The Dusty Finish

The Dusty Finish. It is usually defined as a screwjob finish preceded by a referee bump, but it has come to represent any kind of screwy finish. As you can tell by the name, it's inexorably linked to da Dweem himself, Dusty Rhodes, but Vince Russo has come to use it as a crutch himself as well. It raises the ire of most Internet wrestling fans, and while wrestling's most recent spike happened during the era when the schmozz finish was at its most prominent, some argue that it's partly what's keeping casuals from flocking back.

Personally, I don't like the Dusty finish all that much, as it can ruin a great wrestling match that deserves a clean finish for hte effort both guys put into it. For examples, please refer to the 4/20 Jericho/Cena match and the Orton/MVP match on the first RAW he appeared on. In shorter matches it's better, but that's like saying getting kicked in the head is preferable to being booted in the nutsac.

Still, there are times when the Dusty finish is applicable, mainly in a feud between two guys in very disparate positions on the card, like the recent Miz/Cena feud. It should usually be employed in cases where the two guys shouldn't be booked together in the first place, for guys that both need protection. It should be sparingly used, maybe once a month AT THE VERY MOST in any given promotion, and it should only be used in a situation where it will make a loss mean something.

Yes, a "loss meaning something". It seems to be clichéd to say that because by definition every loss does mean something - it means you have one in the L column. Beyond that superficiality, there's a difference between John Cena getting a pinfall victory in a tag match over Cody Rhodes and, say, Jack Swagger getting a clean pinfall victory over Cena somewhere down the line in 12-to-18 months. The former loss is insignificant, but the latter one is a star-building moment and something not insignificant for a guy like Cena who doesn't and quite frankly shouldn't be losing a whole lot.

So how would a Dusty finish make losing a match seem important? Well, let's start with an example of the complete opposite. Monday Night RAW, JeriShow taking on MVP and Mark Henry. MVP was down on the mat, and Floyd Mayweather gave him brass knuckles to use against the heel team behind the ref's back. So basically, they pushed the face team, the team that the fans are supposed to get behind in the new "kid-friendly" era of the WWE as cheaters, in a first-time meeting with another team.

How is it done right? Well, rarely. I can't think of a concrete example, just a theoretical one going back to Miz and Cena, where Miz wins a match under dubious conditions and holds it over Cena until the inevitable rematch where Cena wins clean. Still, there are better ways to book a feud like that without messing with the integrity of the matches.

The sad reality of it all is that we've been conditioned to think that the screwjob finish and the swerve and all the other extraenous bullshit is going to happen. Think you're above it because you're "smart" and not a lemming? Think again. It happens to us all. The other day, I was watching Smackdown's main event, the six-man tag where the Hardy Boys reunited, and all I could think was that Matt was just going to waffle Jeff after the match was over. I had to stop and say to myself "Russo isn't booking this crap anymore, Russo isn't booking this crap anymore" and everything turned out okay, but still, the thought runs through my head every time I see a match between two guys who aren't programmed against each other, or every time I see a situation where someone could turn on the other guy, I think that the worst will happen.

All of this stems from the idea that everyone needs to be protected. That idea is ludicrous. Even from the crowd that screams for midcarders to be elevated at a much brisker pace than the WWE is doing it, the individuals among that camp will have their own opinions as to who has worth and who doesn't, and only by sheer chance does any given list from any given person agree with the one that Vince and Co. have in their hands at any given moment. Regardless of whom we think should be protected, there are those who shouldn't get that luxury all the time. Yet, that's what the Dusty finish tries to do, especially when used excessively. When you try to protect everyone, you protect no one. No wins will be seen as legitimate, so who cares about matches each week? No one advances, no one gets put over, it's a cycle of meh.

The art of real protection seems to be lost anymore, or at least only given to a scant few individuals, some of whom need it but some of whom really don't. It involves count-outs, disqualifications, tag team matches of varying participants and time-limit draws among others (The last item coming from a guy who booed every time a time limit was mentioned at Young Lions Cup Night Three might seem funny, but hey, it worked in Rocky, didn't it?). It involves a modicum of creativity in booking without resorting to shenanigans in the leadership positions. It involves thinking things through instead of just sending out Heel X to hit Face Y while the ref isn't looking.

Granted, the WWE has been using some of those methods of creative match booking. There have been a lot of count-outs lately, most of them being intentional because the guy facing Mark Henry just doesn't want to take it anymore, and they've been enforcing the castigo excesivo rule a lot (although using it as a crutch sometimes). Still, the amount of blatant Dusty finishes is a bit disturbing. Don't even get me started on TNA either, since they have the guy the finish would be renamed after booking things right now.

Honestly, I could live with it if it happened rarely and if it happened in a way that made sense and enhanced the story being told rather than just for no reason whatsoever, but truth be told, if I never saw a Dusty finish again, I'd die a happy man.