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

[Tabe]

For me, the match and the post-match are separate. The post-match can help the whole experience but the two are basically distinct to me. For example, in an opinion that I alone hold, the WrestleWar 89 main event? 5 stars. The post-match? 1 star.

[BrianB]

For me, the match and the post-match are separate. The post-match can help the whole experience but the two are basically distinct to me. For example, in an opinion that I alone hold, the WrestleWar 89 main event? 5 stars. The post-match? 1 star.

 

Technically the main event was Gilbert and Rick Steiner vs. Sullivan and Spivey....5 stars? But did you mean Flair-Steamer and then the post-match angle with Flair-Funk? 1 star for Flair and Funk and the table piledriver? Yeah, that would be a singular opinion...

 

That's also a good example of something where I'd agree that the match and then the Funk-Flair stuff after the match have to be considered separately. IMO, separately awesome, but clearly distinct. One is literally the conclusion of a big feud, and the other launches the next feud, even if Flair never went back through the curtain before the Funk sheenanigans started.

[TonyPulis'Cap]

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.

 

I definitely see where you are coming from with the Kane interference, but there is something to be said for the way that after being destroyed for 30+ minutes, Michaels, who is basically dead at that point, just drapes an arm over to be proclaimed the winner of a match where he has been annihilated for most of it, in terms of getting him over as a total weasel who at that point was always able to sneak out of a win by hook or by crook.

[El-P]

For me, the match and the post-match are separate. The post-match can help the whole experience but the two are basically distinct to me.

 

Exactly. So does the intros. They can add to the enjoyement. But let's not be kidding, the match is the match. A great post-match avec a craooy match doesn't make the match better. It certainly can make a segment enjoyable, in which case the match itself simply doesn't matter much.

 

And yes, finish matters. Like the very last scene/shot of a movie before the credits hit.

[JerryvonKramer]

For me, the match and the post-match are separate. The post-match can help the whole experience but the two are basically distinct to me. For example, in an opinion that I alone hold, the WrestleWar 89 main event? 5 stars. The post-match? 1 star.

You've got to tell us what you don't like about the post-match! If you're talking about the piledriver through the table, I don't think I've ever seen anyone be down on that. Just sheer curiosity.

[Cap]

I sort of waffle a bit on how important finishers are and generally think it sort of depends on the context. Even still, I waffle between them being really important and maybe the most important thing. I think of a match as a story and an elite match builds and and builds to that crescendo and if the finish falls flat it can really kill it for me. At the same time, an epic finish can elevate a match pretty significantly in my mind. I tend to rate matches based on how much I buy in, how much they are able to tell a compelling and emotional story through the match itself and how much that story gets me to invest during the time I am watching. Matches that do that and take that emotion to the next level, sort of shoot past where I thought we were going in an already great match typically get the 4.75 or 5 rating from me. So in that way, the finish is extremely important because if a match doesn't at least maintain the connection and elevate it it wont get there for me.

 

That all said, I don't think it has to be clean and it doesn't have to be "iconic" or "epic". I love the exhausted finish. I love the simple, satisfying finish of someone just finally hitting the move or locking on the hold they have struggled for the entire match. I can also get behind a really well done DQ (ex, Eddie/JBL), though I am somewhat picky about that.

 

As for what "defines" a match, I typically go with the whole segment, though I am sometimes willing to just demarcate the match by the bells if I don't like the post-match that much and am always willing to include the pre and post match stuff if I love it. For example, for me (as a dragon mark) Orton cashing in on Dragon after he beat Cena clean as a sheet really detracted from what was otherwise a fantastic match. I am not sure I ever fully put that aside, but I like to think of that match as bell to bell because that is how I would rewatch that match. On the other hand, the aforementioned Eddie/JBL match is a great example of something elevated by the post match. Buzz vs Duggan (no dq) is another match example. I am generally not crazy about that when I am putting together my ratings, but then I remember that my ratings are just for me and only reflect how I watch at wrestling. Those sorts of inconsistencies are things I think about though. Ultimately, I tend to "rate" or judge a match for myself by what I would watch of it again if I were just putting something on (within reason - bell to bell being sort of the smallest measure), but I think the segment, story, historical context and all that can be and should be fair game when thinking of matches as talking points or subjects of conversation.

