Best PPV Opener

[Si82 0]

Jason Jett (EZ Money) vs. KweeWee (Alan Funk) - WCW Greed (March '01)

SO MUCH HEAT for this match it's unbelievable. Plus, the work itself was solid. You'd think that two undercard guys wouldn't get heat, but they actually got heat that rivalled the main event just based on the quality of their work. Jett/Money was getting the fans involved a whole hell of a lot (especially his "play dead" tactic), and KweeWee was awesome in the role of "nice guy just doing a job until...**SNAP**...HE GOES FUCKING BONKERS!"

Great choice.

 

I love that match. Jett was awesome in getting the crowd into the match.

[Adam 0]

As always, anytime I get to pimp Ballz vs. Tanaka HH2000, I do. Was it the best match on the show? I don't think it matters here, because the two guys were pretty directionless at the time and the match was pretty static in regards to build and follow-through. RVD/Lynn was bigger, though not necessarily better, so it's not like the two stole the show away (esp. when there was Tajiri/Corino and a New Jack balcony dive). It did its job in getting the crowd insane jacked. I haven't enjoyed an opener more than that for a PPV.

 

HH2000 is one of the only ECW PPVs I own on DVD, and the event that includes the match that took me from a part time wrestling fan to a major hardcore wrestling fan, RVD/Lynn. I don't care if they've had better matches, this was the first RVD match I'd ever seen. I was 15, and I was in awe.

 

With that aside, Balls vs. Tanaka was 10000x better than it had any right to be. Two guys trading tough shots and stiff bumps. Great match.

 

Just quickly, Corino/Tajiri was a fucking war, and Corino gained respect for life with that bladejob. When a guys long bleach blonde hair turns bright red and dripping, that's a fuckiing bladejob.

[cabbageboy 0]

Maybe I need to watch that PPV again? I tend to be somewhat down on the Justin Credible reign of terror in ECW circa 2000, but in retrospect that PPV was cool.

 

Adam, I know how you feel though. I had seen RVD some when I first got ECW here in Louisville in 1996, also saw him on Raw in that bizarre crossover angle, but had never really SEEN him until that Bam Bam Bigelow match in 1998 where he won the TV title. The insane flip into the 5th row is one of the few times I've ever jumped out of my chair over a wrestling match.

 

Anyway, with HH2000 I didn't even remember Balls/Tanaka as the opener. Perhaps it's because there's more notable stuff on the PPV like Tajiri damn near killing Steve Corino (great bladejob!) and of course the RVD/Lynn match with the goofy Scotty Anton heel turn.

 

The RVD/Lynn series stands out from everything else during that time period. Would there even be an X Division without those matches?

[Youth N Asia 0]

I have to agree with Whipwreck/Kidman, loved that match.

 

 

Mikey's first match of the company, hasn't worked in months, puts on a great match with Kidman...then gets burried.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

I don't think you guys quite grasped what I meant. An opener should not be the best match on the show, that's my point. When the opener is the best match on the show, it doesn't follow the function of what an opener should be.

 

I actually 100% agree with cabbageboy on this point. A PPV should build from beginning to end. The opener should not blow away the rest of the show. It should get them going, not fry them for the rest of the show.

 

Now with that said, I disagree on Bret-Owen. It was an excellent choice for an opener in the context of that PPV. Shawn-Razor was still the blow-away match and the Bret angle carried nicely into a super hot main event with a memorable finish. It completely served its pupose as an opener.

[Just John 0]

The problem is there is no way of telling what the best match will be before the show. With this line of thinking, the only match that should ever be the best is the ME. Otherwise, you're not "building" throughout the show.

[JHawk 0]

The opening match is designed to get the crowd involved. That can be a match with simply great work such as Rockers-Orient Express from Royal Rumble 1991, or it can be a match with a loudmouth heel that pisses the crowd off like any Iron Mike Sharpe house show opener.

 

If it's the best match of the night, it sucks, granted. But if it gets the crowd hot for Scott Norton vs. Ernest Miller, it's done its job.

