· NO PAIN!
Not only would it work, I think it's preferable to deemphasize finishers.I am not a fan of Del Rio, for the most part I find him pretty boring, however in his two matches since his return, there is one thing I've liked and that is how he won his matches. He beat Cena with a back stabber and a kick to the face, and beat Neville by stomping him while he was hung up on the turn buckle. Two matches, two different ways of winning, and neither of them seemed to be "finishing moves" (the fact he used the same move to beat Ziggler not withstanding).
What I'm getting at is what if certain wrestlers, not all but those who are talented enough to do so didn't have a real finisher, what if they won matches in on a variety of moves because they have done so much damage that there opponent simply couldn't respond.
How many of you would find it unrealistic for Cesaro to win after a barage of uppercuts? Or Lesnar after several Germans? The list can go on.
I am not suggesting getting rid of finishers, but I think that if the match could end on some normal move, it would add an extra bit of unpredictability and tension.
Having wrestlers win 99% of their matches via their finish has ruined the in ring product. It was so much better when guys won in a variety of ways. Ricky Steamboat never had a real finish, I mean the top rope cross body was kind of his thing but it was never his established finish.
It takes all the suspense out of a match when you know, no matter how devastating a move someone does, if it's not their finish then they won't get a pinfall out of it.
Bryan Danielson used to use a small package and other roll ups regularly in the indy's. He had cattle mutilation but that wasn't always used. He also had the repeated elbows which I thought kicked ass and wish he kept doing them in the WWE.