Deja Vu, Judgement day or Extreme Rules

[Angleslammer]

at judgement day we had:

WHC Edge/Hardy
Title: Batista/Orton
Punk/Umaga
Jericho/Mysterio
Cena/Big Show
and 2 other pretty good matches

at Extreme Rules we'll have:
WHC Edge/Hardy
Title: Batista/Orton
Punk/Umaga
Jericho/Mysterio
Cena/Big Show
and probably 1 or 2 other matches


Now I actually enjoyed Judgement Day and thought the actual in ring work was very entertaining, but i'm curious do people think it's a good idea to have the exact same card on back to back ppv. I know at extreme rules their will be stipulations that make it slightly different but the match ups are the exact same for nearly every match. Does this make judgement day any worse when looking back and should someone be expect to shell out $40 3 weeks later for the exact same matches. i'm torn on the issue, like I said I really enjoyed judgement day (save for orton/batista) and I very much like long built up feuds. However I dont think it's fair for vince and co to expect people to pay for a nearly identical card. What does everyone think, same match ups at extreme rules, good or bad? (And why)

 

[S.O.H.O.O.D]

at judgement day we had:

WHC Edge/Hardy
Title: Batista/Orton
Punk/Umaga
Jericho/Mysterio
Cena/Big Show
and 2 other pretty good matches

at Extreme Rules we'll have:
WHC Edge/Hardy
Title: Batista/Orton
Punk/Umaga
Jericho/Mysterio
Cena/Big Show
and probably 1 or 2 other matches


Now I actually enjoyed Judgement Day and thought the actual in ring work was very entertaining, but i'm curious do people think it's a good idea to have the exact same card on back to back ppv. I know at extreme rules their will be stipulations that make it slightly different but the match ups are the exact same for nearly every match. Does this make judgement day any worse when looking back and should someone be expect to shell out $40 3 weeks later for the exact same matches. i'm torn on the issue, like I said I really enjoyed judgement day (save for orton/batista) and I very much like long built up feuds. However I dont think it's fair for vince and co to expect people to pay for a nearly identical card. What does everyone think, same match ups at extreme rules, good or bad? (And why)

Agreed that the same card with added stips should not be, it does not add anything really and makes JD look like those who ordered it just wasted there money. It is bad IMO. They could have made it much better

What ER could have been :

WWE : Orton vs Batista
WHC & IC : Edge vs Hardy vs Rey vs Jericho (both titles could be on the line in one match perhaps a falls count anywhere fourway deal where whoever scores the first pinfall or makes someone submit will become the IC champ and the 2nd person to do so would be the WHC and that person could be one in the same)
ECW : Christian vs Swagger vs Dreamer
Cena vs Miz
MVP vs Regal
Finlay/Sheamus vs Hart Trilogy
Dark Match (TBK & another tryout partner vs the Colons)

 

[ztwhite]

There will more than likely be a rematch between Christian & Swagger as well, albeit with Tommy Dreamer thrown in.

Could have already been announced, but I don't get to see ECW until Saturday night at the earliest, so not sure.

To comment about your question, this is pretty much what the WWE does all the time. Backlash was simply a rehash of Wrestlemania matches. The only difference this time around will be all the gimmick stipulations.

 

[Planty]

There will more than likely be a rematch between Christian & Swagger as well, albeit with Tommy Dreamer thrown in.

Could have already been announced, but I don't get to see ECW until Saturday night at the earliest, so not sure.

To comment about your question, this is pretty much what the WWE does all the time. Backlash was simply a rehash of Wrestlemania matches. The only difference this time around will be all the gimmick stipulations.

On ECW it was announced the ECW title will be on the line on this week's edition of Superstars. Dreamer vs Christian. So don't be surprised with a Swagger interference to produce a triple threat for ER.

 

[timmy872]

I noticed the same. I think that WWE feels that the matches will now have different angles on them now that we have an Extreme Rules name to go by. I like the idea to be honest. WWE is taking an established products that have been done once and show that they can put a freshness on any match. It also shows how much people will pay to watch the same matches but with a different stipulation.

