How many matches should PPV events have?

[Dagger Dias]

Thought this would be a good topic, and I hadn't seen any threads on it.

So we all know that each month federations such as WWE and TNA provide a PPV event where they put their wrestlers into matches that are a much bigger deal (or so we are meant to believe) than the ones that we can watch for free on Raw/Smackdown/Impact/etc. Championships, careers, contenderships, and other stipulations might be on the line in these matches. Some PPV's have more matches than others. In this thread I would like to know this....

How many matches should a Pay Per View event have, and why?

Granted, some PPV events such as The Royal Rumble can get away with having fewer matches due to the gimmick match that takes up a large amount of time for the overall show. Also, when I ask how many matches there should be, I am referring to the actual matches that take up more than 1 minute and a half. Anything shorter than that comes off as more of a segment than a match. If a PPV has a gimmick match that takes up a lot of time, then I think 6 matches is more than enough. We only got 4 at the 2011 Royal Rumble, and that felt like a waste of money. A couple of more matches would have helped that show. I mainly count Royal Rumble and Elimination Chamber under this category. The other shows need more than 6.

Then you have the more traditional events that do not have any gimmick matches taking up too much of the time. Six matches or less at these shows, would feel like a waste of my money. I prefer seeing at least 7 matches if I need to spend my hard earned money on this show. No more than 8 or 9 matches though unless it is for Wrestlemania in WWE or Bound For Glory in TNA. 9 matches should be the cap unless it is the biggest show of the year for that federation, and even then it might be pushing it to do 9. You run the risk of having to do short matches when that happens, and those 1 minute long matches are nearly pointless.

What about you guys? Discuss!

 

[P. Nut Butters]

Granted, some PPV events such as The Royal Rumble can get away with having fewer matches due to the gimmick match that takes up a large amount of time for the overall show. Also, when I ask how many matches there should be, I am referring to the actual matches that take up more than 1 minute and a half. Anything shorter than that comes off as more of a segment than a match. If a PPV has a gimmick match that takes up a lot of time, then I think 6 matches is more than enough. We only got 4 at the 2011 Royal Rumble, and that felt like a waste of money. A couple of more matches would have helped that show. I mainly count Royal Rumble and Elimination Chamber under this category. The other shows need more than 6.

Then you have the more traditional events that do not have any gimmick matches taking up too much of the time. Six matches or less at these shows, would feel like a waste of my money. I prefer seeing at least 7 matches if I need to spend my hard earned money on this show. No more than 8 or 9 matches though unless it is for Wrestlemania in WWE or Bound For Glory in TNA. 9 matches should be the cap unless it is the biggest show of the year for that federation, and even then it might be pushing it to do 9. You run the risk of having to do short matches when that happens, and those 1 minute long matches are nearly pointless.

Well it's situationally dependant in every case. I understand what you're saying about getting your money's worth but at the same time not being overloaded with matches. Hindsight is a brilliant thing, but it is what it is.

The two main factors that I personally consider important are:

The event layout
As you touched on, the balance of segments, gimmick bouts and traditional matches. In my book, those short 'segment' matches hold no place on P.P.V except on the odd occassion that it is going to garner a lot of interest towards a future encounter. Often times though, this doesn't turn out being the case.

I think gimmick-loaded PPVs are much too hit and miss. For example, I feel I'd be getting my money's worth with one Hell in a Cell or Elimination Chamber bout at those events. To me, more than one of these 'fancy' gimmick bouts even at their namesake event devalues the event as a whole and my willingness to buy that event the following year. We're paying to see a wrestling show and the wrestling show to me is at it's best when you genuinely want to see Wrestler A and Wrestler B kick each other's asses in said gimmick bout. The concept should be "Wrestler A vs. Wrestler B in a Hell in a Cell", rather than "Hell in a Cell match featuring Wrestler A and Wrestler B".

Also, Taboo Tuesday/Cyber Sunday concept delivered on paper as an interesting idea, but to me, is another example of an over-gimmicked fizz in execution.

Basically, over-gimmicked PPVs steal away from the show because gimmick bouts should have that special "long epic battle" aura reserved for them. Something that's hard to do if you have to book multiple gimmick bouts on one show.

The Build-Up
How good the wrestlers gel, how good the wrestlers are and how emotionally invested they've made me. If you have two guys like The Rock and Steve Austin, they are entertaining, gel very well and can capture a big emotional investment for fans. I would be rivetted for a long Austin/Rock match (as I have been) and would feel short-changed if it were under 10 minutes perhaps because you have become attached to seeing two guys square off and it's over before you can sink your teeth into it.

At the same time, a lot of matches honestly don't have that 'spark' and have a tendancy to loose interest because they run too long. I think ten minutes should be a maximum for most matches on any P.P.V, with exceptions being face-offs between guys like Angle and Benoit or Guerrero and Rey Mysterio, who, (even though their build-up may not have led me to purchase the event), 9-times-out-of-10 can carry a compelling match and give me my money's worth because the pairing is right.

Generally speaking, I would say around about 8 matches on an average PPV card is the right amount. Perhaps 6 if you have a few really fluid, intense battles, but never less than that except for the Royal Rumble.

My last note would be that even your "WrestleMania" should not be crammed with matches. It's WrestleMania and people will be compelled to pay at least some attention to every match because of the nature of the event. Everybody is looking for their opportunity to stand out and so I think over-crowding matches even on super cards is a bad deal.

