Wrestling Forum banner

Winning a feud

645 Views 5 Replies 6 Participants Last post by  Da Alliance
I guess I don't have a good grasp on how this works. Is there always a clear winner in a feud? How is the winner determined? Is it the one who wins the most matches? To me I tend to think of the feud winner as the one who wins the final match between the two, but I'm sure other people have different opinions on it.
I didn't really start watching wrestling until late 90's/ early 2000's, and I took a few years off so I've missed a lot.
But how do you all determine who the winner is and is there always a clear winner?
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

· I must away and tend to my ravens
12,061 Posts
That's pretty much how it works, personally though, I disagree with the way it's done. I believe that a feud should last for a long time, say 2 or 3 years. For that to happen the matches should be fairly rare and never consecutive, instead the matches between two feuding guys should always be at a slightly higher intensity that most and should steadily pick-up over time. There aren't too many examples of this in recent WWE history because they tend to hotshot things but one example was Maven and Chris Nowinski, because of their history in Tough Enough they always raised their game against each. Not by much since they were usually on Heat but enough to keep the story going. Had they been around longer and made it to IC championship level (that was probably their limit) I think that would've continued in the same vein.
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.