Match Structures / In match story telling

[Jason Mayhem]

In my view, matches are there to tell a story and ideally make me care more about the participants after it than I did before hand.

 

Having watched Summerslam this week, other than the orton v sheamus match and the main event, which I thought was well executed and reminded me very much how well the old survivor series format worked, when it was used correctly, none of the other matches seemed to have any story telling structure.

 

It just seemed that the guys had decided, you go on top for a bit, I make a bit of a comeback, you cut me off, I make a bit more of a comeback then get on top and then we go to the finish. Ok it

[King Pitcos]

Roddy Piper vs Bret Hart -- Piper can't put Bret away, is tempted to go down his old cheating route, but takes the high road and ends up losing for it.

 

I do agree with you that a lot of matches today are just going through the motions, but the thing with a lot of matches now is that there's just no reason to give a shit in the first place. The match itself has nothing to build on because there's been no real story leading into it. And I think without any backstory, there are limits to the kind of story that you can tell in a match.

[Jason Mayhem]

Roddy Piper vs Bret Hart -- Piper can't put Bret away, is tempted to go down his old cheating route, but takes the high road and ends up losing for it.

 

I do agree with you that a lot of matches today are just going through the motions, but the thing with a lot of matches now is that there's just no reason to give a shit in the first place. The match itself has nothing to build on because there's been no real story leading into it. And I think without any backstory, there are limits to the kind of story that you can tell in a match.

 

I guess the problem i had was other than nexus and maybe punk, noone seemed to come across as a heel and try to do heel stuff in the match. The heels just got the upper hand by being better than the faces. Surely they could have used some sneeky way of getting the upper hand which would get them across as a heel.

[fye]

good points above, two of my faves are the Bret v Austin bloodbath and HHH V HBK in the latter's comeback match but both have ongloing stories leading into them to make folk care and all four are great story tellers

[The Cum Doctor]

The submissions and HiaC matches between Legacy and DX had a good story through them. That being Legacy looking to split DX up, get one of them on their own and then use the numbers game to win the match, which made it even better when at the end of it all, DX did that exact same thing to them in order to win the fued.

 

I liked that.

[Jason Mayhem]

Totally forgot one of my favourites ever.....Brain Busters v Hart Foundation. Heels trying to catch out the faces and never managing it. Great stuff.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

Razor Ramon vs Shawn Michaels second match was pure storytelling. I think its better than their first one. How Ramon has scouted all of Shawn's offense from the previous ladder bout and Shawn doing the same, leading to Michaels pulling out a moonsault off the ladder (which I'd never seen anyone do before). Razor playing the tweener role leading up to it was great as well ("I beat you once before mang, I can do it again"). I love that match.

 

Also, since we're on the subject of "New Generation" greatness, go and watch two of the best tag matches ever. The Steiners against Bret and Owen and Diesel and Shawn vs Ramon and the 123 Kid. Those are both class.

[Yoghurt]

Chris Jericho trying to out HBK Shawn Michaels at Mania, and coming up short is a work of art in the ring. Also getting increasingly frustrated and pulling out the heel plays.

[garynysmon]

Bret v Owen at Wrestlemania 10 was just perfect for me. I always got the impression as a kid that Bret was only running at 90% during that match and his mind was elsewhere, although maybe that was just me.

 

I thought Jake v Undertaker at WM8 is underrated in that regard too. Jake had the Undertaker scouted, until he got too pre-occupied with the Urn, which ended up costing him the match.

[ShortOrderCook]

Yes on Piper - Hart and Hart - Austin.

 

There's a fucking ridiculous amount of Bret Hart matches you could use as examples for this though.

 

The one I'll throw in is vs Undertaker at Summerslam '97 with Michaels as the ref. With the stipulations of no physical contact from Hart on Michaels and Michaels unable to show bias against Bret, it was worked brilliantly with tension gradually growing between the two and Hart blatantly desperate to lamp Shawn and Shawn clearly loving it and knowing he could snap at any minute but being even more infuriating to Bret by actually being a pretty fair ref. But even 'Taker gradually grows to get pissed with Michaels. Which leads wonderfully into the finish. Michaels doing his job, gets interfering Hart Foundation members thrown out from ringside, meanwhile Bret uses this opportunity of distraction to use a chair on Undi', being unable to put him away by other means. Bret doesn't dispose of the chair well enough and Michaels clocks it once his attention is back on the action and calls Hart on whether he used it. Hart denies it, and gives Shawn a big fuck you and one hell of flembomb in the face. Michaels instantly retaliates and swings the chair he's holding, Bret ducks, Undertaker just getting up, takes the steel facial. Bret makes the cover and due to the stips...Shawn has to make the count. That moment of Bret smugly looking in Michales face as Michaels looks back reluctantly having to make the count is amazing.