 

[Larry]

Without getting really deep into the gritty details I think 8 matches is ideal for most PPV's. It allows you to defend more of the titles more frequently, every month for that matter for every belt if you really wanted, and after 8 matches even if they are only decent you still feel like you've got your moneys worth. You can do 6 matches just going through all the titles in WWE at least, and then you've still got room for some big matches without gold on the line to mix it up. I like to see titles defended, and I think it's important to also have matches without titles on the line, so this model works rather well if you ask me. You could even have a champion in a match, but because it's such a personal bitter rivalry(kayfabe) the title isn't up for grabs, the two just want to tear each other apart. And you can do that to make sure you aren't using the belts too much if you fear that being the case at some stage as well.

Maybe you have a gimmick match, but as someone else mentioned above, it's not "A HIAC, featuring wrestler a. and wrestler b." it's Wrestler A and Wrestler B in a Hell in a Cell Match. Even with those on the table I say it should stay at 8 matches. If each match is 20 minutes that's only 2.6 hours and so you can still have some matches slightly longer than others. I think it would help tone down time restraints if you didn't have to watch 10 minute videos prior to every match as well, cut the damn promo packages down to just a minute or two, a very brief, quick recap of the feud, and not in video form. Have an actual interviewer backstage like they used to do with Todd Pettengill, Doc Hendrix, and at one time Gene Okerlund. Introduce the match and explain some of the heat between the wrestlers like they used to do, maybe have a word with one of them or both of them before the match, and let it then be underway. You could do that in half the time you take to run these shitty video packages and be far more effective at getting the crowd into the match.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Totally situation. As you already touched on, the Royal Rumble can get away with only booking 3-4 matches because it has an hour-plus main event. The Elimination Chamber can get away with 4-5 matches for a similar reason. And when it comes to WrestleMania you're going to have more simply because of the extra hour. All obvious points.

As for the rest of the "normal" PPV events, I don't honestly know if there's a "right" or "wrong" amount of matches to be held. As a consumer you want to feel like you're getting your monies worth, but MORE doesn't always equal BETTER. For instance, this year's WrestleMania looks to have fewer bouts than its predecessor, but has all the potential to be 10x better. Some of the first few Mania's had more than 10 matches, all under 3 minutes long. So it really depends on the era, the style of the company, and of course the limitations of the actual event.

Most Ring of Honor guys can go 15-20 minutes and put on solid bouts. TNA pushes that limit from time to time. It's more rare to see, but some WWE PPVs do feature 20 minute matches... As long as I am entertained and feel like I got what I paid for, I'll be a happy customer. Often times WWE lacks in building up stories for anything but one or two matches on the card, so they fill in MORE to boost sales. When you're paying for a 3 hour PPV and 2 hours of it is just there for the sake of being there, it doesn't really add to the QUALITY of the event. I'd almost prefer, if creative isn't going to spend the time to make me interested in the undercard matches, that they scrap half of them and give more time to CM Punk, John Cena, Daniel Bryan, etc.

To actually answer the question, and if we're talking about a WWE PPV in the modern ere that is NOT Mania, the Rumble, or Elimination Chamber...

20 minute main event - ex: CM Punk vs Chris Jericho for the WWE Championship
+10 minutes for promo and entrances

20 minute secondary main event - ex: John Cena vs Kane
+10 minutes for promo and entrances

15 minute tertiary main event - ex: Daniel Bryan vs Mark Henry vs Sheamus for the World Championship
+10 minutes for promo and entrances

15 minute midcard event - ex: Dolph Ziggler vs Santino for the US CHampionship
+6 minutes for promo and entrances

15 minute midcard event - ex: Cody Rhodes vs Goldust for the IC Championship
+6 minutes for promo and entrances

20 minutes for intro, backstage segments, etc.

7 minute undercard event - ex: Justin Gabriel vs Jack Swagger
+3 minutes for entrances

5 minute Diva event - ex: Eve vs Beth Phoenix
+5 minutes for promo and entrances

If my match is correct I just outlined a 7-match PPV that allows a few minutes of breathing room for more promos, a match over-run or emergencies. You never want the WWE to feel like they're in a time crunch, or bad things happen (like Brodus Clay getting delayed two months and stuck with the Funkasaurus gimmick). I'd rather see every match given time to grow and tell a story, rather than cram in two more matches for the hell of it and lessen the quality of the product. I realize this doesn't help the WWE get their less important names out there, but it also creates a more competitive atmosphere, where talents actually have to work to make it on a PPV card. It's not too ridiculous to ask creative to come up with 6 or 7 good stories to play off of in a month, especially since most of them end up being recycled anyways...

LONG story short, give me fewer matches and a better build. I think 6 or 7 in three hours is perfect, and they really shouldn't need much more than that if they're telling decent stories at the same time.

 

[Tastycles]

It totally depends on what you have on the card, what the selling point of the show is and what your audience typically go for. It's like asking "how long should a film be?" If you have an audience full of Gelgarins, then you would probably only need 2 3-fall matches on the card. If you had an audience of Attitude Era fans, you'd need about 12 with 10 of them being hardcore matches and one of them being a Diva's dressing gown match or something.

At present, the audience is generally somewhere in between those extremes, so the number of matches should be about 7 or 8, generally speaking. That's not really what's important though. A PPV isn't about ticking boxes, it's about making people feel they have their money's worth. The Royal Rumble typically only has 5 matches, but people rarely feel short changed by it. A PPV is first and foremost about settling feuds, giving decent matches and making the audience feel that they are being treated to something above and beyond an episode of television. That could mean 10 short matches, or 2 long ones. There's no guaranteed formula.