John Cena vs. The Big Show
Submisson Match
When have we ever or did we ever think we would see either of these guys in a Submission match, better yet when WAS the last submission match? I think that it is a great idea.

Jeff Hardy vs. Edge
Ladder Match
World Championship.
Who wouldn't want to see this? These two are probably the two of the biggest innovators in the business today, can't wait to see what they have in store for us. Surely this has a good pick to be Jeff's last match if he lets his contract expire? Jeff wins perhaps, Matt comes out and destroys him and "Puts him out." The title is vacated and Smackdown starts a championship tourny that ends at The Bash

Batista vs. Randy Orton
WWE Title.
Steel Cage.
This WILL be the defining match between the two lights in the eyes of Evolution. It will be classic as much as I do dislike Batista chasing, he is good at it.

CM Punk vs. Umaga
Samoan Strap match.
Something new, we can't judge yet. Punk plays a good underdog.

Rey Mysterio vs. Chris Jericho
No Holds Barred.
This has potential, but this will be focused I Imagine on Jericho trying to unmask Rey.

I think we will have Christian vs. Tommy Dreamer in an Extreme Rules match.

Thats my opinion, but we might see a Tag title match, I hope so.

 

[brian_horse]

The problem I have with this PPV is that there seems to be very little reason for the stipulations.

They just throw these matches together for the sake of it. Even a few weeks build up with a logical story leading to the gimmic would make this much better.

 

[Black Snow]

On one hand I do agree that they could have produced a little more variety. Someone mentioned merging two feuds into Edge vs. Jeff vs. Jericho vs. Rey. I'll go the other way and say they should have done Orton vs. Batista vs. Show vs Cena but not in a cage because that would have been too confining. I hate seeing Cena get so many PPV title shots but at least with four guys in the ring there could have been enough shenanigans to make the overall match more entertaining.

That being said, who doesn't want to see more Jericho vs. Rey or Swagger vs. Christian? If those matches were awesome the first time there's no reason to think they'll be any worse the second time. It's only a problem when they redux a match I hated the first time. Cena vs. Show in a friggin' submission match sounds all kinds of awful. I'm still shocked that Vickie didn't make her 3,851st Last Man Standing match.

 

[IamRage]

Judgement Day was good, its been a while since they had a great ppv. But seeing how solid it was, the feuds are fairly new still, it could be much better than JD. They gotta try 2 top themselves at least a little, plus ER is a spotfest anyway. Im watchin.

 

[mrstlouis]

Agreed that the same card with added stips should not be, it does not add anything really and makes JD look like those who ordered it just wasted there money. It is bad IMO. They could have made it much better

What ER could have been :

WWE : Orton vs Batista
WHC & IC : Edge vs Hardy vs Rey vs Jericho (both titles could be on the line in one match perhaps a falls count anywhere fourway deal where whoever scores the first pinfall or makes someone submit will become the IC champ and the 2nd person to do so would be the WHC and that person could be one in the same)
ECW : Christian vs Swagger vs Dreamer
Cena vs Miz
MVP vs Regal
Finlay/Sheamus vs Hart Trilogy
Dark Match (TBK & another tryout partner vs the Colons)

no it will not be a wasted money to buy this ppv . you most be new school fan because i grew up watching PPV's in 80's & we always had the the same matches on ppv for a year . it is what we call feuds. you suppose ot have the same match ups for 4 ppvs with just different stipulations . you suppose to have stipulations matches after the first one on one match on ppv for the feud. a feud is suppose to last 6 months not a month ,not 2 months. this ppv is called extreme rules & it has been a stipulations ppv for the last 4 years . Edge vs Hardy vs Rey vs Jericho would not work for stipulations ppv like this , also rey is ic champ & needs to defend it against jericho not be in a WHC & IC in the same . that is just stupid.Cena vs Miz,MVP vs Regal &
Finlay/Sheamus vs Hart Trilogy do not belong on extreme rules because for one no one on one ppv matches have happen for these feuds so they do not belong at all . you first have to have a one on one match on ppv to have a stipulation match at the next ppv . that is RULES of pro-wrestling .
it seems you don't understand how feuds work.

