Wrestling Forum banner

Analyze This: Feudal system

751 views 4 replies 5 participants last post by  3MB4Life 
#1 ·
Feuds basically should be the backbone of any wrestling promotion/program. Mcmahon-Austin feud basically defined AE. Hogan-Piper feud made Wrestlemania. HBK-Hart feud basically erased the line between kayfabe and reality. Lawler-Kaufmann feud made memphis big. Rhodes-Flair feud was staple of NWA in 1980s.

How long should a feud ideally last in your opinion both in terms of PPV and Matches? Which feud in your opinion would be a perfect example of how a feud should be executed perfectly, start to finish? A counter example as to how a feud should not be can be given as well.
 
#3 ·
Or you can just not be here. Nobody else has a problem with the "million posts."


On topic, I'd typically prefer a pure 6 month feud, meaning the actual story has a payoff within that timeframe.

As for the lay out of that, I'd use the Terry Funk/Ric Flair feud from '89. There was a two month period before the first match, a period that was further used to build the heel. Over the course of the 7 month program, they worked two televized singles (and that had a gap of 4 months) but in between, they participated in a tag match and separate programs that not only had involvement from one another but added more components in the form of guys that would transition into the next feud for Flair.


The kind of feud not to do is what WWE did with Cena/Rusev, which resulted in 4 successive PPV matches, which I'm definitely not a fan enough. Ideally, 3 would suffice, as it allows the ability to trade wins and with how those matches ended, places even more importance on the rubber match.

Another feud not to do is Wyatt/Ambrose. First of all, it was totally one sided, as Bray won all 4 matches (although the first was by DQ). Secondly, those 4 matches occurred within 2 months, with 3 of them taking place in a span of 4 weeks. Was way too rushed and based on the booking of the first match, should've been finished by TLC, as I dislike the idea of taking a match that just main evented a PPV and giving it away on free TV twice over the following 3 weeks.
 
#4 ·
It can go 1 month, 1 year or span off/on for an entire career. Depends on the purpose of the feud. As long as a feud has a legit purpose and those involved get something out of it, I'm not really hard pressed about the length.

My example of a perfect feud would be CM Punk vs. Jeff Hardy. Those two guys fit each other like a glove due to their personalities. Slow burn with Punk's inevitable heel turn and despite him being a dick, he spoke with a hint of truth and points about drugs that anyone could agree with. Hardy was almost if not the most popular guy in WWE at that point. Plus, it was the first time I saw Punk as a big-time player in WWE. Now, it didn't have a "perfect" blow-off due to Hardy picking TNA over a WWE return in 2010 but nonetheless an awesome feud.

Not trying to be lazy but as the post above me said, holy fuck did WWE blow it with Ambrose v Wyatt. I still don't know why Wyatt cost Ambrose at HIAC 2014. I mean WWE could've at least done a throwaway backstage segment where Ambrose disrespectfully rejects Wyatt's offer to help take out Rollins. Just give me a fucking reason why the two are feuding (I still don't fucking know). Then, they have a match a month later. Why not stretch it out? Truth be told, that feud could've stretched to WM if WWE wanted it to. But no, this was just another lifeless Wyatt feud where whomever Bray was "terrorizing" walked out of the feud the same way he came in. No character development for Ambrose and no impact made by Bray Wyatt. And he's supposed to be "The New Face of Fear"? BULLSHIT. We could've gotten an awesome Ambrose heel turn out of it :(
 
#5 ·
It depends on the feud really. Austin/Rock lasted for about five years, Cena/Orton has been going on since they debuted really when everyone started comparing them and their career trajectory and some feuds I only want three months of. It really does depend. Some feuds can keep putting on consistently good matches where as with some, three or four feel like enough. There's also feuds like Cena/Rusev where some of the matches I didn't want to see once but we'll try and forget about those.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top