If there are too many gimmick matches.... what is the solution?

[mkaisking]

Pretty simple really... It's a commonloy acknowledged fact amongst the IWC that gimmick matches are wheeled out too often with WWE.

For example the Hardy's had 3 matches in their series and none were a straght singles match. I realise this might be a bad example becuase fans probably didnt wanna see a singles match between theese too but you get the point im trying to make.
Fans attention spans seem to be gettin shorter |( i know mine is) but if gimmick matches arent the answer then what is?

A return of old school matches like best 2 out of 3 falls or iron man or submission only?

or are we just resigned to having gimmick matches at most PPV's, which reallly dilutes the importance or relivence of hte upcoming extreme rules PPV but thats another story

 

[Blade]

Despite what TNA think, combining a load of gimmick matches into 1 is NOT the solution.

It's simple, less is more. Gimmick matches should be in moderation. They should be used for a feud blowoff, rather than to keep it going.
I think there's only 3 times a year gimmick matches should be used;
Summerslam feud blowoffs.
No Way Out elimination chamber matches.
One night Stand/ Extreme rules/ Lotsa Weapons N Stuff.

 

[wbuqed]

I think TNA stretching a PPV around a single form of a specialty match is a terrible idea especially when you consider how they've been incorporated in fueds (remember the blindfold cage match a couple years back, and the handcuff/cage match). WWE doing a PPV with a variety of specialty matches this year will backfire because of their desire to stay TV-PG, so you'll get less blood and less options for matches (god forbid they use a deathmatch because of the word death). The sad part is the only fed that can use innovative specialty matches has piss poor wrestling (CZW). Why couldn't the WWE go back to the hardcore title, atleast it gave specialty matches an angle that entertained

 

[shafe_41]

I think TNA stretching a PPV around a single form of a specialty match is a terrible idea especially when you consider how they've been incorporated in fueds (remember the blindfold cage match a couple years back, and the handcuff/cage match). WWE doing a PPV with a variety of specialty matches this year will backfire because of their desire to stay TV-PG, so you'll get less blood and less options for matches (god forbid they use a deathmatch because of the word death). The sad part is the only fed that can use innovative specialty matches has piss poor wrestling (CZW). Why couldn't the WWE go back to the hardcore title, atleast it gave specialty matches an angle that entertained

TNA has NOT faultered because of their Lockdown PPV. It's their 2nd biggest buyrate of the year and to pull off a concept like that and have it be VERY entertaining isn't easy. I was skeptical about it at first too, but the first Lockdown I saw was 07. You argue the blindfold match with Harris/Storm.. well it wasn't awful because of the cage... it was awful because of the blindfolds. It didn't work when Jake and Martel did it at WM7 so why would it work 16 years later? It wouldn't. I dare the haters to go watch Lockdown 07 because they will be entertained beyond belief. (except for the Harris/Storm match) I will say that Lockdown 08 sucked, but that wasn't the cage's fault. The card was just awful. The match that involved handcuffs and such... again...that wasn't the cage's fault... it was the handcuffs. Any gimmick match that is going to limit movement of a performer during a match is going to blow ass. Same goes with the god-awful bullrope matches or any match that involves somebody being tied to somebody else. You are NOT supposed to limit the movements of your performers. It'd be like playing full on 22 man football on a 10 yard field.

Despite what TNA think, combining a load of gimmick matches into 1 is NOT the solution.

It's simple, less is more. Gimmick matches should be in moderation. They should be used for a feud blowoff, rather than to keep it going.
I think there's only 3 times a year gimmick matches should be used;
Summerslam feud blowoffs.
No Way Out elimination chamber matches.
One night Stand/ Extreme rules/ Lotsa Weapons N Stuff.

So you would then vote to abolish the MitB match at WM? Then you want from Unforgiven-No Way Out to all be simple 1-on-1 matches and simple tag team matches? Mid September to Mid Feb. just straight wrestling? No cages? No ladders? No cells? That to me screams boring. That's 5 straight months of stale and ratings plummeting into the toilet. Then 2 of the times you do want gimmick matches run within 3 months of each other?

I do believe the WWE uses some gimmick matches a little too much, but they increase the buyrates generally. Other than the big PPVs that the WWE always did (Survivor Series, Rumble, Mania, and Summerslam), the only PPVs my group of friends and I get are ones that have interesting matches... and gimmicks need to be used to sell those B-rated PPVs. Backlash is understandable and excusable for using some gimmicks because it's the PPV that follows their biggest event of the year in Mania. They need to try to draw viewers because they know their buys will drop hard from their biggest event of the year to a B-rated PPV.

The simpler solution would be to quit running so many damn PPVs, then the gimmick matches will be used in moderation... because the PPVs would only run in moderation. I already threw out my idea for PPVs and getting rid of some of them in another post and I'm not going to go find it. If interested, go search for it. It makes sense so I'll sum it up. Cut the number of PPVs from 12-13 down to 8-10 then space the remaining ones out a little more. Judgement Day, No Mercy, and Armageddon are NOT essential PPVs, but they will continue because Vinnie Mac makes coin from them between PPV buys, ticket sales, and merch at the event.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

The solution would be to have solid storylines, have great matches and THEN...limit the gimmick matches to the blow off of the story. Right now, the gimmick match is losing it's luster because it's been used so much lately.

In the '80's and the '90's, gimmick matches were made for the blow off of the story between two rivals. Stan Hansen/Lex Luger's bullrope match is a great example. The Cage Match with Ron Garvin and Ric Flair, the Dog Collar Match with Piper and Valentine. I could go on. But those matches were special because they were more brutal than a normal match.