 

[Sivsyboi]

This show needs a tag team gimmick match! I'm sorry but gimme HIAC, TLC, MITB. I'm happy, but one of my fave matches in recent years is WGTT vs Hardy's in a ladder match. Gimmicks are done best with tag teams. Hell, I was watchin TNA epics last Friday and watched Triple X vs AMW (I think) in a cage match. I loved it. Watching that hurracanrana off of the cage (Hell yeah!)

Anyway, if there's a tag match PLEASE let it be a 15 minutes of fame. I remember the Miz+Morrison vs Wang Yang+Moore on ECW. It was great!

 

[mrstlouis]

The problem I have with this PPV is that there seems to be very little reason for the stipulations.

They just throw these matches together for the sake of it. Even a few weeks build up with a logical story leading to the gimmic would make this much better.

what are you talking about their are many reasons for these stipulations. one the ppv is called extreme rules & is stipulations ppv & has been for last 4 years to 5 years .2 they have had build up for these matches. it started before last ppv & continue threw judgement day with one on one matches then they are suppose to have stipulations matches like this at the next ppv . it is what we called feuds or do you know what a feud is or how it works because you seem not to. so they did not throw these matches together for the sake of it. because all these feuds started after backlash not after judgement day.

 

[S.O.H.O.O.D]

no it will not be a wasted money to buy this ppv . you most be new school fan because i grew up watching PPV's in 80's & we always had the the same matches on ppv for a year . it is what we call feuds. you suppose ot have the same match ups for 4 ppvs with just different stipulations . you suppose to have stipulations matches after the first one on one match on ppv for the feud. a feud is suppose to last 6 months not a month ,not 2 months. this ppv is called extreme rules & it has been a stipulations ppv for the last 4 years . Edge vs Hardy vs Rey vs Jericho would not work for stipulations ppv like this , also rey is ic champ & needs to defend it against jericho not be in a WHC & IC in the same . that is just stupid.Cena vs Miz,MVP vs Regal &
Finlay/Sheamus vs Hart Trilogy do not belong on extreme rules because for one no one on one ppv matches have happen for these feuds so they do not belong at all . you first have to have a one on one match on ppv to have a stipulation match at the next ppv . that is RULES of pro-wrestling .
it seems you don't understand how feuds work.

I have been watching Wrestling since the 80's as well.

And Hardy vs Hardy at WM25 certainly broke the rule you spoke of. But usually yes this is an unspoken rule however seeing as the PPV has a theme which requires a stip for every match so it doesn't matter whether there has been a previous match or not. We could have had a Regal-MVP match this upcoming week on RAW to help build for that if needed.

Edge vs Hardy vs Rey vs Jericho actually now that I think of it could have been a great TLC match. Edge/Jericho is starting to build for SS so getting them in a match now to continue to build it slowly would work well and coming out of the PPV we could get Rey vs Chris at The Bash for the IC title again. Besides who wouldn't want to watch these 4 great wrestlers work a program together ?

Wrestling nowadays doesn't have hardly any 6 month long feuds, do you think buyrates would be that great if we saw the same matchup of 2 stars every PPV over 6 months regardless of the stip ? That doesn't work well anymore for the most part.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

at judgement day we had:

WHC Edge/Hardy
Title: Batista/Orton
Punk/Umaga
Jericho/Mysterio
Cena/Big Show
and 2 other pretty good matches

at Extreme Rules we'll have:
WHC Edge/Hardy
Title: Batista/Orton
Punk/Umaga
Jericho/Mysterio
Cena/Big Show
and probably 1 or 2 other matches


Now I actually enjoyed Judgement Day and thought the actual in ring work was very entertaining, but i'm curious do people think it's a good idea to have the exact same card on back to back ppv. I know at extreme rules their will be stipulations that make it slightly different but the match ups are the exact same for nearly every match. Does this make judgement day any worse when looking back and should someone be expect to shell out $40 3 weeks later for the exact same matches. i'm torn on the issue, like I said I really enjoyed judgement day (save for orton/batista) and I very much like long built up feuds. However I dont think it's fair for vince and co to expect people to pay for a nearly identical card. What does everyone think, same match ups at extreme rules, good or bad? (And why)

I think it is an absolutely horrendous idea and this is one of many reasons in that my interest in today's wrestling is near all-time low levels. I've become very bored with feuds that tend to drag. I'm surprised just now people are picking up on this ... but it's better late than never, I suppose.