[cabbageboy 0]

Eh? I have to think Vince knew going in that Bret and Owen were going to tear it up at WM X.

 

You know what I would have done for that BATB 96 card? Switched the order of Rey/Psychosis and Malenko/Disco. The Rey match was perhaps too good to be the opener, whereas the Malenko match was a hilarious asskicking of Disco and a joy to behold. It'd have been an ideal opener.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

The problem is there is no way of telling what the best match will be before the show. With this line of thinking, the only match that should ever be the best is the ME. Otherwise, you're not "building" throughout the show.

 

While that is true in a sense, it's the booker's job to arrange to the card and construct it in such a way that it builds tension throughout a show. You don't give two great workers 25 minutes to open a show then put clunkers on the rest of the way. The main event should be the "best match" on the show, maybe not in terms of pure workrate, but in heat and importance. If it's an afterthought on its show, it's a failure to everyone involved, from the guys in the opening match all the way down.

[Perfxion 0]

Thats bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit. The best match on the card is the best match on the card. The opener is supposed to get the crowd going, Bret v Owen did that. So what its the best match on the card, people remember WM10 for that match. The ladder match was a major match too(some rate at *****) and the main event of Yoko v Bret was great. Bret sold the knee the entire event and the crowd loved it. Bret and Owen did what they needed to do. You can not discredit their work because the match was too good.

 

If this logic of best match being the main event, both Bret v Austin matches were not the main events of the PPVs they were on. Does this mean that both of these matches aren't great since they blew away whatever crap main events Sid was doing at the time? WM7 had its best match NOT be the main event as well. The main event of Hogan and Slaughter was a solid yet forgettable fair, while everyone remembers the Retirement match. Savage v Steamboat is now a crapfest because it outshined the bearhugs-R-Us of its main event.

 

The only time I can agree with you is when Slamboree 99 had its only worthwhile match was the first match on the card. Horsemen vs Raven/Saturn while the rest of the card fucking blew chunks.

 

The problem with your logic is that you are looking from a POV that doesn't allow matches to be fairly looked at. Saying a match isn't a good opener because it was too good is bullshit. Just because the rest of the card could not keep up, doesn't mean that the match was not good. If one match makes people think a PPV is great, then that PPV did its job.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

I'm not sure if that post was directed towards my posts or not, but if it was you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I said that the opener shouldn't be the best in the sense that it should not overshadow the rest of the card. It's job is to to set the tone and engage the crowd for the rest of the show.

 

First, I said that Bret-Owen was great as an opener because it didn't exhaust the crowd and make the rest of the show a letdown. It fit into the story they were telling and made the Bret win (i.e. the main event) seem more important.

 

Second, I said nothing about the best match having to be in the main event. I said the show should builds toward a main event, which should stand above the rest of the show in terms of importance and crowd heat. Steamboat-Savage took nothing away from Hulk-Andre. By contrast, Rock-Hogan stole the show at Mania 18 and the card suffered because of it. That's the fault of the booker.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Part of the logic in saving the best for last/building upwards is that the main event is your drawing guys, so you want to protect them by not upstaging them and give them the best stuff so the fans who bought the show for the main event can say "that was worth it" and the main eventers continue to draw money. If you expose the main eventers by putting on all these much more impressive matches on before it, you sorta have the audience going "wow, we paid to see THOSE guys?" and you start to tear down your main eventers. PLUS, you don't want to kill the crowd by having them blow their load cheering the undercard and end up having a heatless main.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Thanks Rudo for making my point much better than I could.

 

This whole discussion really shows what a winning formula WCW had with the cruiserweight division. Being able to put a hot, entertaining match on first that doesn't threaten anyone on the rest of the card is a formula that WWE could learn from.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

There's also negatives about that, though. Taking control of the card is important for a booker in regards to long-term planning, but there is something to be said about allowing every guy to go out there and get himself over as much as possible, so you can get as many potential new stars over. The WWE has had such control over their wrestlers and continually force a select few guys for one reason or another (and rarely has to do with talent or overness) down the fans' throats that they severely limit that potential, which is why there are so few new stars created in that company. They want to control everything to where the guys who amazingly do get over on their own are often punished because the structure doesn't allow it, so the WWE will try to -at best- fit them in down the road, and by then most of the heat is gone.

