Oversaturating the market: Gimmick matches

[LSN80]

Between Raw and Smackdown this week, we've had the announcement of 3 gimmick matches for the following week's shows. John Morrison will face The Miz for the WWE Chamopionship in a Falls Count Anywhere Match. Rey Mysterio will face Alberto Del Rio in a 2 out of 3 falls match. Finally, Kane will get his return match against Edge for the World Heavyweight Championship in a Last Man Standing Match. It's too much, frankly, and on free Tv at that.

Deon't get me wrong, I love gimmick matches. They have their time and place and are beautiful vehicles to end feuds. The problem is, stipulation matches don't mean much anymore given how often WWE uses them. For example, did adding the Falls Count Anywhere stipulation make that Miz/Morrison match any more appealing? It's like WWE just adds gimmick matches out of habit even though there's no benefit. Almost every PPV save Wrestlemania is a gimmick in and of itself, as they've replaced the standard PPV's. It won't happen, but the benefit of pulling back on gimmick matches and PPV's over the long run is tremendous because after a few years of being stingy with adding stops, they'd mean something again. As of right now, they seem to just be there for the purpose of pushing the PPV, or spicing up a normal match.

Am I off base here? Or....

Does the elevated amount of gimmick matches help the current product?

Or does it de-value the meaning of said match due to larger number of gimmick matches we're currently receiving as a result?

How would you like to see gimmick matches used within the WWE product in 2011?

Have fun.

 

[SFC]

I don't think gimmicks diminish any matches unless they're overused on one night, i.e. MITB or TLC. They're special occasions, save them for it. Otherwise you start repeating similar bumps. Sometimes it's the one-on-one's that just keep the match pure.

With that being said, I do believe there needs to be some "fresh" gimmick added. If I'm not mistaken (which I may be so feel free to correct me), the last major new gimmick match the WWE did was the Punjabi Prison, which was really lackluster at best. I anxiously hope for War Games to make its return personally...

 

[adibr]

Well, i just want to answer a quick short one. I think Maybe WWE are giving signs that they might go back to TV 14 by presenting more gimmick matches. Personally, im a fan of gimmick matches as i like weapons and being innovative with the environment but they are over-doing it. Its a good idea, but not cramp it all in one week. So it has its ups and downs. Its also great entertainment for me (Y)

 

[Ultra Awesome]

To the first question: Yup. Gimmick matches have always been something that many would o-so gladly want to watch. People would gladly want to see say, a TLC match over a regular singles match. Perhaps either because people would find the singles match [more] boring or simply because they just find a TLC match to be much more exciting--whatever the reason, a gimmick match has and always will hold prestiege that makes people want to see it no matter what the case.

However, as it is with wrestlers, the same thing applies to the types of matches. And that is over-exposure. While it may be nice to see a gimmick match every now and then; if they have the same gimmick match being repeated over and over and over again, then quite frankly, people will start to get bored of it. No one wants to see the same thing multiple times and gimmick matches are no exceptions. Sure, they may be fun to watch--but to see a Steel Cage Match week-in and week-out would be down right boring. Case and Point: gimmick matches are fun to watch so long as we aren't over-exposed to the same type of match very often.

With that said, I think the way the WWE has things panned down is fine. Although I would say that for the gimmick PPV's that they have, that they drop Fatal 4 Way and drop Money In The Bank. Fatal 4 Way was a horrible idea from the start and Money In the Bank belongs soley at Wrestlemania--it should not be in it's own PPV. But other than that, I think everything is fine.

 

[JGlass]

I think the WWE should cut gimmick matches out of free television completely. Make legal chair shots something you have to pay for, make 2 out of 3 fall matches the pinnacle of a feud, and make ladders something you only see on PPVs.

That said, gimmick matches are just fine with me, just don't overdo them. PPVs like TLC and Extreme Rules should have all gimmick matches, but there should be a variety. At TLC there should be one TLC match, two tables matches, one ladders match, and a chairs match. At Extreme Rules there should be one tables match, one falls count anywhere match, one last man standing match, etc. At other PPVs there should be one or two gimmick matches, but they should be saved for feuds that are nearing their end.