[Tabe]

 

For me, the match and the post-match are separate. The post-match can help the whole experience but the two are basically distinct to me. For example, in an opinion that I alone hold, the WrestleWar 89 main event? 5 stars. The post-match? 1 star.

 

Technically the main event was Gilbert and Rick Steiner vs. Sullivan and Spivey....5 stars? But did you mean Flair-Steamer and then the post-match angle with Flair-Funk? 1 star for Flair and Funk and the table piledriver? Yeah, that would be a singular opinion...

 

Surely you've seen enough wrestling to know that the main event isn't always the last match. For decades in the WWF, the main events (and they were announced as such) went in the middle of the card. Exact same thing as WrestleWar '89.

[Tabe]

 

For me, the match and the post-match are separate. The post-match can help the whole experience but the two are basically distinct to me. For example, in an opinion that I alone hold, the WrestleWar 89 main event? 5 stars. The post-match? 1 star.

You've got to tell us what you don't like about the post-match! If you're talking about the piledriver through the table, I don't think I've ever seen anyone be down on that. Just sheer curiosity.

 

It's everything - the god-awful acting from Funk, the incredible obviousness of the angle, the terrible execution of the piledriver, the fact that I hate angles after title wins, the whole nine yards. I just hate everything about it.

[BrianB]

 

 

For me, the match and the post-match are separate. The post-match can help the whole experience but the two are basically distinct to me. For example, in an opinion that I alone hold, the WrestleWar 89 main event? 5 stars. The post-match? 1 star.

 

Technically the main event was Gilbert and Rick Steiner vs. Sullivan and Spivey....5 stars? But did you mean Flair-Steamer and then the post-match angle with Flair-Funk? 1 star for Flair and Funk and the table piledriver? Yeah, that would be a singular opinion...

 

Surely you've seen enough wrestling to know that the main event isn't always the last match. For decades in the WWF, the main events (and they were announced as such) went in the middle of the card. Exact same thing as WrestleWar '89.

 

 

I know. I was being cheeky.

 

I'm glad you brought that match up though, as I'd agree it's a case where the match is distinct from the angle immediately following it.

[Tabe]

 

I know. I was being cheeky.

 

I'm glad you brought that match up though, as I'd agree it's a case where the match is distinct from the angle immediately following it.

 

My cheeky radar must be on the fritz today

[DGinnetty]

I generally agree with Tabe on the post match from Flair-Steamboat. Terry's acting was awful. If you had been watching wrestling for any amount of time

leading up to this, you would see what was going to happen from a mile away.

 

The piledriver on the table looked sad. It was a case where "less" could have been "more"

I saw WAY too much of Flair protecting himself, minimizing the effect of the move.

 

Match itself? 4.5 to 5 stars

Post match? Meh.

 

I was glad to see Funk and Flair feud, and it was interesting to see the face Flair interviews from home wearing the neckbrace,

but that particular post-match was uninspiring, IMO

 

Dan

[peachchaos]

This is all sort of fascinating to me.

 

If I'm honest, the first time I watched the final Flair-Steamboat match, I thought it was bad acting from Terry and a botched piledriver. Over the years, the feud has endeared to become one of my favorites and I would imagine this has changed my perception of the angle.

[Loss]

It's made up for by the dismissive "one of those brothers" intro from Gary Cappetta before the match, which was hilariously backhanded.

[Tabe]

I generally agree with Tabe on the post match from Flair-Steamboat. Terry's acting was awful. If you had been watching wrestling for any amount of time

leading up to this, you would see what was going to happen from a mile away.

 

The piledriver on the table looked sad. It was a case where "less" could have been "more"

I saw WAY too much of Flair protecting himself, minimizing the effect of the move.

 

Match itself? 4.5 to 5 stars

Post match? Meh.

 

I was glad to see Funk and Flair feud, and it was interesting to see the face Flair interviews from home wearing the neckbrace,

but that particular post-match was uninspiring, IMO

 

Dan

Holy crap, somebody agrees with me!

[DGinnetty]

I know, right? Don't get used to it. :-)

[DGinnetty]

Just thought of another match that might have been 5 stars, except the finish ruined it.

 

10/28/88. Jumbo Tsuruta vs. Genichiro Tenryu. Well laid out match. Jumbo puts over Tenryu as strongly as he could. Great passing of the torch style match, except the weak finish undermines some or most of what Jumbo did for Tenryu in that match.

Still 4 3/4 stars in my book.

 

Dan