 

However, if you just have everyone trying to get over and doing all these wild stunts, and have no control, it will be a disaster. There's an Indy show I go to that is a perfect example of that because they put on all these insane matches in a row and by the last match the crowd is spent and that's the match everyone came to see, and that's the match the company spent the most money on. And by the end of the night, there isn't one or two stand outs, there are just a bunch of guys who get jumbled together in my memory. So, as a company, you want to still present a clear voice and focus - because that effectively transfers over to the audience. PLUS, in regards to marketing, it's easier to have a clear vision and put the money around that vision, rather than have this blurred view and end up wasting money on trying to push everyone. That's why the WWE was so successful, when they had a star like Austin, Rock, or Hogan to push, they would and could centre everything around them. But then you get a situation like you do today when the guys who have the focus have had it for too long and its not shared and few fresh guys get put on top and it gets boring.

 

So there has to be a middle-ground. Where you have enough freedom in your card or roster to have guys to potentially stand out, but a rigid enough structure to where you make the most effective use of your time, money, and fan support. A very hard balance, which is why when companies find a successful formula they tend to drive it into the ground.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I should note this is one of the things I love about MMA. The more guys who get over, the better it is, and there isn't this worry about upstaging the top guys, since the top guys are the top guys because they deserve to be there and are that good. And stars can be made in just one fight. However, there is a problem of sustaining stars and creating superstars. Few guys in MMA are superstars - Chuck Liddell is one, Rich Franklin is close, Matt Hughes is getting there as well, Tito and Forrest are up there. And that's about it (actually, thats a heckuvalot more than the WWE has). The unpredictable nature which can sometimes create stars often hurts companies because guys lose, and so much emphasis is placed on wins and losses.

 

Fans want to get behind someone who doesn't lose, they want to cheer guys and feel confident in saying "My guy is going to kick that other guys ass!" and then end up being right. This is a form of fan gratification that the WWE simply doesn't have right now - to have fans confidently rally around a wrestler, and I think that's partially, if not subconsciously, because few wrestlers have had the chance to shine and validate that support due to the glass ceiling.

[Guest jm29195]

I think Regal/Benoit vs Batista/Flair from Unforgiven 2004 is an incredibly underrated old school style tag, really really good stuff from all four...

[cabbageboy 0]

To some extent I don't think MX gets what I meant about matches like Bret/Owen. I was positively not belittling the match in any way, just that I think the match was too good to go on first. Problem with WM X is this: What would have opened instead? I can't see the ladder match opening (it was way too good as well), the title matches had to be saved for later, etc. That would leave Savage/Crush as the only other decent match on an overall mediocre card, but I dunno if I'd open a PPV with two guys fighting in the back for half of the match.

 

WCW by the year 2000 did the "opener as best match" formula to a distressing degree. They would throw out a crazy ladder match with 3 Count and the Yung Dragons as the opener (or some other similarly exciting cruiser fare) and then the crowd would be spent by the time the main event arrived.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The Ten Man Tag, which eventually got pulled due to time reasons, made the most sense to go on first at Mania X.

[humanoid92 0]

The thing about WM X is that Bret/Owen wasn't the typical opener- not because it turned out to be such a great match, but because of the storyline going in. It's not like these were two random guys that went in with the idea to "steal the show" from the two guys in the main event... because Bret was in BOTH the first and last match.

