What must be the ingredients of a five-star match?

[Mr. Roman Empire]

Baron Corbin vs Hulk Hogan. book it Vince!

 

[Shayon]

In all honesty, 5 star matches are handed to the top guys that WWE is pushing. Sure, they have to be talented enough to handle what that entails. But, a 5 star match usually doesn't pan out like any other match ever does. It consists of 2 bigger, made superstars, a built feud, a match with 2-3 bigger spots, a match that's like at least 30 mins long, and, most importantly, a match that's back and forth throughout.

You can take that formula and make a 5 star match with nearly anything. Cena was given the option to be able to have matches like that during his runs as well because he's the top dog and always needs look enduring and never quitting.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but would u be more specific? Like, should the wrestlers execute moves, which aren't in their arsenal to make it a 5 star match?

 

[edge4ever]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but would u be more specific? Like, should the wrestlers execute moves, which aren't in their arsenal to make it a 5 star match?

Yes and that's part of the spot process. Do a couple things out of the norm. Keep it back and forth making both guys look good. Make both seem desperate. 5 star matches are easy as this point with 2 vets

 

[edge4ever]

5 star matches don't happen often because those kind of matches aren't normal matches. Typical matches work like this: establish heel and face. Face goes into shine (beating the heel in wrestling). Heel cuts the face off with a big cheap move. Heel goes into heat and beats up face with hard hitting, cheap moves. Face gets a couple moments where he looks to build momentum against the heel. Heel cuts him back off with cheap moves. Face cuts heel off by countering a big move or something. Face goes into comeback and both men at this point work towards the finish.

Most matches work like that in general. 5 star matches kind of use this template but in general they're more back and forth and always intense.

 

[Shayon]

5 star matches don't happen often because those kind of matches aren't normal matches. Typical matches work like this: establish heel and face. Face goes into shine (beating the heel in wrestling). Heel cuts the face off with a big cheap move. Heel goes into heat and beats up face with hard hitting, cheap moves. Face gets a couple moments where he looks to build momentum against the heel. Heel cuts him back off with cheap moves. Face cuts heel off by countering a big move or something. Face goes into comeback and both men at this point work towards the finish.

Most matches work like that in general. 5 star matches kind of use this template but in general they're more back and forth and always intense.

I agree, it must be back and forth, coz u have to make them both look so good, also what are your thoughts on the finish of a 5 star match? Should it end like punk vs cena match from raw, where cena did a never - before - seen - from - cena hurricanrana, followed that up with the AA? or should it end like cena vs cesaro 2015? Your thoughts,

 

[Jacob Fox]

I do not think there is a template to a five star match. Star ratings are subjective, but they actually go beyond just being subjective.

I think the only thing that truly makes a 5 star match is emotional investment. For example, I am reviewing all the best matches of the year before I vote for the PWI Match of the Year Award. So far, Okada vs Tanahashi at the dome show is leading. But is that because Okada is my favorite wrestler? Or is it because Okada is my favorite wrestler yet Tanahashi is easily the BEST wrestler in the world (IMO)?

All I can say is this, a five star match is a match that suspends your disbelief. It is when you look at a match and you know it is predetermined, but the performers are doing such a good job that you HONESTLY don't know who will win. You forget for a moment that you are watching performance art and you are pulled into the match and believe the guys are really fighting.

It doesn't need to have guys kick out of finishers. It doesn't need to show moves you have never seen before. But it needs two performers who are able to suck you into the match and make you believe you are watching a real fight.

But it is still subjective. It is sometimes hard to get sucked into a match if you feel nothing for the participants. So it's not really a question that you can easily answer. But regardless of your criteria, if you can truly get lost in the match and believe what you are watching is real, I think that is the most important element of all.

 

[Shayon]

I do not think there is a template to a five star match. Star ratings are subjective, but they actually go beyond just being subjective.

I think the only thing that truly makes a 5 star match is emotional investment. For example, I am reviewing all the best matches of the year before I vote for the PWI Match of the Year Award. So far, Okada vs Tanahashi at the dome show is leading. But is that because Okada is my favorite wrestler? Or is it because Okada is my favorite wrestler yet Tanahashi is easily the BEST wrestler in the world (IMO)?

All I can say is this, a five star match is a match that suspends your disbelief. It is when you look at a match and you know it is predetermined, but the performers are doing such a good job that you HONESTLY don't know who will win. You forget for a moment that you are watching performance art and you are pulled into the match and believe the guys are really fighting.

It doesn't need to have guys kick out of finishers. It doesn't need to show moves you have never seen before. But it needs two performers who are able to suck you into the match and make you believe you are watching a real fight.

But it is still subjective. It is sometimes hard to get sucked into a match if you feel nothing for the participants. So it's not really a question that you can easily answer. But regardless of your criteria, if you can truly get lost in the match and believe what you are watching is real, I think that is the most important element of all.

