Do you care if they win or lose?

[Cod Eye]

Of course when I was a young fan, a dastardly heel(or Hogan) winning a match against a wronged hero would actually ruin my week the same way a bad football result would.

Once i got older, as others have said, its all situation/wrestler/story dependent. 

Bret was always my guy from being a kid(even to this day), so if he lost I was gutted. A prime example of when it REALLY mattered to me was the Screwjob. Even before I knew what had happened, I thought it was a shocking decision to have Shawn beat the Canadian hero in Canada, as the story needed him to come out on top(in my opinion). Even when I found out all the backstage manoeuvring, I think it still mattered that Bret won(both legally and morally). 

In today's wrestling though, things have changed so much that I'd say the result doesnt make a single difference 99% of time. 

[air_raid]

I used to only care about if the match was “good” apart from very few instances, which were restricted to shows I was at live, or New Japan. For the last 6-7 years WWE-wise I’ve nearly only watched matches where I care about who wins. And they’ve all involved AJ Styles, CM Punk or Cody Rhodes.

[Chris B]

I remember when AEW started, it got a lot of stick for 'wins and losses will matter', and a lot seemed to assume it started and ended with the rankings. But really, the way AEW has had losses become meaningful to people has made me far more invested in who wins and loses. This started off on one of the earliest episodes when Omega wasn't cleared to compete after the unsanctioned match, but Moxley was. His reaction wasn't big and over the top, but it bothered him. And that felt more real than anything I'd seen in wrestling for a while - and a huge cry from what had been the case for years, which was Cena losing and coming out grinning and having fun the next night on Raw.

Hangman's entire journey to becoming champion and gaining confidence was a fantastic bit of long-term storytelling, only rivalled by his turn to the dark side and redemption. While it's a shame both his runs were lacklustre (due to booking both times), the builds were tremendous. The reason it worked was how clear it was that becoming champion mattered to the character - not so much the person himself, but the character.

Orange Cassidy's entire International Championship run was fantastic - I cared about him beating Pac in the first place, but watching the character who didn't care become more and more passionate and exhausting himself to defend the title, before eventually crashing into a pool of blood against Moxley... that's one of the best losses I've ever seen in wrestling. 

Hell, even the Darby win recently. I don't like him that much, but they have done well at both establishing how much he wants it and harkening back to the MJF feud. It made me care in the moment.

So yeah - give me something to care about and I'll care about it.

[Statto]

Backlash spoiler, I guess:

Spoiler

WWE officially no longer do.

 

[BomberPat]

Because when I got really into wrestling it was already from a slightly smarky "I'm above all this" position, I don't think I ever particularly cared who won in the WWF, with one or two exceptions - I properly leapt off the sofa in surprise when Eddy Guerrero beat Brock Lesnar for the belt, because it was the last thing I thought would happen, and I was invested in seeing Daniel Bryan win at Wrestlemania 30 even though by the time it happened it was a foregone conclusion, and I'd found most of people's reactions to the build to be incredibly cringeworthy and embarrassing. 

One of the things I liked about AEW early on is that I didn't find myself over-analysing things as much. In WWE, it always felt like you look at the matches with ten other things in your head - how does this pan out for the pay-per-view in three months time, how does it play into the leaked Wrestlemania card, are the Saudis going to want that wrestler as champion by the time their show rolls around, what's the rumours about how creative feel about this wrestler, what about the sponsors and shareholders - while AEW existed a lot more in isolation, where the only bit that mattered was the wrestling. That's not quite as pure now, but it still feels like a place where results matter more, and I'm more invested in seeing who wins and loses than I am in all the backstage gossip and politics around creative, which for a long time felt like a bigger part of following WWE than the actual wrestling show.

I absolutely loved seeing Bryan Danielson win at Wembley, and was super-invested in it. Wrestling is at its best when it makes you forget everything else and you find yourself honestly rooting for the hero to win - we've seen that on here with Hangman, and I completely agree with @Chris B that it's not just enough for wins to count, losses have to mean something to, and WWE historically were far worse at that side of the equation (every John Cena "fine speech" promo, every instant rematch), while AEW at their best excel in making the weight of a defeat actually mean something to a wrestler.

Nothing makes me happier at a live show than hearing people earnestly shouting "come on, you've got this!" at a wrestler they want to win, rather than "this is awesome" or gimmicky chants, because that's when you know they're actually invested in the match, rather than performing the part of a wrestling audience.

[AshC]

5 hours ago, BomberPat said:

Nothing makes me happier at a live show than hearing people earnestly shouting "come on, you've got this!" at a wrestler they want to win, rather than "this is awesome" or gimmicky chants, because that's when you know they're actually invested in the match, rather than performing the part of a wrestling audience.

This!