Back in the day, I used to razz Lindz about her having five finishers. A lot of us did, actually. I guess we all grew up in the world of the WWF, where everyone only had one move that could finish a match. That was realism to us.
But thinking about it more logically... is it realism just to have one finisher?
It would if we assume that all wrestlers are stupid. But really, most characters have a sort of mental acumen to their gimmicks. They're "cerebral assassins" or sometimes bookworms or geeks.
AT the very least, most wrestlers are cognizant, and they will scout ways to counter finishers if there's only one way that a wrestler finishes a match.
However, if a wrestler has more than one way to finish a match, then you can't single in on one way to finish a match. Therefore, multiple finishes are in order.
But how many is too much?
I've read some characters who have like ten or twelve different signature moves and spots that could end matches. That's too many, IMO. I mean, you need to have some kind of heterogeneity for movesets. If everyone has movesets that are longer than War and Peace, then everyone's movesets start to run together. This is part of the problem when it comes to people choosing the same finisher as I noted in my last entry.
There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of moves out there though. So if everyone kept their movesets around say, 15-20 moves and number of finishers down to say, 3-5, then I think we'd be set.