 

The match doesn't stand alone. You can't just look at it on paper and see the first match is considered to be ***** therefore it was the wrong choice for an opener. It doesn't work that way because the storyline is perfect. Simply put, WM X is about one guy: Bret. He loses in the opener and wins the main event. Owen beats Bret on his best day and jumps out of the shadow only to fall right back beneath it two hours later when Bret wins the big one. Perfect. And the same effect would not have been had if they'd "dumbed down the match" or given it 8-10 minutes just to keep with this bizarre notion that the opener doesn't have the right to exceed a certain level of expectations. The fact that Owen beat Bret cleanly in such a classic, a legitimate back and forth 20 minute battle where Bret was clearly on his A-game, is what makes the storyline so great.

 

And let's not look at this in hindsight. This was one of those unexpected classics. Today this show is remembered for two matches but it's not like those are the two matches that primarily sold the show in the first place. Sure, there was a buzz because of the whole brother vs. brother thing, but Bret and Owen weren't yet in an all out blood feud. Bret was reluctant to upset the match in the first place, and other than Owen's heel turn (a simple kick to the leg) there had been no physical contact between the two. I remember watching live when it became apparent this match was up first and being excited- it just slapped you in the face from the get go and got you pumped. But there was enough time between this and the ladder match that they certainly didn't detract from one another.

 

There are two solid arguments that can be made against the card placement of WM X:

 

1) That Bret/Owen was the first match in and of itself is no big deal, but the fact that Luger/Yoko didn't go on until sixth is a little troubling. In storyline terms, the Bret/Owen match was booked to offset the Luger/Yoko match, thus forcing both participants in the final Title match to have already wrestled once prior. (Had Bret won the coin toss and received the first title shot of the night, Luger would have had to wrestle Crush.) The fact that four or five matches and over an hour passed between the time Bret first wrestled and the time Yoko/Luger first wrestled is kind of cheap in storyline terms. In a truly "fair" situation, they should have been held back to back, whether it was first/second or fourth/fifth. (Of course they didn't do that because having the matches back to back would have stolen some of the thunder from the second one.)

 

2) IF anything stole heat from the last match (and I don't think it really did), it wasn't Bret/Owen, which had happened 2 and a half hours earlier. It's the Ladder match, which happened directly before it. THAT's the worst timing issue on this show. I know the 10 man tag was supposed to be added as a buffer afterwards and they ran out of time, but the fact is they had this show-stealing unique type of gimmick match that most people had never seen before and they ran it directly before the main event. Do you really think the crowd was burned out from Bret/Owen hours before? No... they had just seen Michaels doing all this innovative crazy stuff with a freaking ladder ten minutes earlier. If the main event was cheapened in any way, that's what did it.

 

Savage/Crush is an underrated match in terms of easing the crowd out of a lull that might be experienced after such a great match like Bret/Owen. It was such a different style of match and stuff like the brawling to the back and the falls count anywhere stipulations hadn't been seen before that. Plus it was a hot feud and the crowd was into Savage. Any concerns about Bret/Owen upstaging the rest of the card were put to rest here because after Savage's big win and face pop, it was no longer a "one-match show" and it set the tone for a series of important moments.

 

There has to be some degree of filler to offset the truly great stuff on a card and make it stand out. You have to consider what's surrounding these matches. Bret/Owen had plenty of filler to pad it. The mixed tag, women's title match, tag title match, Earthquake squash, etc. all took place in between Bret/Owen and the Ladder match and second main event. It's not like it overshadowed everything that followed.

 

I disagree with whoever said that the card must consistently build from start to finish. Yes, in most situations, ideally, the final match should be the most important and I have no problem with that. The conclusion to the show should be the best. But as far as getting to that point, I believe more in a system of peaks and valleys. For as good as the WWF got in the 1998-2001 era, one of the things I hated was that they eventually started booking PPVs that way. For awhile, it seemed like if there were 9 matches, their philosophy was to put the 9th most important first, 8th most important second, 7th most important 3rd, etc. To me, that's so irritating. Each match is a seaparate entity- it's NOT like reading a novel or watching a movie where everything has to progress and build perfectly. The idea should be to split up the good stuff and put the crap around around it. Don't go from crap, crap, kinda crappy, average, pretty good, good, really good, great. It's those kind of structures that upstage main events. It's not about progression; it's about balance.

