BRM Reviews the 7/13/2022 Dynamite (WATCH THIS MAIN EVENT!)

[Big Red Machine]

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.

I 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.

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.

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.

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.

It had a point and purpose. A lot of multi-person matches lack that. And that’s where it falls apart. A multi-person spot fest for the sake of it, does nothing to enhance a talent or put on a match people will remember for years to come.

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.

[XIV]

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.

So, here, I make you correct. The focus on how multi-person matches are used has changed over time. You make good points about older matches vs newer, where newer has more 1v1 spots so everyone is getting showcased, but forgetting the origins of how those matches should be used. We'll use Wardlow as the example name. My argument is, if you want to showcase Wardlow, and put him in a multi-man, only for him to then have 2 or 3 minutes where he's 1v1 with someone, just book him in a 1v1 in the first place. Multiple person matches should be used where various people have a legitimate gripe and this is the best way to resolve that issue. Eg, Armageddon Hell in a Cell, The original elimination chambers, TLC etc all made sense in their contexts.

But on that indies section, I would state that you're correct with how a person needed a "highlight reel" to get signed, but WWE have done just as much as the indies to lose what multi-person matches should be about. By having PPV's or "Premium Live Events" aas they're now known built around multi-person matches they killed those matches as being used to settle gripes and just something that's done every year without fail, often in the hope of selling toys.
Royal Rumble, Money in the Bank, Elimination Chamber & Survivor Series are all built around multi-person matches, so that's 1/3 of your PPVs.

Now, I think we can universally accept Royal Rumble and Money In The Bank as being annual events because they make sense as being more "random" because of what is at stake and the shared issue is that everyone wants the World Championships.

I did however prefer MITB being part of Wrestlemania rather than its own thing, ezspecially now Wrestlemania is 2 nights, it would be a better way of padding out those run times. Night 1, you'd have the Main event or whatever as MITB and then Night 2, World Championship Main Event. I think it would feel bigger for the winner.

[Big Red Machine]

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.

So, here, I make you correct. The focus on how multi-person matches are used has changed over time. You make good points about older matches vs newer, where newer has more 1v1 spots so everyone is getting showcased, but forgetting the origins of how those matches should be used. We'll use Wardlow as the example name. My argument is, if you want to showcase Wardlow, and put him in a multi-man, only for him to then have 2 or 3 minutes where he's 1v1 with someone, just book him in a 1v1 in the first place.

I would say that the problem here is not inherently with the multi-person match, but rather is a mistake being made by those putting it together. You can have a four-way with Wardlow and three other guys that gets Wardlow over by having him dominate each guy a lone, and they have to work together to temporarily take him out before he eventually comes back, runs through everyone, and gets the win. Part of a booker's responsibility is to communicate to the talent what objective the booker wants the match to achieve (and the talent's responsibility is to execute it as best they can).

Multiple person matches should be used where various people have a legitimate gripe and this is the best way to resolve that issue.

I think you are vastly underestimating the importance of multi-person matches as a booking tool in a "modern" (meaning fans expect most matches to not be squashes) environment (and even more so when most fans have an AJPW/ROH "we want mostly clean finishes" outlook).
If you are only doing singles or tag matches, you can get across/focus on a maximum of four people/team’s stories/journeys: the two sides in the match, a guest commentator, and someone interfering. Obviously you can have multiple people interfere, but too much interference (even one person per match) will create a big backlash, and having a guest commentator too often also gets grating (think WWE and ROH in the late 2010s).
A multi-person match lets you focus on more individual stories/journeys, and with the added bonus of letting you give some of these people time to focus on their stories without them having to be involved in the decision (which can then be reserved for the stories it will matter most to).

But on that indies section, I would state that you're correct with how a person needed a "highlight reel" to get signed, but WWE have done just as much as the indies to lose what multi-person matches should be about. By having PPV's or "Premium Live Events" aas they're now known built around multi-person matches they killed those matches as being used to settle gripes and just something that's done every year without fail, often in the hope of selling toys.
Royal Rumble, Money in the Bank, Elimination Chamber & Survivor Series are all built around multi-person matches, so that's 1/3 of your PPVs.

Elimination Chamber as part of the calendar is definitely a mistake. I don’t think Survivor Series creates the same issue as the others because it lacks the “everyone for themselves” aspect of the multi-person matches.

Now, I think we can universally accept Royal Rumble and Money In The Bank as being annual events because they make sense as being more "random" because of what is at stake and the shared issue is that everyone wants the World Championships.


I did however prefer MITB being part of Wrestlemania rather than its own thing, ezspecially now Wrestlemania is 2 nights, it would be a better way of padding out those run times. Night 1, you'd have the Main event or whatever as MITB and then Night 2, World Championship Main Event. I think it would feel bigger for the winner.

I liked MITB as part of Mania as well.
What I’d actually like to see WWE do is instead of having one of each for the men and the women, they alternate, so one year you would have a men’s Royal Rumble and a women’s MITB, and the next year it’d be the other way around. The MITB matches step on each other’s toes by being on the same night, but the rumbles (to stretch the metaphor) are running each other over with cars (especially with the lazy and cliché-obsessed way WWE puts them together).

[XIV]

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 would say that the problem here is not inherently with the multi-person match, but rather is a mistake being made by those putting it together. You can have a four-way with Wardlow and three other guys that gets Wardlow over by having him dominate each guy a lone, and they have to work together to temporarily take him out before he eventually comes back, runs through everyone, and gets the win. Part of a booker's responsibility is to communicate to the talent what objective the booker wants the match to achieve (and the talent's responsibility is to execute it as best they can).

