What makes for a good wrestling card?

[majormayhem1 0]

What are the ingredients included in a good wrestling card?

[Diamonddust 0]

What are the ingredients included in a good wrestling card?

 

-Balance of talent meaning the card isn't too top heavy or lacking star appeal

-A mixture of styles that can entertain a wide variety of people, or a focus on a particular style based on the area

-Knowing what the crowd wants to see and going with that. I remember Jim Cornette saying Dennis Condrey used to go to a show and be like, "Well guys... they want to laugh tonight" so they'd put comedy spots in the match.

[Guest]

Match placement.

 

Not too much blood and/or gimmick matches. Timing is everything, so having both in the right place on the card is important.

 

Clean finishes.

 

Blown off feuds.

That's what I've noticed in quite a few good cards, anyway. Should you go with what would likely be the best match first, like at Bash at the Beach '96? Well, that depends. Do you have a hot angle that you'll be running at the end? If so, you want to give the crowd time to cool down before burning them out. If you don't have a hot angle, and want to try and maintain the crowd's focus on the show throughout, then you probably shouldn't put that sort of match at the beginning, but rather two before the main event. You don't want that great match to overshadow what you're going to do last, like turn a major star heel.

 

Build things up slowly. Throw in a comedy match 2nd from last, and you'll keep the crowd's attention. Sometimes you run the risk of doing too much, like at Mania 18. If you have a match like Rock/Hogan that everyone's DYING to see, you damn sure had better put it on last. Otherwise, your crowd is going to be GONE at the end. Figuratively speaking, of course. They'll be there, but they aren't going to be primed for the main event.

[Diamonddust 0]

Match placement.

 

Not too much blood and/or gimmick matches. Timing is everything, so having both in the right place on the card is important.

 

Clean finishes.

 

Blown off feuds.

That's what I've noticed in quite a few good cards, anyway. Should you go with what would likely be the best match first, like at Bash at the Beach '96? Well, that depends. Do you have a hot angle that you'll be running at the end? If so, you want to give the crowd time to cool down before burning them out. If you don't have a hot angle, and want to try and maintain the crowd's focus on the show throughout, then you probably shouldn't put that sort of match at the beginning, but rather two before the main event. You don't want that great match to overshadow what you're going to do last, like turn a major star heel.

 

Build things up slowly. Throw in a comedy match 2nd from last, and you'll keep the crowd's attention. Sometimes you run the risk of doing too much, like at Mania 18. If you have a match like Rock/Hogan that everyone's DYING to see, you damn sure had better put it on last. Otherwise, your crowd is going to be GONE at the end. Figuratively speaking, of course. They'll be there, but they aren't going to be primed for the main event.

 

Wrestlemania 17 is a very good example of match placement in terms of not burning out the audience with the gimmick battle royal taking place after the insane TLC match and before Taker/HHH and Austin/Rock.

 

[Black Lushus 0]

the WM18 example is the most important thing...you really do have to put your #1 drawing match on last. HHH/Jericho didn't have a chance in hell of surpassing the heat for Rock/Hogan. Especially with the Hogan face turn, that would have been the perfect way for that Mania to end.

 

and like you guys are saying, it's always good to toss in a filler match to ensure the crowd doesn't fizzle out....however it can't be a damn pillow fight match like WM22.

 

[Guest]

Yep. A gimmick battle royal is something that's SURE to keep everyone entertained. But had they went Chyna/Ivory, well, it would have been a little more difficult to keep the audience primed. The audience has to care about the participants involved. And they didn't have to worry about the crowd going away for an Austin match, it being Texas and all, so they slid the battle royal in before the Taker match.

 

Mania 18 is, as you said, the perfect example of bad match placement.

[Ravenbomb 0]

Going by King's criteria, WM2000 would be a bad card for everything, save maybe match placement. Feuds not blown off, dirty finishes, and not a single regualr 1-on-1 match to be found. I'd have to rewatch it to see how the match placement was, and I don't feel like doing that.

[Guest]

I haven't seen it in a VERY long time, so I can't say for sure whether or not it was. I've only watched it once.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Mania 18 is, as you said, the perfect example of bad match placement.

 

I know I've argued this before, but I disagree. I know it's a different circumstance, but the title match should be last.

 

Hogan-Rock was third from last right? Followed by 3-way women's dance and HHH-Jericho? I have no problem with that.

[Guest]

Wasn't Trish wearing her nice Canadian BUTT shorts? And she lost, too. I'd say that's a problem, having a hometown wrestler lose before the main event. The fuck's that about? Ultimately, nobody remembers that WrestleMania for HHH-Jericho. The main event should always be the most memorable match at WrestleMania. I'd say WrestleMania 13 fits in that same description, although it was a shitty show all around. But in that case, I don't know whether or not Bret-Austin was deserving of going on last.

[bob_barron 0]

Mania 18 is, as you said, the perfect example of bad match placement.

 

I know I've argued this before, but I disagree. I know it's a different circumstance, but the title match should be last.

 

Hogan-Rock was third from last right? Followed by 3-way women's dance and HHH-Jericho? I have no problem with that.

