Triple H's WWE Vs. Tony Khan's AEW: Which Is Better?
5. Match Quality
This is a subjective take, but the core objective of professional wrestling - and the barometer of the effective application of crowd psychology - is to make the crowd make noise. Pat Patterson, match layout genius, measured his own success in this regard with a certain catchphrase; if the fans were to "go banana", they went crazy in their response to the way in which the drama was built.
They don't really go banana on Raw, do they?
They mostly sit there like they're respectfully observing a stately procession. Why is that? Technically, a lot of the wrestling on TV is accomplished. A lot of it is very good; Seth Rollins has evolved into the tactical vet role wonderfully, Chad Gable would walk into any fashionable puro league and instantly be one of the best wrestlers in it, and Asuka and IYO SKY have often teased what might be the best women’s match held in the States all year, were Triple H to actually book a singles.
There remains, even post-Vince, a patterned, rote, almost soulless at times quality to it all, even if the old house style doesn't exist in the same way it once did.
AEW is uneven, but amazing and so different at its peak. The controlled, elusive fight feel chaos of Anarchy In The Arena is promoted in parallel with the every-move-has-meaning timeless intricacy of something like Dustin Rhodes Vs. CM Punk. The Trios matches elicit mind-melting doses of adrenaline, and indeed most genres are both accounted for and represented brilliantly.
Something like the strong style war of Chris Jericho Vs. Tomohiro Ishii doesn't happen on WWE TV - and it's a poorer product for it.
Winner: AEW