The routine is usually two superstars fighting at one PPV.

Then, the next one, the same two superstars are involved in a Specialty Match.

Then, the PPV after that is a different Specialty Match. Then, that usually ends the feud and they repeat the process with two more superstars.

Obviously, it's done to milk the most dollars out of a feud possible, however the problem is that I feel this formula is stale ... and gives the impression that feuds tend to drag. So, why pay $45 for feuds that just tend to drag and drag, with nothing really spectacular added to the mix, and which you can most likely predict the outcome anyway?

Case and point was Bobby Lashley feuding with Vince McMahon.

Vince had Umaga feud with Lashley at Wrestlemania 24.

Then, Vince, Shane, and Umaga fought Lashley 3 on 1 at Backlash.

Then, Vince, Shane, and Umaga fought Lashley again 3 on 1 at Judgment Day.

Then, Vince, Shane, and Umaga fought Lashley again 3 on 1 at Extreme Rules.


It is a combination of laziness and trying to get the most dollars out of a feud. However, when you are paying $45 a pop, people begin waking up and paying more attention to the process, I suppose.

So, no, it is a terrible idea, and yes, I feel they need to greatly alter this strategy. Even if it means coming back and doing a previous feud over again, several months down the road ... as opposed to having the same two superstars wrestle consecutively on PPV three months in a row, one after another, like they have been doing.

no it will not be a wasted money to buy this ppv . you most be new school fan because i grew up watching PPV's in 80's & we always had the the same matches on ppv for a year .

An entire year??? Not from what I remember.

Can you list examples of back in the old days when there were 4 PPVs, when the same two superstars fought each other for a year? Yes, wrestlers fought each other on the House Show circuit repetitively, but I don't recall this being a normal practice for their PPV's.

I'm going to take one year, that I am pulling off the top of my head at random. Let's look at 1990, which is the year I first started watching wrestling.

The main feuds at the time were:


1) Royal Rumble- Hulk Hogan was feuding with Mr. Perfect, and these two were the last two in the ring at the Rumble.

2) Wrestlemania 6- Hulk Hogan vs Ultimate Warrior

3) Summerslam- Hulk Hogan vs Earthquake and Ultimate Warrior vs Rick Rude

4) Survivor Series- Hulk Hogan continued his feud with Earthquake and Ultimate Warrior fought with Mr. Perfect and The Perfect Team.


So that is hardly feuding for a year. And even in the Hulk Hogan/Earthquake example, they still weren't fighting on PPV every single month from August until November .... which I think is the big difference.


For fun, let's look at 1991, as well.


Royal Rumble- Hulk Hogan finished his feud with Earthquake in the Rumble. They were the last two in the ring. I give WWE a pass on this, as it wasn't the same as these two feuding in regular singles matches. Ultimate Warrior vs Sgt. Slaughter.

Wrestlemania 7- Hulk Hogan vs Sgt. Slaughter ... Ultimate Warrior vs Macho King Randy Savage

Summerslam- Hulk Hogan and Ultimate Warrior vs Sgt. Slaughter, Colonel Mustafa, and General Adnan to end the push of the Triangle of Terror.

Survivor Series- Hulk Hogan vs Undertaker.


So where as feuds did occasionally last several months, and in some cases longer than what we see today ... the big difference is that they weren't selling them on PPV each and EVERY month like today ... which I think makes all the difference.

it is what we call feuds. you suppose ot have the same match ups for 4 ppvs with just different stipulations . you suppose to have stipulations matches after the first one on one match on ppv for the feud.

Supposed to have feuds last 4 months? Says who? As we've seen over the years, things change. I thought ringside managers were SUPPOSED to play a part in the business. I thought we were SUPPOSED to have face/heel broadcast teams. I thought we were SUPPOSED to have a prominently featured midcard and tag team division. All of those things went out the window, with Vince's NEW VISION for WWE. So, things change. And sadly, in many cases, not for the better.