 

But it was obviously was the wrong placement, given how people LEFT after Rock v. Hogan, and the people that remained didn't care.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I think there's an exception to the going on last rule, and that's if you're running a live show and building towards a rematch. It helps to announce a return match following intermission.

[Jingus 0]

One word: VARIETY. Nothing is more of a chore to watch than a show where all the matches look alike. Some of the old ECW shows had that problem with endless brawling through the crowd, and some of the ROH shows now do that with too many nonstop spotfests and/or Japanese-style matches what with the stiffness and headdrops and such.

 

In that respect, yeah, WM2000 wasn't a well-planned card. WAY too many big tag matches and three-ways and four-ways and everything but a damn ordinary singles match, of which they didn't have any. Also as noted they didn't blow off any of their storylines, plus the finish to the main event was the most politically pathetic thing I've ever seen.

 

The WM18 one is easy to say in hindsight. At the time I remember a lot of arguments back and forth online about which match should go on last. Of course, with HHH going for the title, who's gonna be on last? (And don't counter with WM19, that's one which definitely doesn't count.)

[Diamonddust 0]

In that respect, yeah, WM2000 wasn't a well-planned card. WAY too many big tag matches and three-ways and four-ways and everything but a damn ordinary singles match, of which they didn't have any. Also as noted they didn't blow off any of their storylines, plus the finish to the main event was the most politically pathetic thing I've ever seen.

 

Which is the problem the card faces when you try to get everyone a Wrestlemania payout.

[Vanhalen 0]

I think Wrestlemania X7 was the very best Wrestlemania in terms of build, as every match that followed was more important than the one before it, until it built to the main event.

[King Cucaracha 0]

One word: VARIETY. Nothing is more of a chore to watch than a show where all the matches look alike. Some of the old ECW shows had that problem with endless brawling through the crowd, and some of the ROH shows now do that with too many nonstop spotfests and/or Japanese-style matches what with the stiffness and headdrops and such.

 

I was going to mention Summerslam 2000 as a show I really enjoyed and WM17 probably fits that bill too. Summerslam really had a bit of everything. You had a couple of big gimmick matches, in TLC and Shane/Blackman, but they were both very different. Taker/Kane was different to Tazz/Lawler, which was different to Rock/Angle/HHH. All had plenty of build-up and strong feuds behind them but they all fit into the show without it seeming too much. Plus they threw in something like the Stinkface Match which, while not great by any stretch, worked in the context of the card (in the same way as the Gimmick Battle Royal) in breaking up the show.

 

I think it's as much Balance as Variety. The problem with a lot of the companies now is the lack of variety. The one company that I'd say has the most variety is probably TNA, but it means nothing because a- booking and b- there's no balance, no pacing, no time to breath.

[Retard Girl 0]

One word: VARIETY.

 

 

indeed. i'd like to see a bunch of kind of matches-

 

the six man spot monkey match

the serious mat tech match

the senceless brawl

a legit women's match

some match that involves a hot feud

standard tag team match

another real women's match

the barbed wire table bump match

the boobie bikini match

some heavyweight title something match

 

 

[cabbageboy 0]

I think all of these are good points, but when I think of a good card I think of the following:

 

--A big time main event for a world title.

--A hot secondary title feud over the IC or US title.

--A tag title match with two of the best teams in the company.

--A wild hardcore brawl.

--Something with high flying in it or wild spots.

--A technical showcase for guys just under the main event.

 

I don't totally subscribe to the notion of cooling the crowd down, since I don't think filler should be intentionally on a card. A good example is WM 3 with Killer Bees vs. Sheik/Volkoff, that was a nice solid match that was better than pillow fight or lame filler, but would hardly burn the crowd out for Hogan/Andre.

 

On the other hand you can't just burn the crowd out. Most ECW PPVs have this problem, even their best shows like Heatwave 98. After over 2 hours of constant violence and mayhem you can't help but be a little exhausted by the time the main event comes.

 

One of the most unorthodox great shows to me is SummerSlam 1992. It goes against almost all the rules....the secondary title main events the show, hardly anything is really blown off and there are plenty of DQs or countouts (Macho/Warrior, UT/Kamala, Michaels/Martel). The heated tag match of LOD/Money Inc. wasn't for the belts. One of the top workers doesn't actually wrestle (Flair). Yet I still love that PPV.

[majormayhem1 0]

I think all of these are good points, but when I think of a good card I think of the following:

 

--A big time main event for a world title.

--A hot secondary title feud over the IC or US title.

--A tag title match with two of the best teams in the company.

--A wild hardcore brawl.

--Something with high flying in it or wild spots.

--A technical showcase for guys just under the main event.

 

Cabbageboy gets the gold star. Both balance and variety are included here. I would add an interview segment, a six man tag match, or a "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan match as the cherry on top of this delectable wrestling sundae.

[RHR 0]

When I am putting together a card for our shows...I try this:

 

Start off with a bang...good solid one on one match...taking a vet from our crew and have him work with a newer guy who is fresh and has some moves

Promo time

Set up match...this is a match that is a middle of the feud match...not a blowoff...but something that sets up the future

Promo

UNDERCARD MAIN EVENT....not the big advertised match...but a match between two well known performers

Garbage match...calms the crowd after the first peak

Set up match...sets up the next month's UNDERCARD ME...

then the MAIN EVENT...