What Makes A Great Match: Storytelling or Wrestling?

Storytelling, that doesn't necessarily mean a long running feud/angle, but rather a story that develops within the actual match and is accentuated through the moves/holds.

Things like student v teacher, veteran challenger v rookie champion (or vice versa), a blood feud, chickenshit heel v dominating/powerhouse challenger are all examples of classic in-ring stories.

Without a story, the match is just a collection of moves. Now this isn't to say that every match needs to be a drawn out storytelling epic...because opening matches and undercard matches obviously have to deviate from that aspect due to their card positioning and their role in terms of providing flow to the PPV.

Character work plays a huge part in telling a story in the ring, heels should wrestle like heels: choking the opponent, closed fist punches, stalling, pulling hair, hiding behind the ref to open up a sucker punch etc. Wrestling is a performance and the main objective is to draw people into the match, and then working the holds/moves which develop that story. Watch Eddie Guerrero for a wrestler who understands the importance of a story in a match, whether he was a babyface, the chickenshit heel in 97 and 2003 or the deranged psychopath in 2005, he wrestled differently under each persona because he understood that his 2003 character needed to rely more on stalling and cheap heel tactics, whereas his 2005 persona relied more on brutality, facial expressions and someone like Mysterio to compliment the character dynamic.

Wrestling is built on a work where wrestlers try to create a story that gets people invested in their matchup, and as a result there needs to be a structure and meaning behind the moves. Ric Flair was pretty much the master of this, whether he wrestled 20 minutes, 30 minutes or whether he went the distance (60 mins and more) he always ensured a structure and meaning went into every aspect of the match:

Step 1: The beginning. He'd play up his character, he'd act, talk and walk like he was better than his opponent and instantly got the fans riled up, especially when he'd do this sctick in front of a smaller regional audience whilst wrestling a hometown hero/rookie. Throughout the beginning, Flair would play a heel-in-peril, basically pinballing and bumping big for everything his opponent threw at him, and throwing in some comedy spots whereby he was made to look amateur/a fool by his opponent. Instantly the sequence of moves have meaning, Flair is getting manhandled because he was cocky, arrogant and not taking his opponent seriously, and moreover this compliments and furthers the eventual story of the match, which centres around how Flair gets back into the match, and whether his inexperienced opponent can turn this advantage into a victory.

Step 2: The Middle. This varied depending on the length and nature of the match Flair worked, but the main nucleus of this section of the match would centre around Flair finally working a transition spot and taking control of the match, whether it be by dirty tactics, a moment of desperation/veteran genius or by some aggressive moves, Flair would take control and then work over his opponent, and again his demeanour and attitude would be far more aggressive compared to his nonchalant attitude in the beginning. This again serves to add a story and character progression in the match, the opponent has successfully made himself look a threat and worried Flair, the moves/earlier sequences had merit in that they built to this moment where Flair would now control the match and the story then became about Flair weakening his opponent and whether the rookie had anything left to give.

Step 3: The Ending. This is where the entire match story has come together, Flair is now desperate/angry and looking to finish the match, and the middle section of the match reinforces his status as 'the champ' and makes him look a threat, but at the same time the beginning of the match where he was outclassed serves to reinforce the message that Flair can be beaten, especially if his natural character traits of arrogance take over and he loses sight of his opponent's ability. The typical Flair ending featured a variety of near falls, usually centred around the rookie countering some of Flair's signature offence, as well as Flair usually trying to play for a draw or breaking out some desperation pin attempts. This usually put over both men, with Flair looking dangerous and someone who could find a way to win, but crucially also looking vulnerable with the viewer being reminded of the beginning of the match where his opponent looked a class above him.

That formula in of itself created a multitude of stories in Flair matches. His character served to build each sequence upon the last, with him usually getting more aggressive later in the match after his arrogance made him get out-wrestled in the beginning. Very rarely did a sequence/spot seem out of place, with the clear structure making the progression in the match obvious and creating a dynamic in the two wrestlers, this was most evident in your typical Windham/Flair match where Windham would dominate the vast majority of the bout and Flair would have to wait for Windham's eagerness/inexperience to cost him and give Flair an opportunity. Again these character traits factored into nearly every major sequence of the match, ensuring that at no point where moves being traded with little thought for their reasoning, and both men wrestled exactly as their characters dictated they should.

Compare that to some matches today, featuring guys like Angle and you can see a clear difference. Angle has basically had the exact same match since 2003, it has its fans for its high octane pacing and spots, but it is very hard for Angle to create a match these days which has any sort of positive afterthought since nye on each of his matches feels like a carbon copy of the last. Transitions, in ring stories are dropped before they can even be explored, and this in part is down to Angle being brought into the business at a later age, rather than working the territories and understanding the nuances of pro-wrestling. Its not his fault per se, but there's a clear difference between Ric Flair/Eddie Guerrero and Kurt Angle, who both represent the dynamic between storytelling and wrestling: Angle is a fine 'wrestler', but in pro-wrestling that natural ability can only get him so far and he fails at the niche aspects such as character work, structure, building to big spots and so on.

Storytelling helps to create a lasting image of a match, its why Windham/Flair matches still get talked about to this day, because the stories in their matches can capture and speak to people regardless of whether they've watched the match before. Matches solely based on wrestling can be great in the short-term, but fail long-term especially when there are wider implications like trying to get a young guy over. The best matches are where storytelling meets wrestling, and whereby you get well wrestled and executed matches but with a clear story that adds to each sequence/section of a match and gives it meaning and depth, instead of turning into a moves exhibition.