This is one of the things that needs changing, in my opinion.

a feud is suppose to last 6 months not a month ,not 2 months.

Is that written in stone somewhere for eternity?

it seems you don't understand how feuds work.

I think he understands perfectly how feuds work. I think he, like others, is just tired of how the feuds have worked up to this point, and is tired of seeing them drag on for 3,4,5 months on one PPV after another. I feel the same way.

 

[Lt 0reo]

I don't really like how most of the matches are rematches of Judgement Day but all the matches exept for Orton/'Tista & Cena/Show which ironically where the Raw matches of the night were good but, they all are gimmick matches so they should be different. I don't really get how a submission match is exterme but hopefully the match at Extreme Rules will be better.

 

[Adel_hamra]

having the same card for 2 ppvs in a row and not having any title change will suck so i hope that on ER, the titles change hand and big show finally beats cena(if cena locks the stfon big show, i'll shoot myself)...i hope umaga changes his mind and tries to wint the MITB ormaybe have punk cash it in and loose his chance

 

[Total Impact]

The WWE just got lazy on this one. They do this every year with certain PPV's as usually Backlash is just Wrestlemania matches again and Extreme Rules is matches from the previous PPV, but with stips added to it. It's just the WWE being lazy.

 

[brian_horse]

what are you talking about their are many reasons for these stipulations. one the ppv is called extreme rules & is stipulations ppv & has been for last 4 years to 5 years .2 they have had build up for these matches. it started before last ppv & continue threw judgement day with one on one matches then they are suppose to have stipulations matches like this at the next ppv . it is what we called feuds or do you know what a feud is or how it works because you seem not to. so they did not throw these matches together for the sake of it. because all these feuds started after backlash not after judgement day.

You misunderstood what I was getting at.

I understand that this PPV is extreme rules exclusive, but it doesn't excuse just throwing a random gimmic at a match.

Where was the build up for Cena vs. Big Show to be a submission match? Is the fact that they are fueding a good enough reason to have a submission match?

I'll take a story leading up to the gimmic every time.

 

[S.O.H.O.O.D]

You misunderstood what I was getting at.

I understand that this PPV is extreme rules exclusive, but it doesn't excuse just throwing a random gimmic at a match.

Where was the build up for Cena vs. Big Show to be a submission match? Is the fact that they are fueding a good enough reason to have a submission match?

I'll take a story leading up to the gimmic every time.

Well the fact that Cena couldn't put the STF on Show was the build...the match was made because it "seemingly" is a match Cena can't win.

 

[pyrusane]

no it will not be a wasted money to buy this ppv . you most be new school fan because i grew up watching PPV's in 80's & we always had the the same matches on ppv for a year .

Oh look, one of my favorite posters. Lord Sidious already did an excellent job rebutting this, but I want to have a go at it myself.

I grew up watching wrestling in the 80s as well. I think this makes me qualified to speak to your points. And no, we didn't have the same matches on PPV for a year. Lord Sidious broke down 1990 and 1991 for us, but you mentioned the 80s, so lets look at the 80s.

1988
Royal Rumble - I start here because this was the first year where there was more than one or two PPVs to choose from. Main event was the Rumble of course (not actually on PPV this year, but still...) and there was Steamboat/Rude on the card as well

WM4 - The blowoff to Hogan/Andre, in the main event Savage beats Dibiasi

Summerslam - Main Event is Megapowers/Dibiasi and Andre, this also had Warrior/HTM and Demolition/Hart Foundation

Survivor Series - Team Megapowers/Team Dibiasi

So in 98, Hogan started the year feuding with Andre, the year ended with The MegaPowers feuding with Dibiasi. While the feud stayed fairly consistent, something to note here is that these were the only four PPVs of the year! And RR wasn't even a PPV that year.