 

The whole match builds brilliantly to that awesome, awesome finish. I love it, oh so much.

[Rosler28]

Roddy Piper vs Bret Hart -- Piper can't put Bret away, is tempted to go down his old cheating route, but takes the high road and ends up losing for it.

 

I do agree with you that a lot of matches today are just going through the motions, but the thing with a lot of matches now is that there's just no reason to give a shit in the first place. The match itself has nothing to build on because there's been no real story leading into it. And I think without any backstory, there are limits to the kind of story that you can tell in a match.

 

 

i blame tv and the time limits today make it harder

[Jason Mayhem]

Roddy Piper vs Bret Hart -- Piper can't put Bret away, is tempted to go down his old cheating route, but takes the high road and ends up losing for it.

 

I do agree with you that a lot of matches today are just going through the motions, but the thing with a lot of matches now is that there's just no reason to give a shit in the first place. The match itself has nothing to build on because there's been no real story leading into it. And I think without any backstory, there are limits to the kind of story that you can tell in a match.

 

 

i blame tv and the time limits today make it harder

 

WWE have more TV time now than ever before.

[Dillkid]

Roddy Piper vs Bret Hart -- Piper can't put Bret away, is tempted to go down his old cheating route, but takes the high road and ends up losing for it.

 

I do agree with you that a lot of matches today are just going through the motions, but the thing with a lot of matches now is that there's just no reason to give a shit in the first place. The match itself has nothing to build on because there's been no real story leading into it. And I think without any backstory, there are limits to the kind of story that you can tell in a match.

 

 

i blame tv and the time limits today make it harder

 

WWE have more TV time now than ever before.

Do you just mean in the UK? Becuase in the US they have 5 shows at the moment, and before October 2005 they had 7.

[Jason Mayhem]

Roddy Piper vs Bret Hart -- Piper can't put Bret away, is tempted to go down his old cheating route, but takes the high road and ends up losing for it.

 

I do agree with you that a lot of matches today are just going through the motions, but the thing with a lot of matches now is that there's just no reason to give a shit in the first place. The match itself has nothing to build on because there's been no real story leading into it. And I think without any backstory, there are limits to the kind of story that you can tell in a match.

 

 

i blame tv and the time limits today make it harder

 

WWE have more TV time now than ever before.

Do you just mean in the UK? Becuase in the US they have 5 shows at the moment, and before October 2005 they had 7.

 

Spectacularly missing the point......

 

In the 80s and early 90s they had maybe two 1 hour programmes, a bigger roster and they told better stories and made you care about more of the roster, the matches and the stories told within those matches.

 

My point was that a lack of TV time as suggested by Rosler, is not what I beleive to be the reason why they are crap at telling stories in matches. They have more than enough TV time to make people care enough about the characters and their back story for their matches mean something and have a story to tell in them.

 

Now PPVs tend to be made up of a couple of headline matches that have featured on their TV shows, and then some throw away nothing matches. Anyone remember the Event Centres that Mean Gene used to host?? They announced a match each week leading up to the PPV and guess what?.... each match related to an angle they had been featuring on TV . Great build up. When the event came around, the stories told in the matches that then took place related to the previous back story.

[Michael_3165]

I think it's more that nowadays nobody makes me care because they have no character i can buy into. Every match has a story to it but how well it's executed it a completely different thing. If you actually look at the matches highlighted - Vince vs McMahon, Savage vs Steamboat etc they mattered because people CARED. Nowadays why should anyone care? The match will be on the next PPV anyway and matches and stipulations have no meaning to them because they happen so often. Back in the day you knew it was a guys one title shot so got behind him..now you know that in a month he will probably get the title back anyway.

 

I don't believe it's so much lack of in ring storytelling. WWE, TNA and other promotions have put on awesome matches over the last five years (when the time is right). But it's the creative behind it that lets it down. I believe creative makes you care and the blow off to the creative is the match that makes you want to go back and see it again. Nowadays you have two guys don't even dislike each other particularly. Back in the day you had AWESOME creative making you believe Owen hated Bret, Savage was a bastard for attackin Steamboat and you wanted Austin to kick Vince's face in. Now... nobody cares.