 

[TUFFY54]

I don't know if it's oversaturation, or simply a lack of drama. Hell in the cell is the best example. This year we had two hell in the cell matches, which wasn't to many. However, they ment nothing. The match is worthless when after the September PPV, you automatically know who will be in hell in the cell based on the current feuds. Hell in the cell isn't about being the theme for the next PPV. It's about settling a blood feud that has no other options. I remember when two guys had been feuding for months in an all out war before they had a hell in the cell match. When it was anounced you got goosebumps because you knew that you were about to see some shit. Knowing that it's comming takes all the emotion out of it.

 

[Tech N9ne]

I love gimmick matches. But I think too much of certain things aren't necessarily good. I think they (WWE) are doing far less gimmick matches than they used to. With that being said, I think when there are too many gimmick matches, it takes away from what the gimmick matches are supposed to bring to a feud or angle. It is supposed to be an angle to escalate or end a feud.

I think the gimmick PPV's are a bad idea. Or at least the ones WWE is using now for gimmick PPVs are not great. The Money In The Bank should be strictly a match at Wrestlemania. Hell In A Cell is just not a good idea to me. I think Hell In A Cell has been watered down. TLC isn't necessarily a bad idea. Since there aren't many table or ladder matches in WWE anymore this seems like a decent idea to go "Hardcore" or "Extreme" for a night.

The one Gimmick PPV that I would be pissed if WWE removed is Elimination Chamber. I think that is the one that is best. It is right before the biggest PPV in the industry and it never really fails to deliver. No other companies use this match and WWE waits till only this PPV to use it. So it stays fresh in my opinion and I look forward to it.

So overall, I think in 2011 WWE should treat gimmick matches the same way they did in 2010. Use them scarcely and for meaningful moments within a feud and what not.

Also, I think just a couple things should be changed. They should drop a couple of the PPVs. Fatal 4-Way should be dropped, Hell In A Cell should go and Money In The Bank should be dropped. I would keep Elimination Chamber around and also TLC.

 

[roethlisberger78]

Well I will agree that the gimmick pay per views are a waste for the most part. That being said what the E is doing this week is all for a reason.

1. Miz can't lose yet, but they don't want a newly pushed Morrison to look week. So falls count anywhere can have Morrison lose cheaply and he stays strong and Miz gains heat.

2. The two out of three falls match will end their feud and more than likely Del Rio will get this win kinda like Rey passing the torch to the new big Mexican.

3. The last man standing match will end in a draw setting up their return match at the Rumble. I see outside involvement in this also. Maybe nexus or this is way out there a returning undertaker or just a tease of him.

So just some guesses for this week. To answer the question though I do like gimmick matches when used right just sometimes you can read right though it's purpose..

 

[doorag]

I miss WCW and ECW. WWE had to take their programming more seriously due to competition and it seems that they are throwing anything and everything out to see if it draws ratings. They need to go back to the 80's and repeat some of the things that made them successful. Managers to get heat. 3 month programs that build up to a great finish at Pay Per Views and less gimmick matches. Pay Per Views set up with nothing but gimmick matches get extremely boring. Do we really want to see 4 Elimination Chamber matches in a row? Do you look forward to the 5th cage match of the night? WWE needs to study their history and reapply some of the things that worked without all the gimmicks.

 

[chapman_001]

I remember i think it was Armageddon in 2000, with the 6 man HIAC match, being glued to every second of it because of the relative rarity of the gimmick match then, and not knowing what was going to happen next. While hell in a cell matches in particular arent used very often still, I think the number of gimmick matches in general have taken alot of the excitement even when the match is first announced on Raw or SD; would it really get you as excited anymore if on Smackdown it was announced that there was going to be a 6 man Hell in a Cell match at the next PPV? I personally dont think that it would.

I agree that gimmick matches are being overused, and I think that the main problem is that because of the sheer numbers of these matches now, there arent very many ways which a match can end which could be described as 'unexpected' or 'shocking' anymore.

A few examples are this IMO are the Dolph Ziggler ladder match and Miz vs. Orton tables match recently, which both had great, interesting endings, but which both in my opinion would have been elevated much more if both ladder and table matches were used more sparingly, which would have made the two endings not only interesting but much more unexpected as well.

For me the only way to bring this excitement back would be to reduce the number of gimmick matches quite a bit all across the board, starting with getting rid of the Fatal 4 way and Money in the Bank PPVs.