Appreciate your comment, but nowadays, especially in WWE matches, kicking out of at least one finisher is compulsory in the case of even 4 star matches, is this necessary, considering the trend that has been set by WWE since punk vs cena at mitb 2011?

 

[Jacob Fox]

Appreciate your comment, but nowadays, especially in WWE matches, kicking out of at least one finisher is compulsory in the case of even 4 star matches, is this necessary, considering the trend that has been set by WWE since punk vs cena at mitb 2011?

I sort of disagree. Last year, my favorite WWE match was Nia Jax vs Bayley. I gave that match 5 stars. And yes, Bayley DID kick out of Nia Jax's finisher. But that had nothing to do with how good that match was. I rated that match five stars because Bayley came into the match as an underdog, although she was champion. She basically got her ass handed to her in the entire match. And yeah, she kicked out of a finisher, but that is irrelevant because I don't think a single person cared about Jax's finisher. They probably figured Nia could take Bayley out without using a finisher.

What made this match 5 stars for me was that it told a good story. It told one of the best stories of the year. It set up the David and Goliath scenario and I doubt many people thought Bayley had a chance. She struggled mightily throughout the match and won because of her tenacity. Kicking out of Nia's leg drop was an afterthought. The match was good because it did EVERYTHING to make you believe Bayley had NO chance... and she not only won, she made Nia Jax tap out. It was wrestling poetry that would have been just as good if Nia had never hit a finisher even once.

But like I said, it's all subjective. I don't think we need kicking out of finishers to make a match. Even in the matches in which we get plenty of kickouts, that is not the focal point of the match for me. There are many ways a story can be told and right now, WWE is concentrated on kicking out of finishers. But my favorite match of all time is Ric Flair vs Sting at the original Clash of the Champions and there was not a single finisher kick out in that match. The match told a great story and that was: Sting is a major badass who can kick Ric Flair's ass for 45 minutes but Flair still wins. That story made it 5 stars, not the use of finishers.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Appreciate your comment, but nowadays, especially in WWE matches, kicking out of at least one finisher is compulsory in the case of even 4 star matches, is this necessary, considering the trend that has been set by WWE since punk vs cena at mitb 2011?

I would add that WWE probably thinks it is necessary, but I disagree with them.

 

[Shayon]

I sort of disagree. Last year, my favorite WWE match was Nia Jax vs Bayley. I gave that match 5 stars. And yes, Bayley DID kick out of Nia Jax's finisher. But that had nothing to do with how good that match was. I rated that match five stars because Bayley came into the match as an underdog, although she was champion. She basically got her ass handed to her in the entire match. And yeah, she kicked out of a finisher, but that is irrelevant because I don't think a single person cared about Jax's finisher. They probably figured Nia could take Bayley out without using a finisher.

What made this match 5 stars for me was that it told a good story. It told one of the best stories of the year. It set up the David and Goliath scenario and I doubt many people thought Bayley had a chance. She struggled mightily throughout the match and won because of her tenacity. Kicking out of Nia's leg drop was an afterthought. The match was good because it did EVERYTHING to make you believe Bayley had NO chance... and she not only won, she made Nia Jax tap out. It was wrestling poetry that would have been just as good if Nia had never hit a finisher even once.

But like I said, it's all subjective. I don't think we need kicking out of finishers to make a match. Even in the matches in which we get plenty of kickouts, that is not the focal point of the match for me. There are many ways a story can be told and right now, WWE is concentrated on kicking out of finishers. But my favorite match of all time is Ric Flair vs Sting at the original Clash of the Champions and there was not a single finisher kick out in that match. The match told a great story and that was: Sting is a major badass who can kick Ric Flair's ass for 45 minutes but Flair still wins. That story made it 5 stars, not the use of finishers.

Yeah, but in my opinion, I think that the reason that WWE has them kick out of each other's finishers, is that it makes u look strong enough in just one move, so they'll not have to work so hard to make them look that strong and spend so much time on it, what's your take?

 

[Jacob Fox]

Yeah, but in my opinion, I think that the reason that WWE has them kick out of each other's finishers, is that it makes u look strong enough in just one move, so they'll not have to work so hard to make them look that strong and spend so much time on it, what's your take?

WWE has spent decades building up wrestling as based upon a finishing move. The entire wrestling match is set up as a race as to who can get to their finisher first. SO when they make the finisher look like the be all, end all of wresting, they are counting on the fact the kicking out of one is a really big deal. They have very often made it look like a finishing move will nearly always end a match.

I remember growing up and watching WWF, I was shocked both times with Sid and then Yokozuna kicked out of Hulk Hogan's leg drop. But why should that be shocking? It's nothing more than a leg drop. Nearly all wrestlers did a leg drop, why was Hogan's any better? Simply because WWF told us it was.