These days, people see a gimmick match at EVERY PPV. Really? It's not necessary. We need to see one every so often. My guess is do one at every major WWE PPV. Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Survivor Series. That would bring the luster of the gimmick match back.

 

[Black Snow]

The problem is pacing feuds. It seems like so often today guys will face each other on free TV in singles or many different types of tag matches so that by the time they get to PPV they feel like they need a gimmick in order to keep the feud fresh. They need to get better at having multiple feuds intertwine with one another while not feeling convoluted. That way you can build to a singles match on PPV between the two guys fans actually want to see tie up.

Then, on the other hand, the WWE also likes to have certain feuds play out waaaay too long. I think the majority of us were oversaturated on HHH/Orton even before 'Mania happened. That stems from a refusal to push young guys.

Another problem is the 14 PPVs a year. It's especially an issue this time of year when there are only 3 week in between about 6 PPVs. It's so hard to keep feuds going and make each PPV special that they'd had to resort to themes like extreme rules and every match on the card being for a title.

I believe that each PPV should feature 1 or 2 gimmick matches. No more. No less. That provides variety and lets feuds that have been going on for a few months end.

The WWE needs more feuds like Jericho/HBK. It started out with Jericho as a ref and proceeded through a couple of singles matches, a match with basic hardcore rules and finally a ladder match not to mention multiple encounters on RAW. The feud lasted for half a year and never once felt old and boring.

So that's it. Cut a couple of PPVs and let feuds flow naturally. It's a simple formula yet for some reason it seems to be hard to follow.

 

[BIGJUICYNIPPLES]

i dont belive wwe over uses gimmick matches whatsoever, was Cena vs Edge for the like what 4th time ment to go from TLC match to singles match, ?????? both hardy boyz are great due to gimmick matches, so no shit there gonna have gimmick matches, once again here, you cant go from a extreme rules match to a singles match because fans think wtf?????? wwe should not even be mentioned in the (overuse of gimmick matches) if anyone should it's clearly tna they have ladder matches strecher matches were they use the ladder/stretcher maby once or twice, not only that, TNA think it's EXTRA COOL to put random names on matches like, that smack attack match????????? wtf, having a pogo stick and a plastic santa clause in a match does not make that match INCREDIBLE.

peace

 

[Blade]

So you would then vote to abolish the MitB match at WM? Then you want from Unforgiven-No Way Out to all be simple 1-on-1 matches and simple tag team matches? Mid September to Mid Feb. just straight wrestling? No cages? No ladders? No cells? That to me screams boring. That's 5 straight months of stale and ratings plummeting into the toilet. Then 2 of the times you do want gimmick matches run within 3 months of each other?

For main event feuds, yes that is what I said. From mid 2001 till early 2002 there were absolutley no gimmick matches in the main event.
You can throw in all the gimmicks you want for the midcard, one way or another, people aren't gonna care. It's gonna take something a whole lot better than gimmick matches to save the midcard.

Anyway, back to the main event. You know why WWF/E didn't need gimmick matches from mid 2001 till early 2002? Cause of how good the storylines were. The invasion, Triple H's return, Jericho as the sneaky bastard undisputed champion, nWo's first couple of months. Ratings didn't plummet to the toilet then!

And yeah within 3 months of each other sounds perfect. Plenty of time to build a nice new feud.

 

[supersayian]

this is real simple people it deals with the fact that they don't pair the right wrestlers against each other in feuds. a pefrect example is when they put Kane in a feud with Rey. you never put a big man against the high flyer or athletic wrestlers what ever you want to call them. the feuds have to mesh well with one another. there are exceptions to this. like when a big man like Taker or Umaga is athletic and can sell the moves well. people like Kane and Show can not do this therefore they make the smaller wrestlers look bad in return. yes Gimmick matches are overused but there is times that call for it. the feuds are the diffrence though. WWE needs to go back to old school wrestling like back in the early 90's. fast paced real wrestling looks better and can carry a match longer

 

[Y 2 Jake]

My solution....less gimmick matches.

If you don't offer than as aften then they will be appreciated more. Promote better matches, ones that haven't been seen before and the shows should sell themselves.

 

[Kid A]

i come from the era where gimmick matches were just getting ushered in, i saw the first hell in a cell and have learned of alot of new things like the Elimination Chamber, TLC, and things that werent around when i was watching back then. im a fan of the gimmick match, only because it gets so boring to watch a one on one one fall match. sometimes you need a little spice...

the thing is, its gotten to the point where its so saturated that its like what else could they possibly do. guys like Jeff Hardy or Edge need these matches so watching them in a normal match is boring, its like seeing Charles Manson have a normal conversation, just not entertaining.

what does need to happen is the development of better storylines, angles, etc. if these were all in place and the talent was behind them then we wouldnt need these crazy matches all the time. i mean all alot of the guys in these matches have going for them is the fact that they're willing to do damn near anything...the only thing that even has us watching these PPVs is because you want to see someone get thrown thru a huge light..not Chavo vs The Miz in a one fall match only to have a dq.

i'll never forget the Razor vs HBK ladder match, i wanted every match to be like that, but now that every match basically is, you need something simple...the thing is, it has to be respectable. i see guys like Kofi Kingston having good one fall matches but thats mainly because these guys' characters arent developed to the point that they'd even be thrusted into a gimmick match.

as long as we're not having these weird Doink + 9 little clowns vs Lawler + a bunch of little kings im good, id take bats and tables and knockouts over that type of gimmick anyday