 

[richunclescrooge]

Does the elevated amount of gimmick matches help the current product?

Short term yes, long term no. Adding gimmick matches may get a few last minute PPV buys but it does not compare to what revenue there could be if those people became long time fans instead of flashes in the pan.

Or does it de-value the meaning of said match due to larger number of gimmick matches we're currently receiving as a result?

Definitely. Gimmick matches don't mean anything when they're used in excess. Over use is ABuse. Gimmick matches should be used to end feuds, lesser ones (No DQ, etc.) to keep feuds hot towards the end, and maybe spice things up OCCASIONALLY (like battle royals). The worst thing done with gimmick matches is to make entire PPVs out of them, take TLC for example (which was still a good PPV regardless). We saw a TLC match, a chairs match, 2 ladder matches, and 2 tables matches. Although it was done well, it did not mean as much as it could have. The big difference is with the TLC PPV is that the matches had tables ladders and chairs.......just because. Not because the opponents were so heated at eachother that they needed to fight in a more barbaric fashion, but because its that time of year again. It's fine to do it with the Royal Rumble and much better when Money in the Bank was strictly a Wrestlemania draw, and even Survivor Series to a lesser extent. Now we have Elimination Chamber, Money in the Bank, TLC, Hell in a Cell, Extreme Rules, Fatal 4 Way, and to lesser extents Bragging Rights and Night of Champions. It really stems from lazy booking, complacency and predictability. Elimination Chamber right before Mania is just a way for creative to fix the messed up storylines for Mania that they should have had set in motion months before! And don't even get me started on the fact that the same gimmick match done more that once in a night is absurd!

How would you like to see gimmick matches used within the WWE product in 2011?

Less often. Also used to fit the right people in it (ie: Edge/Christian in a TLC, Swagger/Masters/Cena/Ziggler/anyone with a well known hold in a Submission match, etc.), and only when it matters. You could start a feud with 2 guys and have their first match be a TLC in a cage with flaming barbed wire and explosives, and yeah, it would probably be an entertaining match, but the guys at that point would have no reason to want to go to those lengths to fight eachother, and more importantly, once you do that match, where do you go from there?

In closing, the gimmick matches should not be oversaturated, it makes them less special and mundane. There should be a build up to a cage, or weapons, or anything like that. Some matches have to be standard wrestling contests to make the others stand out more. When every match is a gimmick match, how do you top it? ECW didn't know either.

 

[Wrestling Free Thinker]

Here is a neat fact about the WWE Championship and Gimmick matches.

The LAST TIME the WWE title changed hands in a regular ONE ON ONE match outside of Wrestlemania 26 (and the money in the bank cash in of Miz because I mean both guys start in the ring and wrestle, basic same idea when Batista beat Cena for the title at Elimination Chamber 2010) was ROYAL RUMBLE 2006 for god's sake when Cena beat Edge.

Since that day it's only changed hands TWICE in a regular one on one match. At Rumble 06 and WM 26. That is RIDICULOUS.

 

[ccotreau1]

For gimmick matches like the Falls Count Anywhere, Last Man Standing and 2 out of 3 falls, we don't see them all too often, so those 3 I actually don't mind seeing how 2 of the 3 have been decent length feuds and the 3rd one has been off and on since their split up.

 

[Arkham Noir]

To the general idea of the thread: I think that having too many gimmick matches takes away their signficance. Look at Hell in a Cell; how exciting is it to see a Hell in a Cell match when there are two or three in the same night ? Not very.

For the actual situation you are discussing though, I have to bring up what Mister Awesome said: depends on what it is. Falls count Anywhere, Last man standing , and two out of three falls matches aren't really gimmick matches in my mind. Just different rules on how to score a win (if that makes sense) . As long as they aren't over top gimmicks , than I think it's O.K.

I think it sort of adds value, but the problem is that sometimes it feels like they are using the gimmick match as the only selling point. It should be bonus, not the actual substance to the match. Going back to Hell in a Cell, it was the final destination for really heated feuds. The Cell itself isn't all that much of an intimadating structure, it was the fact that the guys going in were having one last war with eachother.

Like everything in wrestling, it should be part of the story, not just for the sake of being there.