I think, like a lot of wrestling bookers, the meaning behinds things is lost. I guess I'm not saying that multi-person matches are the issue, but the booking inside them is. Because of the point we've touched upon where even Vince who once upon a time knew how to book such things, now book them in the new fashion.

Elimination Chamber as part of the calendar is definitely a mistake. I don’t think Survivor Series creates the same issue as the others because it lacks the “everyone for themselves” aspect of the multi-person matches.

Survivor Series is okay, the concept at least has always been decent, but that Raw vs Smackdown thing they've largely gone for the last 10 years or so has been boring because nothing is at stake and was only marginally interesting for a while when NXT got involved. The whole we're going to invaade your show just because you're the other show mentality falls flat because there's no legitimate source of contention.

I liked MITB as part of Mania as well.
What I’d actually like to see WWE do is instead of having one of each for the men and the women, they alternate, so one year you would have a men’s Royal Rumble and a women’s MITB, and the next year it’d be the other way around. The MITB matches step on each other’s toes by being on the same night, but the rumbles (to stretch the metaphor) are running each other over with cars (especially with the lazy and cliché-obsessed way WWE puts them together).

I like this, because things that are "rare" are generally able to feel more special, but WWE would never adapt this model. Two Royal Rumbles is a lot to sit through and generally one spoils the other because certain survival spots and things are all done before the second comes along. It would be like having two table matches in the same night, you're never as excited for the second.

I do think having maybe the Male MITB at Wrestlemania and then the female MITB at Summerslam may help to break that up. Unfortunately, unless Royal Rumble became a 2 night spectacular, it is what it is.


P.S... I've only just learned how to break up the replies in the same way you do... After all these years!

[Big Red Machine]

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 would say that the problem here is not inherently with the multi-person match, but rather is a mistake being made by those putting it together. You can have a four-way with Wardlow and three other guys that gets Wardlow over by having him dominate each guy a lone, and they have to work together to temporarily take him out before he eventually comes back, runs through everyone, and gets the win. Part of a booker's responsibility is to communicate to the talent what objective the booker wants the match to achieve (and the talent's responsibility is to execute it as best they can).

I think, like a lot of wrestling bookers, the meaning behinds things is lost. I guess I'm not saying that multi-person matches are the issue, but the booking inside them is. Because of the point we've touched upon where even Vince who once upon a time knew how to book such things, now book them in the new fashion.

I don’t know if I’d say the meaning has been lost so much as I’d just say that they are rarely used to their full potential. I don’t have a problem with putting a four-way on the card where the purpose of the match from a card-construction point of view is just to be an action match, so long as the result is going to matter.

Elimination Chamber as part of the calendar is definitely a mistake. I don’t think Survivor Series creates the same issue as the others because it lacks the “everyone for themselves” aspect of the multi-person matches.

Survivor Series is okay, the concept at least has always been decent, but that Raw vs Smackdown thing they've largely gone for the last 10 years or so has been boring because nothing is at stake and was only marginally interesting for a while when NXT got involved. The whole we're going to invaade your show just because you're the other show mentality falls flat because there's no legitimate source of contention.

I actually really don’t like the Survivor Series concept of a whole bunch of elimination tag team matches because there is rarely a reason for why the specific teams are together (i.e. why was this undercard tag team put on Team Cena instead of Team Rock in the other match)? The Raw vs. Smackdown format answers this question, but that then suffers from the issue of WWE trying to pretend it’s some sort of blood feud when there is no reason for it, and all notions of “brand loyalty” are absent the other eleven months of the year.
If WWE just dropped the feud aspect of it and said “yeah, we’re just doing Raw vs. SD matches,” it wouldn’t feel important, and certainly not worthy of a PPV.. although, to do it you have to have it on POV because of the brand split, and thus the concept will be dead on arrival no matter what they do.
I always thought the elimination tags worked best when they only did one or two of them, and spent time telling the story of the teams coming together.

[XIV]

I actually really don’t like the Survivor Series concept of a whole bunch of elimination tag team matches because there is rarely a reason for why the specific teams are together (i.e. why was this undercard tag team put on Team Cena instead of Team Rock in the other match)? The Raw vs. Smackdown format answers this question, but that then suffers from the issue of WWE trying to pretend it’s some sort of blood feud when there is no reason for it, and all notions of “brand loyalty” are absent the other eleven months of the year.
If WWE just dropped the feud aspect of it and said “yeah, we’re just doing Raw vs. SD matches,” it wouldn’t feel important, and certainly not worthy of a PPV.. although, to do it you have to have it on POV because of the brand split, and thus the concept will be dead on arrival no matter what they do.
I always thought the elimination tags worked best when they only did one or two of them, and spent time telling the story of the teams coming together.

I enjoy the concept of Survivor Series, and again, throughout the 90's all of the teams were better explained and it was built to properly and well in advance without the lazy booking of "Raw vs Smackdown".

I don’t know if I’d say the meaning has been lost so much as I’d just say that they are rarely used to their full potential. I don’t have a problem with putting a four-way on the card where the purpose of the match from a card-construction point of view is just to be an action match, so long as the result is going to matter.

Too often the results of these multiple person matches don't matter, they're not used to particularly showcase anyone, it's purely to get people on the show... and in AEW's case, because there's so many factions, many singles matches become a multiple person match because of interferences, ringside situations and other WCW-like shenanigans... case and point, this week's Dynamite.