Why does Wrestling need to be unpredictable to be "good"? (EC Spoilers)

drayme

Save me moaning elsewhere.

Especially when building up Wrestlemania? Look at some of the most effective and recent builds.

Did people really think:
Batista was going to lose to HHH?
Donald Trump was going to lose his hair?
Flair was going to beat HBK?
Shawn Michaels was going to be the Undertaker?
etc

Not only that but Wrestling has for most of its history been a morality play where typically the good guy(s) triumphs over the bad guy(s). Especially so in this PG environment.

Maybe this is a by-product of people growing up and watching schizophrenic booking during the Attitude Era? I dont know.

JP Liz V1

Shawn Michaels was going to be the Undertaker?

He's just a sexy Taker, sexy Taker

Anyways I think last year at WM part of me did think HBK was going to beat Taker

drayme

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

He's just a sexy Taker, sexy Taker

Anyways I think last year at WM part of me did think HBK was going to beat Taker

Im not talking about when the match is on when you are hopefully suspending your disbelief Im talking about the build.

CMpunked

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Anyways I think last year at WM part of me did think HBK was going to beat Taker

Me too!
i lost a tenner bet. :mad:

Peyton Manning

Probably from the entertainment side of the sports-entertainment title. You appreciate good wrestling, but as far as the drama goes, a bit of unpredictability cant be beat. No one wants to see a movie that they can predict before they've seen it (except in rare cases, i.e. an adaptation, or a film they've seen before).

A lack of unpredictability can be more than excused though if the wrestling is of sufficient quality.

Mr.Nice Guy

It really depends on the circumstances and presentation. Things can be predictable and enjoyable if they are logical and make sense. A good example was the Michaels/Cena feud at Mania a few years back where everybody was desperate to see Michaels superkick Cena. They held off on it for weeks and weeks until finally, I think on the eve of Wrestlemania, Michaels knocked Cena's head off and the fans went crazy for it. It was predictable and people knew it was coming but that's why it worked. A swerve in that storyline would have completely ruined the whole set-up.

That being said, sometimes surprises can work a treat too. Edge winning the title at New Year's Revolution is a great example of how a predictable PPV could be turned on its head and the WWE benefit as a result. Too much unpredictable stuff though and swerves for the sake of swerving leads to nonsensical booking which the likes of Russo are famous for.

Basically the question posed is a bit flawed because you need both. It's like in a soap opera on TV. Sometimes it's good to have moments that throw you, but other times it's good to have a predictable moment (such as the guy who cheats on his wife being eventually found out etc). You need the right balance of both. Personally I think WWE has been doing well getting the balance right lately.

drayme

If the WWE must do a PPV between Rumble and Mania, it's either going to be "predictable - we knew all the finishes because of where they're going for Mania" or "swerves for the sake of swerves that hurt the build to Mania." The company is in a no-win situation on that.

parker kent

drayme wrote: »

If the WWE must do a PPV between Rumble and Mania, it's either going to be "predictable - we knew all the finishes because of where they're going for Mania" or "swerves for the sake of swerves that hurt the build to Mania." The company is in a no-win situation on that.

Not necessarily. With a bit of tweaking, fans could have been left wondering if Cena/Miz or Punk/Orton was going to be the WWE title match at Mania. If the champion is in a chamber match, it adds to the intrigue of what will happen. There have been many instances of such doubt existing at previous February PPVs.

The excitement at the Smackdown chamber match could in part be because it ended with 2 faces who could conceivably have faced off with Del Rio. With a little bit of tweaking, they could have built that intrigue up before the PPV and not telegraph that it would be Edge/Del Rio.

I agree with Mr.Nice Guy. You need a mixture of the two. It should be logical and make sense to the viewer. But well placed moments of shock add to the spectacle. Nobody wants to watch something if they are 100% sure of the outcome. EC was saved because the Smackdown chamber match is a potential match of the year candidate. But it could have been better if we had even more doubt as to who would face Del Rio. They could have done that by having him interact with everybody in the Chamber match in the build up to EC. Maybe even have him not wrestle on the night and just commentate on the match.

Jazzy

yeah who needs good wrestling when cena can just yawwwn it up with unfunny promos and terribly predictable matches. what way will he give someone the sh1tvally driver this week? oh on a steel grating, grats cena!

Charisteas

WWE doesn't need to be unpredictable to produce good wrestling matches, but it is SPORTS entertainment. Watching a wrestling match, much like watching any other sport live, is bound to lose some of the buzz and excitement if everybody already knows who is going to win.

That's not to say that the actual match itself is going to be a bad match. Lat year Taker/Michaels at WM - great match, but it lost some of the magic for me because I knew that Taker's streak wasn't really threatened. Every pin that Michaels made, I just didn't but into the fact that the ref was ever going to make a three count.