 

[ctln4rko]

I love seeing gimmick matches. Usually they are rare, therefore all the better when they do happen. Recently, WWE has done awesome in having incredible gimmick matches in pg format. If it's a title match, I love it more, becuase the champion is taken to the test. So i don't think there is anything called too many gimmick matches.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I don't see the WWE oversaturating their shows with gimmick matches at all. It isn't very often at all that the WWE even puts gimmick matches on television. The last actual gimmick match I can recall on Raw was the Falls Count Anywhere match between John Morrison & Sheamus.

I believe that, every so often, the WWE should put matches like the FCA match for the WWE Championship tomorrow night on free television. The WWE rarely has gimmick matches on tv as it is but, when it does, it almost always makes them feel special. For instance, how many times in 2010 was the WWE Championship actually defended on Raw? How often is the WHC defended on SD!? How often does the WWE do a 2 out of 3 falls match at any time?

As far as ppvs with gimmick matches, some are good ideas and some aren't. I like the concept of the MITB and Elimination Chamber ppvs. I don't really see much of a point in HIAC, I think it's pretty much run its course. Fatal 4 Way just doesn't really work as that's something I think that you can easily get away with on free television. If the WWE does away with the exclusive brand format, it wouldn't bother me to see the entire ppv schedule changed to some degree.

I'm sorry but I just don't see what you're saying. If you want to talk about oversaturation of gimmick matches, then the TNA section is where this thread ought to be. Almost weekly, TNA usually has at least 1 gimmick match on iMPACT! that lasts in the 3-5 minute range.

 

[LitasRevenge79]

Does the elevated amount of gimmick matches help the current product?

I do think we are seeing quite a bit of gimmick matches lately, a lot of them would also be in large part with the eliminating of the extra set of tag belts, and the original women's belt. So bear in mind WWE has done away with at least 2 sets of belts. So now there are less belts for people to vie for. But, on that end, even though on the first Smackdown of 2011, that would be a good way to get people to tune in and see what will happen. Do I necessarily think that gimmick matches helps the current product? I think its only ONE fact in it. Bear in mind that its the fighters that also make the product as well. You could have a 2 out of 3 falls match with Brooklyn Brawler and Gobbeldy Gooker and if the plot line was well written enough, I'm sure you would probably have people tune in, even if Nexus was somehow involved. Sometimes even the shittiest of people can be elevated to better success depending on the luck they have with a storyline.



Or does it de-value the meaning of said match due to larger number of gimmick matches we're currently receiving as a result?

Like I said earlier, I don't think it devalues the match. If you were to take away all the gimmick matches, (Bra panties, last man standing, 2 out of 3 falls, lumberjack, etc) if you still have the storyline power behind it, you can still have great PPV motivation, and the greatest fighters, and you will still have great products. Why else do you think that sometimes RAW/Smackdown has gone through ebbs and flows of being A or B shows, and it will show because of for purely the fighting, or the storyline value?? You can have shitty stories and great fights no matter the stips, and vice versa.

How would you like to see gimmick matches used within the WWE product in 2011?

To me, I'm a purist. As long as it doesn't demoralize the overall product, and what they are originally trying to convey, I'm okay with it. For me, I would like them (Creative) to make sure that it can hopefully still be organic. Now I know that can't always be since no one can foresee injuries and other unpredictable things like that. But, I don't care what gimmicks they do, as long as its still entertaining, that's all I care about. The only thing I request is to maybe give the women a bit more leeway and know that they aren't as fragile as once considered.

 

[LSN80]

For the actual situation you are discussing though, I have to bring up what Mister Awesome said: depends on what it is. Falls count Anywhere, Last man standing , and two out of three falls matches aren't really gimmick matches in my mind. Just different rules on how to score a win (if that makes sense) . As long as they aren't over top gimmicks , than I think it's O.K.

I understand what you're saying, and maybe a "special stipulation" match would have been better wording. Personally, I see a gimmick match as one with stipulations that differ from the normal rules. Of the three matches I gave as examples, a Last Man Standeing match is the one that is certainly a gimmick match in that you can't win the match by scoring a pinfall, and it allows and encourages you to use outside weapons to win the match.