 

I hated how in 1999-2000ish, they'd just fire off main event after main event after main event (see: Fully Loaded 2000, where the triple main event are the final three matches). I remember when they smartened up at No Way Out '01 and put the HHH/Austin match in the middle of the card instead of directly before Rock/Angle. That's smart booking, because it gives you some breathing room between the two major matches. Yet a bunch of people online afterwards were talking about how OMG I can't believe that match got booted down the card. Same thing at Wrestlemania XIX (and I think X-8) when the women's title match went on so late. People were confused at how it could be so "high" on the card. The location on the card had nothing to do with importance; it was just a buffer, "bathroom break" match. I don't understand how some people didn't see this.

 

There is no perfect "formula" to follow in organizing a great card. Yes, some things should hold true: the most important match usually goes last, the opener should fire up the crowd, try to split up gimmick matches, try to split up tag matches. But balance is definitely the most important thing. At the end of the night, you're going to have a favorite match. Who cares if it was the first match, third match, or tenth match? As long as the bookers do a good job in balancing the card so that one match doesn't upstage another, which I believe they did at WM X, what's the difference?

 

I was surprised when they opened with Bret/Owen right off the bat. They tore down the house- it was a very pleasant surprise. It didn't ruin the rest of the show for me. If anything, it hooked me in even more and got me more pumped because I hadn't expected it to lead off or be that good. So my attention was hooked in. It doesn't matter that Luger/Yoko or Savage/Crush weren't ***** matches. I was drawn into the show- I wanted to see if Bret could recover from the loss and the knee injury, I still wanted to see the falls count anywhere stipulation, I still wanted to see the ladder match, I was still going to cheer against Luger as much as I always did, and I still wanted to see who the mystery special guest referees were going to be. None of these things would have changed if Bret/Owen had gone on second instead of first.

[humanoid92 0]

The Ten Man Tag, which eventually got pulled due to time reasons, made the most sense to go on first at Mania X.

 

I'm not sure it made the most sense. It would have been fine, but I think midcard 8 and 10 man tag matches like that are better suited to break up the monotony of a bunch of singles matches. Kind of like the 8 man tag at WM 8 that was wedged between the IC Title match and WWF Title match.

 

So I don't know that I would have put it first where it couldn't split up anything. I think they had the right idea by using it as a buffer between the ladder match and Bret/Yoko. It's too bad they ran out of time; I was really looking forward to that match at the time.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

I did say that a card should consistently build from start to finish, but I didn't mean to imply that the worst match goes first, second worse match second, etc. Matches shouldn't be thought of isolated events, but pieces in constructing an entertaining and memorable card. I think you said you believe in a system of peaks and valleys, which is probably the best way to describe it. You don't put tag matches back to back, or three garbage matches to start a show. It shouldn't be inundated with specialty matches. Think of it like reading a book or watching a movie. There are climaxes and developments along the way that set the tone for an ending, but they don't overshadow it. How often have you heard how a movie was bad because the ending was anticlimactic. Same thing with building a wrestling card.

 

I'm a big fan of shows that have a great match, super hot angle, or memorable moment right in the middle of the show. Give the fans something great, but give them time to come down and prepare for the main event. I, myself, am not a fan of the bathroom break match, especially when it comes late in the show. Throwing out a women's match or filler match directly before the main event kills the momentum, in my opinion. I think it was Crockett who was famous for ending his shows on a constant build in terms of importance (TV, US, Tag, World). I like this style because it gives each match its time to shine and build with a crescendo coming at the end.

 

But overall, there is no exact science. WM X worked beautifully. Think about how highly regarding that show is, when in reality it had two great matches and a lot of crap. Nevertheless, the entire card worked and by the end you felt a sense of satisfaction and closure. That's perfect booking.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

The thing with Bret/Owen is that it wasn't a traditional opening bout, which would usually be two lower card guys going at it to get the crowd hot for the rest of the show. That match was a main event level match at that point, but was run first due to the "mini-tournament" format of the show, since Bret was going to be wrestling again later that night. It's kind of an unfair pick.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

Was that Crush/Savage match the one where Savage tied Crush up by the ankles and left him hanging in the back?