1989
RR - Big John Studd wins (huh?) and King Haku fights Harley Race...um, ok

WM5 - Hogan/Savage for the World Title, Warrior/Rude for the IC title

Summerslam - Hogan and Beefcake/Savage and Zeus, Warrior/Rude for the IC title

Survivor Series - This one is interesting. At the time, Hogan was the world champion, Warrior was the IC champion. So the main event? Warrior's team (The Ultimate Warrior, The Rockers (Shawn Michaels and Marty Jannetty ) and Jim Neidhart) vs The Heenan Family (Bobby Heenan, Colossal Connection (André the Giant and Haku) and Arn Anderson). On the undercard - The Hulkamaniacs (Hulk Hogan, Demolition (Ax and Smash) and Jake Roberts) vs Million $ Team (Ted DiBiase, Powers of Pain (The Warlord and The Barbarian) and Zeus). Weird.

it is what we call feuds. you suppose ot have the same match ups for 4 ppvs with just different stipulations . you suppose to have stipulations matches after the first one on one match on ppv for the feud. a feud is suppose to last 6 months not a month ,not 2 months.

Really? I assumed that a feud was supposed to last...well, however long it took to end it. If every single feud were to last exactly six months, then all of the matches until the last one would be pretty pointless, now wouldn't they? And wait a minute...a feud is supposed to last six months, and span four PPVs? Wow, what do those guys do at the other two?

this ppv is called extreme rules & it has been a stipulations ppv for the last 4 years .

Really? Cause last time I checked, this was the first PPV ever called Extreme Rules. Now, if you mean the PPV called One Night Stand for the last four years (2005 - 2008) then OK, but keep in mind that the first two weren't "stipulation" PPVs, they were old-style ECW PPVs, which basically meant every single match was a hardcore match, plain and simple.

Edge vs Hardy vs Rey vs Jericho would not work for stipulations ppv like this , also rey is ic champ & needs to defend it against jericho not be in a WHC & IC in the same . that is just stupid.

Why? Because you don't want to see it? Don't seem to recall seeing your name on the booking committee. Honestly, I really wouldn't be interested in this match either, but that doesn't mean its a stupid idea. You seem to have an over-inflated sense of self importance. Tsk tsk.

Cena vs Miz,MVP vs Regal &
Finlay/Sheamus vs Hart Trilogy do not belong on extreme rules because for one no one on one ppv matches have happen for these feuds so they do not belong at all .

Yeah...at the first One Night Stand half of the matches on the card were from guys who hadn't ben seen on TV in years. And at the second one, the main event was a WHC matchbetween RVD and John Cena, a match that was setup in about three weeks, if I remember correctly, between two guys who had never fought one-on-one before. Your logic, especially for this particular event, is fail.

you first have to have a one on one match on ppv to have a stipulation match at the next ppv . that is RULES of pro-wrestling .
it seems you don't understand how feuds work.

Oh...oh my...oh, that is TOO funny. You actually pulled out the rules of pro wrestling? Dude, the only "rule" of pro wrestling is that we see what Vincent Kennedy McMahon wants to see. My god man, if every single feud in wrestling followed the exact same formula, as you seem to suggest they should, then the product we get would be the most boring show ever!

Long-running feuds like Hogan/Andre or Hogan/Dibiasi worked in the 80s because there were months between PPVs. Hell, prior to 1987 there was only one PPV to be seen and that was WrestleMania. The feuds stayed fresh because the participants never got their hands on each other. Hogan and Andre fought at WM3, then didn't have another match against each other until SNME on Feb. 5, 1988, almost a full year later. So yeah, that feud lasted a long time (much loner than six months, by the way) but consisted of three matches over the course of a year (the third being the rematch at WM4 as part of the title tournament).

WWE gives us six hours of wrestling every week, plus a PPV every month, sometimes two. This is a huge change from the 80s, and one that means that the way feuds are handled has to be different from the way they were in the 80s.

Oh, wait, I remember you from the spinner belt thread. I thought you were trapped in the 90s, not the 80s. My bad.

 

[Angleslammer]

my thoughts were the first post, but in response to year long feuds in the 80's,. yes there was but they were effective because we only had 1 or 2 ppv matches between all of them. It was a different era with only 4 ppvs per year, where as today we have mulitple show per week and in some cases a ppv every 3 weeks!