Just to clarify, the idea I was describing wasn't necessarily these situations, but the by-product of them over all. I actually like the idea of these three matches as two of them should and will likely serve as definitive ends to feuds. Most gimmick matches should do that. The Miz/Morrison match is a good idea because it allows Miz an out to retain the title without making Morrison look weak, and for the feud to possibly continue.

The problem is, stipulations in general are attached to matches just for the purpose of spicing up the match. As a result, it makes the matches that truly deserve a gimmick or special stipulation seem less important because we've seen so many stipulation matches recently. For every Rey/Del Rio match, we get a Miz/Morrison/Bryan Submissions Count Anywhere match, where the stipulation means absolutely nothing.

These matches have become some repetitive in general, rather then specifically, that they don't feel special any longer.All of these men that will be in stipulation matches on free TV this week were in stipulation matches two weeks ago at TLC. My point is, pulling back on adding stipulations for a period of time would allow these matches to truly mean something again. Instead, stipulation matches seem to be the norm, rather then the exception.

 

[RKOx7]

Hmmm... I really like that you brought up the point of this thread. I have generally mixed feelings about gimmick matches and their exposure as of late. You're absolutely right, in recent memory the WWE has thrown gimmick matches, multiple man, matches, special condition matches all over the card. At first it was a wonderful thing... but thinking about it now, it really annoys me.

I love gimmick matches as much as the next guy but I feel that they aren't being utilized properly. I don't wanna see pay-per-views named after a gimmick (how original) and then multiple matches of the same gimmick on a given night.

Hell in a Cell used to be a decisive FEUD ENDER, now it simply is just this thing that happens in October where people have mediocre matches in a cage because its that time of the month. I would rather a long feud end in a Hell in a Cell, or the two superstars respect each other enough to agree upon risking their careers in a career shortening match...

Elimination Chamber Brilliant since its inception, now its that time in February where we cross our fingers for our favorite superstar other then the champion, to defeat the champion and leave the chamber to go to Mania as Champ. Its too much of a last chance. I like the idea of the WWE Champion needs to go through a final test and defend against 5 guys before WrestleMania, but whose to say any of the 5 guys at all deserve a shot at a title before Mania. Point is, I've come to expect a new champion in February, and that predictability is something I don't like.

Fatal 4Way - F4Ways and Triple Threat are so entertaining and fun but I feel like they should be used more around the year at different times. It makes things more interesting that way.

TLC PPV is actually one of my more favorite ones. The stipulations vary a bit more and its more fun to watch. I think the concept of a chairs match should be changed to maybe First Blood by Chair or something... I know its all PG and stuff and theres no blood, but... is pay-per-views PG rated too?

Then these Falls Count Anywhere matches, Last Man Standing, 2/3 (Three Stages of Hell) are great too but they have been used pretty frequent. Within the last 3 months there have been Falls Count Anywhere Submissions match, Falls Count Anywhere match on both RAW and at Hell in a Cell... both involving John Morrison. Maybe they want to make this type of match his specialty?

1. Rambling about my opinions aside. Gimmick matches help and hurt the product. Gimmick PPVs in my opinion are annoying for the most part. Some I approve of, some start to become annoying. I really don't like the Bragging Rights PPV - it is DUMB. It can be done at Survivor Series easily as it has been in the past. Breaking Point was a GREAT gimmick idea, because you can utilize submissions match, last man standing match, and I quit match on theme alone in that PPV.

2. Generally, yes the value of the match is de-valued when it is utilized the way has been over the past 2 years.

3. I hope the WWE continues to use gimmick matches, but in a more spread around fashion. I feel like sometimes there are these dry spells where we get nothing but one on one singles matches for awhile and then all of a sudden its gimmick after gimmick after gimmick and then your just dying to see superstars fight in a SINGLES match.

 

[LSN80]

I don't see the WWE oversaturating their shows with gimmick matches at all. It isn't very often at all that the WWE even puts gimmick matches on television. The last actual gimmick match I can recall on Raw was the Falls Count Anywhere match between John Morrison & Sheamus.

Actually, the match that followed the Sheamus/Morrison Falls Count Anywhere match was a steel cage handicap match between Chris Jericho and the Hart Dynasty. What purpose did the steel cage match serve that a standard two on one match couldn't have? The main event of that same Raw was a Tables match between John Cena and Randy Orton. And Miz' first title defense after winning the championship was a TLC match against Jerry Lawler. My problem isn't with gimmick matches in title defenses on free TV, I rather like the idea actually. My problem is that being that every PPV save Summerslam, Night of Champions and Wrestlemania is a gimmick PPV, the stipulation matches on free TV feel less special.

