I do think there can be a value in doing a multi-person match just to feature four guys instead of two, if it's a bigger show (like a PPV, or maybe a bigger episode of a TV show). I think just appearing on a PPV can make someone feel a little more in the mix over time than if they were only on one of every four PPVs. There is a certain level of stardom that comes from being on every PPV (or almost every PPV), as you feel like you belong on the PPVs.XIV wrote: ↑Jul 20th, '22, 00:23Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jul 19th, '22, 16:44I think multi-man matches can be fine storytelling tools without specifically focusing on getting one person over in any way more than being the person who wins the match. They're a useful tool in telling longer-term, big picture stories. For example, as a step (or multiple steps) in telling a story about a champion winnowing down a specific batch of challengers, or of someone who we're sure can win if he gets the champ one-on-one, but others keep getting in the way, where it's a way to reinforce/extend that story without relying on interference.XIV wrote: ↑Jul 19th, '22, 05:05
I refer you to my previous comment on this match. But, there were still times where people went missing, but they brought everyuone back together well enough. That's me looking in the confines of the match, this is why unless you've got clear plans to put someone over, Don't do multiple man matches.
You can even use them as a tool in an of themselves to create a situation that enables a situation that you need as a catalyst for a direction.
(For example- not to toot my own horn, but because it's an example I'm intimately familiar with, the way I used a multi-woman match in my BRM Books Raw 1,000 and Beyond fantasy booking thread as a way to create situation where there was enough chaos so that there could believably be a bunch of visual pinfalls and interferences and so forth that the Divas Title would be help up afterwards, which would then serve as a kayfabe excuse to replace it with a reinstated Women's Title, and to set-up a six-way between worthy contenders to crown the first champion... though I never got up to that last part. Doing that wouldn't have worked nearly as well with just a singles match or even a three-way, because chaos like that happens all the time in those matches, so it wouldn't feel "above and beyond" enough to justify vacating the title in this situation, when it doesn't happen in other singles matches or even three-ways with such messiness. It needed an overwhelming number of title claimants, and only a big multi-woman match could properly set that up).
I'm not even opposed to booking them just to put a good action-match on the card and get someone a win (though, if I'm reading you right, you aren't, either, provided that enough focus is put on the victor).
Just putting a four way on the card because you want to feature 4 guys isn’t usually for me, because it may not have a point.
XIV wrote: ↑Jul 20th, '22, 00:23
Let’s look at the “Armageddon hell in a cell” match from 2000. That came together somewhat organically and had a story behind it. The Rock was feuding with Rikishi, but had recently screwed Undertaker out of the title at Survivor Series so Undertaker. Steve Austin gets added in because of the Rikishi factor which then sees Triple H added as the mastermind and all get to challenge for Angle’s title.
Now it wasn’t perfect story-knitting, but it got us there.
Then the match itself was not an amazing spectacle by any means, but because of the even numbers, wrestlers generally paired off to do things. There were plenty of rest spots, but for chunks of it, there’s action happening in multiple places, if you’re gonna have 6 people in a match, that’s a realistic prospect, and therefore made the match make sense both on the lead into and within the match itself, with Angle fully establishing himself as Champion that night by beating the 5 biggest contenders in the company, I think 1 month removed from his rookie year.
The part that I've bolded really got me thinking about the way matches have changed over time. I think the current multi-man style is based on the idea that it's best to only give fans one thing to focus on at a time- either so that the fans don't miss anything cool, or so that every wrestler can be seen getting their sh*t in by all of the fans... or probably both.
I could be wrong, but my guess is it grew out of the early 2000's indy boom (probably really starting with APW and CZW in the late 90s, and with WCW and ECW grabbing regional indy standouts like Simon Diamond and Devon Storm (and, in smaller part, Christopher Daniels, AJ Styles, and Mike Modest. Not sure why I'm not giving WWE credit for Crash Holly, but it doesn't feel like it fits)
1. You were starting to get more wrestlers who grew up as fans and cared more about putting on great matches than doing the minimum possible to get paid.
2. There were more indies popping up to get bookings in, and between that and the rise of selling shows on VHS, being seen doing your stuff is the best way to get noticed by message-board fans or promoters (and in that era in particular, cool stuff meant flips and weapons spots where you could have a bunch of people do stuff in a row and make it work, as opposed to cool submission spots a la Dragon and Low Ki, where it mostly needs to be one-on-one, and feels cooler the longer it goes uninterrupted). If that is the goal, then it's best for all of the wrestlers if they take turns being the one getting the focus and we make sure that the camera gets to see everyone's cool stuff.
3. RF Video's need to replace ECW as a tape-selling, which they did by pushing hardcore and work-rate, first with CZW for a bit in 2001, and then, once King of the Indies convinces them it's viable, with ROH. If you're trying to make more money selling the DVDs than you are on the live gates, then the "focus on a single thing at a time and make sure all of the cool stuff is seen by everyone" approach will probably get you better word of mouth coming out of the live show (which hopefully becomes momentum when you release the DVD) and even more good word of mouth once the DVDs come out.
I don't disagree, but I do think the lack of memorability is more a result of easy availability of such matches. While it was better at incorporating all three guys as much as possible, I don't think a match like the first ROH main event stands out nearly as much today.
Of course, that's why people like me will say that it's all the more important for wrestlers to tell stories in their matches rather than just be a spotfest.