[slabinskia 0]

I agree that the opener shouldn't be the best match but you can't fault the guys if they steal the show.Lets break down some examples.

 

Bret/Owen wm10- A good choice for the opener because the ladder match was still to come and bret winning the belt from yoko was the send the fans home happy main event they wanted.

 

Pilman/Liger superbrawl 2- A good choice for an opener.It stole the show but other matches on the card could have topped it.Rude/Steamboat and Steiners/Eaton/Anderson could have been just as good of matches but turned out to be disapointing.You can't plan that.Sting/Luger was the send the fans home happy main event since sting won the belt.

 

Rockers/Orient Express-Didn't matter what the opener was because it was still the early years for the rumble and nothing was going to take away from the rumble match.

 

Rey/Psychosis Bash at the Beach-You can tell this was going to be match of the night.However,nothing was going to take away from the main event of that show.

 

As far as some matches I thought were great openers.I'll go with rockers/barbarian/haku from wm7 or brainbusters/harts from summerslam 89.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Was that Crush/Savage match the one where Savage tied Crush up by the ankles and left him hanging in the back?

 

That's the one.

 

 

I can't believe I forgot about Hart / Ramon. Silly me. I'm also going to throw in Cena / RVD / Dupree / Booker from GAB 2004, it was probably the only decent thing next to Chavo / Rey on that crapfest show.

[World's Worst Man 0]

The show wasn't technically a PPV, but it was more or less the same thing. NOAH's 5/7/05 show, Osamu Namiguchi vs. Katsuhiko Nakajima. Really, really good opener, that would probably be herladed as a MOTYC in some promotions. The beauty of the match was that it was two young guys having a a really basic match. They didn't do any spectacular moves and they didn't no-sell a bunch of stuff to create drama. Nothing they did was going to steal the show from anyone else, but they still managed to get the crowd going and get themselves over big time. The match wasn't even close to being as good as Bret-Owen at WMX, but it was almost a perfect opening match considering the circumstances.

[DCMaximo 0]

Jericho/Eddy from Fall Brawl 97 is a forgotten opener, the expected great match between the two which got the crowd fired up and it didn't matter that it was the best match on the card because most of the other matches were decent-good (FoF/Wrath and Mortis, Ultimo/Wright, Jarrett/Malenko)

 

Also Survivor Series 96 has Jannetty/Hakushi/Horowitz/Holly vs Candido/Spicolli/Pritchard/123 Kid which was pretty awesome. Quick action, Jannetty NAILING Skip with a top rope powerbomb and the incredible scene of Barry Horowitz being a super-over face. Great stuff

 

EDIT: Talking of great SurSeries openers, Powers Of Pain team vs Demolition team from the 2nd one is also great. Near 45 minutes of action featuring the Conquistadors surviving till the end, some great Tully heel work (his sneaky tag to Nikolai when he realises Barbarian has just tagged in is hilarious) and the double turn ending. A lengthy, but fun opener

[The Amazing Rando 0]

Was that Crush/Savage match the one where Savage tied Crush up by the ankles and left him hanging in the back?

 

That's the one.

 

 

I forgot completely that match took place at WMX ...I remember that little storyline from my earliest days of watching wrestling, with Savage taking like 7 Bonzai drops on Raw after saving Crush from one, and then Crush doesn't return the favor cause he's totally HEEEEL~! and shit.

 

Man, the memories.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Well Crush turned heel before any Yoko sneak attack on Savage, if that happened. It was at a special "Savage/Crush Summit" where Crush turned heel, and pressed Savage mouth-first into the guard rail to establish the feud. Crush blamed Savage for not checking on him when Crush was in the hospital after the Bonzai Drops. As if Crush and Savage were suddenly the best of friends or something.