So being that their formula was always "Finisher equals end" it is only natural to be surprised when a wrestler kicks out of a finisher. This became commonplace during the Attitude Era. And it always got a good pop because it was rarely seen. WWE is still relying on that formula, even though now it is pretty weak. How many times have we seen someone kick out of the Attitude Adjustment or even the F5? It doesn't mean as much as it used to because I almost expect someone to kick out of at least the first finisher. That's why it doesn't really add to the excitement of a match anymore. It is expected to kick out of a finisher now nearly as much as it was not expected 30 years ago.

 

[Shayon]

WWE has spent decades building up wrestling as based upon a finishing move. The entire wrestling match is set up as a race as to who can get to their finisher first. SO when they make the finisher look like the be all, end all of wresting, they are counting on the fact the kicking out of one is a really big deal. They have very often made it look like a finishing move will nearly always end a match.

I remember growing up and watching WWF, I was shocked both times with Sid and then Yokozuna kicked out of Hulk Hogan's leg drop. But why should that be shocking? It's nothing more than a leg drop. Nearly all wrestlers did a leg drop, why was Hogan's any better? Simply because WWF told us it was.

So being that their formula was always "Finisher equals end" it is only natural to be surprised when a wrestler kicks out of a finisher. This became commonplace during the Attitude Era. And it always got a good pop because it was rarely seen. WWE is still relying on that formula, even though now it is pretty weak. How many times have we seen someone kick out of the Attitude Adjustment or even the F5? It doesn't mean as much as it used to because I almost expect someone to kick out of at least the first finisher. That's why it doesn't really add to the excitement of a match anymore. It is expected to kick out of a finisher now nearly as much as it was not expected 30 years ago.

But don't u think that even now, when in the Japanese promotions people too often kick out of finishers, and that's why they have super finishers, WWE is taking this like old times?

 

[Shayon]

WWE has spent decades building up wrestling as based upon a finishing move. The entire wrestling match is set up as a race as to who can get to their finisher first. SO when they make the finisher look like the be all, end all of wresting, they are counting on the fact the kicking out of one is a really big deal. They have very often made it look like a finishing move will nearly always end a match.

I remember growing up and watching WWF, I was shocked both times with Sid and then Yokozuna kicked out of Hulk Hogan's leg drop. But why should that be shocking? It's nothing more than a leg drop. Nearly all wrestlers did a leg drop, why was Hogan's any better? Simply because WWF told us it was.

So being that their formula was always "Finisher equals end" it is only natural to be surprised when a wrestler kicks out of a finisher. This became commonplace during the Attitude Era. And it always got a good pop because it was rarely seen. WWE is still relying on that formula, even though now it is pretty weak. How many times have we seen someone kick out of the Attitude Adjustment or even the F5? It doesn't mean as much as it used to because I almost expect someone to kick out of at least the first finisher. That's why it doesn't really add to the excitement of a match anymore. It is expected to kick out of a finisher now nearly as much as it was not expected 30 years ago.

Also, at Wm 31 Roman Reigns kicked out of 4 f5s by Lesnar, what's your take on that?

 

[Jacob Fox]

But don't u think that even now, when in the Japanese promotions people too often kick out of finishers, and that's why they have super finishers, WWE is taking this like old times?

Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "taking this like old times."

Also, at Wm 31 Roman Reigns kicked out of 4 f5s by Lesnar, what's your take on that?

It was a correct thing to do to try and build Reigns up into the next big star. I thought it was the smart thing to do. I am not arguing against kicking out of finishers. I'm only arguing that it is not a necessary thing to make a match a 5 star match. But even though I REALLY like that match, I wouldn't rate it 5 stars. Maybe 4. And if the subject is what makes a five star match, I wouldn't think this match would be in that category. So it is sort of a moot point.

There are many matches that I would rate 5 stars that had absolutely no kick outs from finishers. There are some that I would. Now, I think that kicking out of a finisher can make a match good, but it's not a prerequisite for a five star match.

And actually, he was hit by 4 F5s, he technically only kicked out of 3. Lesnar hit the 4th F5 but did not cover Reigns. This was the moment where Seth Rollins came in.

 

[Jacob Fox]

But don't u think that even now, when in the Japanese promotions people too often kick out of finishers, and that's why they have super finishers, WWE is taking this like old times?

Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "taking this like old times."

Also, at Wm 31 Roman Reigns kicked out of 4 f5s by Lesnar, what's your take on that?

It was a correct thing to do to try and build Reigns up into the next big star. I thought it was the smart thing to do. But even though I REALLY like that match, I wouldn't rate it 5 stars. Maybe 4. And if the subject is what makes a five star match, I wouldn't think this match would be in that category. So it is sort of a moot point.

There are many matches that I would rate 5 stars that had absolutely no kick outs from finishers. There are some that I would. Now, I think that kicking out of a finisher can make a match good, but it's not a prerequisite for a five star match.

And actually, he was hit by 4 F5s, he technically only kicked out of 3. Lesnar hit the 4th F5 but did not cover Reigns. This was the moment where Seth Rollins came in.