs. Fujinami is the perfect example for how important finishes are. If not that, then Hansen vs. Funk from 4/14/83.

 

I can't get a match five stars with a flat finish, or no finish, or I finish that I don't enjoy. That's the last thing I see. It's the climax. It's all supposedly building up to one spot, and although in the case of Maeda vs. Fujinami, the finish makes total sense, I can't give it five because it's missing the dramatic 1...2...3 or a submission attempt that has me on the edge of my seat. Maeda vs. Fujinami is one of my favorite matches, I have it at ****3/4, and I'm sure if Maeda kicked Fujinami's lights out and pinned him, or Fujinami suplexed him for a three count, it'd be five stars. The actual finish is a let down. It's not five stars. If five stars is supposedly a "perfect match", although I think that talking point is overblown, then how can a disappointing finish lead to the illusive five stars?

[Grimmas]

I don't care if a finish is clean, but if they are going to end on bullshit I want it to be good bullshit. Something like Reigns v. Lesnar ending with that stupid MIB cash in really hurts it.

Exactly.

 

One of my favourite finishes ever is Hansen hitting the lariat on Inoki and knocking him out of the ring for a countout win. That finish helped the match and it was't "clean".

[GOTNW]

 

These days it's pretty much taken for granted a *good* finish is clean and decisive. I believe this is obviously false.

 

In terms of how important a finish is.......it's very important. The last minute of a match is probably more important than one in the middle of it. I don' think a "perfect" match can have that minute of coasting in the middle, but a lot of people aren't as rigid as I am and throw out more stars more easily. It's human nature that the end holds more value to us, I believe it could even be easily proven if we were to conduct an experiment/poll, so no, a match coming as close to perfection as is possibe can't have an outright bad finish. Many of my favourite matches of all time (including my favourite) have a finish that isn't clean or decisive but they are all memorable and make sense in the context of the match. Except Maeda-Fujinami. That one just has enough blood that I don't really care whether it makes sense or not.

Maeda vs. Fujinami is the perfect example for how important finishes are. If not that, then Hansen vs. Funk from 4/14/83.

 

I can't get a match five stars with a flat finish, or no finish, or I finish that I don't enjoy. That's the last thing I see. It's the climax. It's all supposedly building up to one spot, and although in the case of Maeda vs. Fujinami, the finish makes total sense, I can't give it five because it's missing the dramatic 1...2...3 or a submission attempt that has me on the edge of my seat. Maeda vs. Fujinami is one of my favorite matches, I have it at ****3/4, and I'm sure if Maeda kicked Fujinami's lights out and pinned him, or Fujinami suplexed him for a three count, it'd be five stars. The actual finish is a let down. It's not five stars. If five stars is supposedly a "perfect match", although I think that talking point is overblown, then how can a disappointing finish lead to the illusive five stars?

 

I have both matches at five. Excitement can be generated by means other than nearfalls. Hansen nearly killing Terry Funk by choking him over the ropes was an awesome dramatic visual and Dory saving him was the awesome payback and culmination. It was executed so well I didn't want a clean finish. It was so unique that having a clean finish would probably detract from it because a 2.9 count or a submission escape most likely couldn't encapsulate what they were going for as efficiently and dramatically.

[Childs]

I don't need a clean finish, but I usually need to feel satisfied with the finish for a match to hit me as a true classic. For example, I didn't have a problem with the Rich-Sawyer finish, but it didn't send me out on a high. Magnum stabbing Tully with a stake, on the other hand, paid off everything about that match in such a visceral way. That might be the difference between a really good match that I enjoyed once and something I'll feel compelled to revisit in 15 years.

[JerryvonKramer]

As a follow-up question, how do people feel about stuff that happens directly after a match technically ends?

 

My go-to example is Funks vs. Abby / Sheik from 78 which kind of doesn't have a finish at all but drifts into the most exhilerating post-match ever, and my 5-star rating comes from that. Something I've gone back and forth with Chad about in the past. Do you go bell-to-bell, or count the whole segment?

[Phil Schneider]

Whole segment, people who treat wrestling matches as bell to bell are dummies

[Childs]

Whole segment, people who treat wrestling matches as bell to bell are dummies

 

Amen.

[WingedEagle]

As a follow-up question, how do people feel about stuff that happens directly after a match technically ends?

 

My go-to example is Funks vs. Abby / Sheik from 78 which kind of doesn't have a finish at all but drifts into the most exhilerating post-match ever, and my 5-star rating comes from that. Something I've gone back and forth with Chad about in the past. Do you go bell-to-bell, or count the whole segment?

 

The bell might as well be a spot or transition in the match. Unless its clearly broken up with something else occurring beforehand, I'm usually inclined to treat it at all as part of the match.

[The Russian Daydream]

Absolutely the post match has to be included in one's overall take a match. A blistering brawl or a heartfelt celebration after a title win can add a lot to an overall package. JVonK is right 100% on the Abby/Sheik vs Funk brawl. It transcends the match itself. Another example I would give is the locker room coming in to celebrate with Ron Simmons after his title win over Vader. It was a good match, but how the finish was put over by that celebration made it one of the more memorable matches I watched as a boy. By adding gravitas to what I'd just seen I think it made it a better match.

 

As for the thread title, a weak finish does not necessarily hurt a match, however there are some matches where the finish takes me out of the match and hurts it in my eyes. One which springs to mind is the Michaels vs Undertaker cell match. Although it's a huge angle and it makes sense for him to interfere, the minute Kane's 'magic ringpost flames' erupt, I'm completely removed from the gritty realism of the brawl I've just bring watching. I think if Taker had pinned Michaels after the chair and then Kane was a post-match angle I'd have accepted it better but as is, it really damages the match for me.

