For the second year in a row TNA present's 2 Lethal Lockdown matches. One being in it's regular slot in their Lockdown PPV and the second one taking place roughly 6 months later. Last year was in No Surrender and this year is in Bound For Glory. I've noticed that even though they are the same match, the atmosphere surrounding the match is different. In most cases a scenario that pits two major stars leads to the Lethal Lockdown match in Lockdown. Such cases like Cage/Tomko, Angle/Cage, Jarrett/Sting Team Flair/Team Hogan and such. To my knowledge feuds don't normally end here and in fact branch off into multiple feuds. This year is a prime example. They tend to resemble WWE's Survivor Series match rather than WCW's War Games due to taking place in the same time every year.
When you look at the two Lethal Lockdown matches that have taken place outside of it's respective PPV, the feud surrounding it seems to be much more personal and more escalated. Last year was The British Invasion, Booker T and Scott Steiner vs 3D and Beer Money, a feud that started before Lockdown and escalated with the World Elite forming and teaming up with MEM.
This year the case is of Fourtune wanting to eliminate EV2 for taking their spots in TNA. We've already seen how personal it's got with AJ Styles and Tommy Dreamer as well as with Mick Foley and Ric Flair. There is much more emotion involved here than any other Lethal Lockdown match.
My question regards the format of Lethal Lockdown. Should TNA keep it as the main event of Lockdown, use it twice a year as it is now or eliminate it from Lockdown to give it a more spontaneous feel and give out a better sense of closure?
I for one, would prefer it outside of Lockdown completely. I'm not a fan of a match being made for the sake of tradition when the match at hand is supposed to end such personal rivalries. It's makes it seem like April is TNA's closing month for feuds by default. I don't like that at all. It's like WWE's current format's for Hell In A Cell and the Elimination Chamber. It takes the air of ending personal conflicts away from it. The only difference here being that Lethal Lockdown has always been fixed.
When you look at the two Lethal Lockdown matches that have taken place outside of it's respective PPV, the feud surrounding it seems to be much more personal and more escalated. Last year was The British Invasion, Booker T and Scott Steiner vs 3D and Beer Money, a feud that started before Lockdown and escalated with the World Elite forming and teaming up with MEM.
This year the case is of Fourtune wanting to eliminate EV2 for taking their spots in TNA. We've already seen how personal it's got with AJ Styles and Tommy Dreamer as well as with Mick Foley and Ric Flair. There is much more emotion involved here than any other Lethal Lockdown match.
My question regards the format of Lethal Lockdown. Should TNA keep it as the main event of Lockdown, use it twice a year as it is now or eliminate it from Lockdown to give it a more spontaneous feel and give out a better sense of closure?
I for one, would prefer it outside of Lockdown completely. I'm not a fan of a match being made for the sake of tradition when the match at hand is supposed to end such personal rivalries. It's makes it seem like April is TNA's closing month for feuds by default. I don't like that at all. It's like WWE's current format's for Hell In A Cell and the Elimination Chamber. It takes the air of ending personal conflicts away from it. The only difference here being that Lethal Lockdown has always been fixed.