That's why (in my opinion) a lot of people had different views on the Elimination Chamber. The people that gave it high scores out of ten obviously were the people who just sat back and enjoyed the wrestling, whilst the people that gave the lower scores (myself included) were the fans that couldn't emotionally invest in the matches, so couldn't enjoy them, and weren't comfortable watching matches with highly predictable winners.

drayme

Charisteas wrote: »

WWE doesn't need to be unpredictable to produce good wrestling matches, but it is SPORTS entertainment. Watching a wrestling match, much like watching any other sport live, is bound to lose some of the buzz and excitement if everybody already knows who is going to win.

That's not to say that the actual match itself is going to be a bad match. Lat year Taker/Michaels at WM - great match, but it lost some of the magic for me because I knew that Taker's streak wasn't really threatened. Every pin that Michaels made, I just didn't but into the fact that the ref was ever going to make a three count.

That's why (in my opinion) a lot of people had different views on the Elimination Chamber. The people that gave it high scores out of ten obviously were the people who just sat back and enjoyed the wrestling, whilst the people that gave the lower scores (myself included) were the fans that couldn't emotionally invest in the matches, so couldn't enjoy them, and weren't comfortable watching matches with highly predictable winners.

In other words there are people who dont enjoy Wrestling for the Wrestling.

Charisteas

drayme wrote: »

In other words there are people who dont enjoy Wrestling for the Wrestling.

I watch Wrestling as a sport, a competition between two guys who have an almost equal chance of winning the match. If I virtually know who is going to win the match, then a lot of the excitement is gone.

Of course there will always be one or two matches on a PPV with predictable winners, but the Elimination Chamber PPV had every match with a predictable winner, thus although the quality of wrestling was nothing to complain about, the 'wow who's going to win this match?!?!' excitement was non-existent.

Chaotic_Forces

I forget the royal rumble were Cena won it but I remember I lost a fiver on it and went with my mate for double or nothing (he didn't really watch much wrestling) and I told him I was that sure Cena would win I'd give him 30 euro if I lost. Obviously Cena won and it was stupid. I was generally curious as to who would win it. I think when it's a high profile match and it could go either way but it's obvious who'll win it, then it's just horrible.

jmolloy

I love Wrestlemania but I often find it one of the most predictable cards of the year especially when you get to the main events and it doesn't affect my enjoyment of it

Chaotic_Forces

jmolloy wrote: »

I love Wrestlemania but I often find it one of the most predictable cards of the year especially when you get to the main events and it doesn't affect my enjoyment of it

I dunno, the Wrestlemania 2000 with the fatal four way (I didn't have the idea to look up inside news about the matches then) was pretty good. It was obvious who the last two were gonna be but it was interesting to see how it went. But a lot of the more recent ones are just very predictable.

citytillidie

The Internet has ruined Wrestling, people are going out looking for spoilers or backstage news and that has led to the downfall of wrestling. IMO

Riddle101

citytillidie wrote: »

The Internet has ruined Wrestling, people are going out looking for spoilers or backstage news and that has led to the downfall of wrestling. IMO

I agree 100% with this. I happen to belong to another wrestling forum, and on it they're always trying to predict how a scenario is going to be like. A lot of the times they do tend to be right E.G Undertaker/Triple H at Wresltmania 28(Assuming that's what their interaction was leading to on Raw). But it tends to spoil the ending make it less predictable.

Wrestling dosen't have to be unpredictable though, I mean if it's they try too hard to be unpredictable you're most likely going to see Vince Russo type swerves and ridiculous endings. But I like a bit of unpredictabily nonetheless. Like Fortune turning on Immortal.

parker kent

Riddle101 wrote: »

I agree 100% with this. I happen to belong to another wrestling forum, and on it they're always trying to predict how a scenario is going to be like. A lot of the times they do tend to be right E.G Undertaker/Triple H at Wresltmania 28(Assuming that's what their interaction was leading to on Raw). But it tends to spoil the ending make it less predictable.

Wrestling dosen't have to be unpredictable though, I mean if it's they try too hard to be unpredictable you're most likely going to see Vince Russo type swerves and ridiculous endings. But I like a bit of unpredictabily nonetheless. Like Fortune turning on Immortal.

Surely you would make predictions by yourself anyway? Spoilers can be avoided, especially in the run up to a PPV. But a lot of the time it is obvious well in advance that they are going in a particular direction.

Riddle101

parker kent wrote: »

Surely you would make predictions by yourself anyway? Spoilers can be avoided, especially in the run up to a PPV. But a lot of the time it is obvious well in advance that they are going in a particular direction.

Yeah I do tend to make predictions as well. But I do it as my own opinion. But when you get loads of people saying the same thing, it does spoil things