[Loss]

It's important. There are always exceptions.

[drew wardlaw]

For the first question, for me it depends on booking vs execution. If it's a poorly booked finish, it doesn't take away from the match at all. I think of something like Arn vs Windham 2/3 falls. It doesn't take away from that match for me that there's a DQ finish with an Austin run-in. The two wrestlers wrestled an engaging match and the finish was out of their control, so I can't complain about that really.

 

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, if it's an execution thing, that really doesn't bother me either. Something like I don't know, Liger vs Sasuke doesn't lose anything because of the botch I don't think. I'm generally pretty forgiving of botches though.

 

Overall, the finish of a match is one of the least important things for me. I'm much more interested in how the middle part of the match plays out, and the overall journey of how wrestlers get to the finish rather than the finish or finishing stretch itself.

 

For the second question, I like to consider the post-match stuff as part of the overall story being told. Im thinking of like John Tatum freaking out after he beats a jobber, feeling guilty but then destroying the guy after the bel anyway, things like that. Oh, or that recent New Japan vs NOAH thing, totally forgettable multiman tag, but it carried over into a heated brawl. All part of the larger story for me.

[BrianB]

It's important. It doesn't have to be the best part of a match, but a poorly executed or lackluster finish definitely makes it difficult for a match to be an all-time 5 star classic, for me anyway.

 

As a follow-up question, how do people feel about stuff that happens directly after a match technically ends?

My go-to example is Funks vs. Abby / Sheik from 78 which kind of doesn't have a finish at all but drifts into the most exhilerating post-match ever, and my 5-star rating comes from that. Something I've gone back and forth with Chad about in the past. Do you go bell-to-bell, or count the whole segment?

 

I think that can elevate a match. I don't have a hard and fast rule on it, but sometimes the post-match is pivotal to the storytelling. Two of the biggest high-profile examples, imo, would be 1. Austin-Bret at WM13 and 2. Savage/Warrior at WM7. For WM13, finish itself is quite good, but the post-match with Bret attacking Austin, backing down from Shamrock, and Austin refusing help is for me what completes the double turn and makes it my favorite wrestlemania match of all time. WM7, the finish was fine to good for the match but a bit much (5 fucking elbows!?!!?), however the whole post-match reunion between Liz and Macho is one of the most touching moments I've seen in wrestling. It got me as a kid and it still gets me to this day. Brilliant storytelling. I think that factors into evaluating that match as well because the storytelling continues after the bell.

 

Ultimately, it's subjective, but I think I try to approach it by looking at the storytelling. If the post-match doesn't advance or bear much on the story, then I'll tend to look and think about the quality of the match a little more bell to bell only. I prefer the Flair/Funk GAB 89 match to their outstanding I Quit match at the Clash later that year. I also love the beatdown and brawl after the bell rings between Flair, Funk, Muta, and Sting.. But I don't look at it as part of the match, although maybe you could make an argument it should be. You've got to have a dividing line somewhere. I guess for some that's when both guys are through the curtain. For others, it's when the bell rings. I'd have to think more about it, but my hunch is that I'm probably more in the middle.

[BrianB]

 

As a follow-up question, how do people feel about stuff that happens directly after a match technically ends?

 

My go-to example is Funks vs. Abby / Sheik from 78 which kind of doesn't have a finish at all but drifts into the most exhilerating post-match ever, and my 5-star rating comes from that. Something I've gone back and forth with Chad about in the past. Do you go bell-to-bell, or count the whole segment?

 

The bell might as well be a spot or transition in the match. Unless its clearly broken up with something else occurring beforehand, I'm usually inclined to treat it at all as part of the match.

 

 

I'm kind of inclined to take this approach sometimes, but I'm not sure that works as a hard and fast rule. Some run-in DQ finishes seem like they could be tricky, especially depending on how they unfold. Sometimes that's a way to transition over or back to telling a different story, and sometimes it'll develop into a such a beatdown or angle (e.g. Flair breaking Dusty's leg) that it becomes more a post-match angle than part of the match.

[Matt D]

Forget the bell: Would Brock vs Reigns be better if the chase/payoff to Rollins/Reigns had been better months down the line?

[victory]

It matters to me. It doesn't need to be clean necessarily. What I do want if it isn't clean is at least clever or logical in keeping a guy strong or the start of a new feud.

 

Post match stuff definitely matters. It's all part of the match IMO and should be treated as such.

[BrianB]

Forget the bell: Would Brock vs Reigns be better if the chase/payoff to Rollins/Reigns had been better months down the line?

 

No. You get too far down that road, that's just fantasy booking and letting that overly impact your expectations and standards, imo. However, the overall product would have been better if there was better continuity and pay off down the line.

 

FWIW, I'm not one of the people who hated that finish to that match, however.

[El Boricua]

I'd say Savage vs. Warrior at Wrestlemania 7 is an example of where everything matters pre match to post match. Pre match establishes that Elizabeth is there and Warrior walking instead of running adds a layer of seriousness to what is about to happen.

[TravJ1979]

Whole segment, people who treat wrestling matches as bell to bell are dummies

I agree with the whole segment part. My general rule of thumb is curtain to curtain. If the fan was meant to see it, it counts. In wrestling, it's easier to pretend these people do not exist if they are not on camera re: Benoit.

 

A long time ago I used to frequent a message board of sorts and battle with a Tommy Dreamer fan. I think Tommy Dreamer is one of the worst wrestlers ever. This kid/guy was defending him as a good wrestler because he was "a friend" a/k/a he got a picture with him after an OVW show. I finally laid it out as this, "I'm sure Thomas Laughlin is a great guy. However, Tommy Dreamer is the shits."