I believe that, every so often, the WWE should put matches like the FCA match for the WWE Championship tomorrow night on free television. The WWE rarely has gimmick matches on tv as it is but, when it does, it almost always makes them feel special. For instance, how many times in 2010 was the WWE Championship actually defended on Raw? How often is the WHC defended on SD!? How often does the WWE do a 2 out of 3 falls match at any time?

Your point is well taken here, as only recently has WWE come back to having the champion defend the title on Raw, such as Orton/Barrett and Miz/Lawler.
I don't remeber the World Heavyweight Championship being defended once on free Tv during 2010. My point is, the championship match itself should be the draw, not the stipulation attached to it.

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make me less excited for the three stipulation matches we're getting between tonight and Friday. The last 2 of 3 falls match I remember was between Chris Benoit and MVP at Judgement Day 2007. Im not criticizing the use of one particular gimmick match in general, rather the greater number of stipualtion matches we've seen in 2010 because of the gimmick PPV's. All of these men were just in stipulation matches at the TLC PPV so adding stipulations to their matches two weeks later takes some of the shine off of them. My wish would be for WWE to pull back on the number of stipulation matches That way, the more times they did pull them out, especially on free TV, they would have more of an epic feel to them.

As far as ppvs with gimmick matches, some are good ideas and some aren't. I like the concept of the MITB and Elimination Chamber ppvs. I don't really see much of a point in HIAC, I think it's pretty much run its course. Fatal 4 Way just doesn't really work as that's something I think that you can easily get away with on free television. If the WWE does away with the exclusive brand format, it wouldn't bother me to see the entire ppv schedule changed to some degree.

There are some gimmick PPV's that I like as well. Elimination Chamber is my favorite PPV of the year, and it serves a distinct purpose. Its the last stop on the Road to Wrestlemania, and the winner of the Chamber matches truly deserve to headline Wrestlemania. But for every EC, we have a Fatal Four Way, Over the Limit, Bragging Rights and Hell in a Cell that are on the schedule just because. There's no real direction or purpose to these shows, other then to ensure the particular gimmick match it features gets its turn. And that causes special matches such as Hell in a Cell to truly serve their purpose, which is to end a particularly greuling feud.

I'm sorry but I just don't see what you're saying. If you want to talk about oversaturation of gimmick matches, then the TNA section is where this thread ought to be. Almost weekly, TNA usually has at least 1 gimmick match on iMPACT! that lasts in the 3-5 minute range.

Understood, and I respect your opinion on this. The biggest point Im trying to make isn't that these matches on free TV are a bad thing. Its that the combination of too many gimmick PPV's along with stipulation matches on free TV don't allow for these matches to feel as special as they should. We could argue that the Falls Count Anywhere stipulation gives the Miz a chance to find another way to opportunistically retain its title, but we dont know that's how it will play out. If it does play out that way, it makes Morrison look like a tool for picking the match, unless he hasn't paid attention to how Miz has retained his title in his first two title matches, both with stipulations. So having said that, what purpose exactly does the Falls Count Anywhere stipulation mean?

As for TNA, we're in full agreement there. It becomes nauseating trying to sit through a show having them announce a stipulation match "next!". My biggest point in this thread is getting over how the gimmick PPV's have affected the value and big time feeling that a free TV match with a stipulation gets, even if its appropriate.

 

[RKOx7]

Lol... theres a falls count anywhere match wwe championship match and a #1 contenders cage match tonight. AND theres still smackdown this week... if that's not over-saturation, I don't know what is.

 

[The Eighties]

There's no doubt that WWE have diluted the gimmick matches heavily over the last few years by overuse, the worst hit of all though as been Hell in a Cell, a match that used to be the ultimate blow-off is now used for basic title matches and used twice in one night, hopefully the Elimination Chamber doesn't end up the same way, even though they are already risking it by having two in one night at the PPV.

The one gimmick match I feel has survived the over-saturation is the ladder match, as while it has been overused it has never became dull in my view and I still look forward to them.