Round 2: The D-Man -versus- Phoenix

[Mr. TM]

Should the WWE maintain their specialist Pay Per Views? (TLC, Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chamber, Night of Champions)

Phoenix is the home debater, he gets to choose which side of the debate he is on first, but he has 24 hours.

Remember to read the rules. This thread is only for the debaters.

This round ends Friday 9:00 pm Pacific​

 

[Phoenix]

I will argue that WWE SHOULD continue their themed PPVs. Scared of making this choice, but D-Man may open up the debate for this occasion. Good luck to you kind sir and I have already changed my brown trousers for this occasion. But seriously, it shall be epic!

 

[D-Man]

Bold choice when it comes to your side of the debate, my friend. Indeed, this will be an epic battle. I will post tonight. Good luck to you, brother.

 

[D-Man]

I will be debating that the WWE should NOT maintain their specialist Pay Per Views (TLC, Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chamber, Night of Champions) and I will be opening the debate.

As usual, I will begin with my history lesson.

The Magic of the Professional Wrestling Pay Per View​

There is no doubt that Pay Per Views are the cornerstones of the professional wrestling business. Some say that PPV's set apart the men from the boys in professional wrestling, especially in the largest and most successful promotion in the world... the WWE. Every month, there are outcries throughout the internet wrestling community when an IWC member's favorite wrestling personality is left off of these monthly rituals. Whether the fans don't get to see their dark horses get the opportunity to shine or whether the individual wrestler misses that extra bonus in their paycheck, they all know that without the exposure of the PPV, you're as good as a jobber in the business of professional wrestling. Ever since Starrcade's first event in 1983, pro-wrestling fans and promoters came to the realization that PPV was the future of professional wrestling. It contained top stars, top matches, beginnings and endings of feuds, and told stories that are still remembered today.

The Uniquity of the Pay Per View​

The WWE caught onto this trend in 1985 when Vince McMahon took a gamble on an event that he called Wrestlemania. Compared to the sport of professional wrestling as we know it today, the first Wrestlemania was absolutely groundbreaking. During a time period of weekly shows that sporadically had more than one top star vs. top star matchup and whose only tag team wrestling showcased gimmick teams pounding on unknown opponents, to book a main event that contained a tag team matchup including the likes of the promotion's top two heels to face the top babyface and a famous television/movie star was completely unheard of. Throw in a music legend, a blooming pop superstar and two sports icons, and add a series of other matches pitting top stars vs. top stars, toss them all into the world's most famous sports complex and you've got yourself one of the greatest spectacles of entertainment to ever grace the television screen.

Keeping With the Trend​

Now the business started changing. The game had been stepped up by other promotions to try and catch lightning in a bottle again. They all asked themselves, how do you top Wrestlemania?!? Vince's answer was to headline its sequel with his top superstar against the largest heel he could find. But, this wasn't big enough. And then hit him... if a tag team match worked, then a cage match would work a whole lot better! So, the main event of Wrestlemania 2 was created and became a part of history.

As the years went by, Vince and company toyed with many different scenarios... everything from turnnig monster babyfaces into top heels, bringing in more pop culture superstars, to thinking up newer and more exciting gimmick matches. But, the business kept changing and changing. The more that an idea was used, the more it became the norm. It lost its excitement. It was no longer a surprise to the audience. Dare I say, it became STALE.

Present Day​

And now, here we are. It's been 25 years since lightning was caught in a bottle and Wrestlemania took pro-wrestling to heights it had never even dreamed of. But, everything is different now. Nowadays, there are more than one Pay Per View PER MONTH! Hell, each week, the audience gets seven hours of Pay Per View quality between the two top promotions showcased on television. And mixed into these hours are countless bouts that contain gimmick matches. It is becoming more and more difficult to entertain the wrestling audience. While the WWE has had its share of major successes, these successes have quickly become their biggest downfalls. And changing the theme of annual, familiar Pay Per View events is the worst idea to date that the WWE is using to gain quick success. Now, I will explain why.

1. (Let's go with the obvious one, first.) Repackaging PPV's as a showcase of the promotions' top drawing matches WILL BECOME STALE.
What makes the TLC, Hell in a Cell, and Elimination Chamber matches special is the fact that they are RARE and UNPREDICTABLE. And these two words work in a number of different fashions. At first glance, you probably think that I'm speaking of the matches' brutal nature (or lack thereof, but we'll get there later). But I'm referring to the fact that some of the greatest moments and buildups for feuds came when a General Manager or authoritative figure appeared onscreen and simply announced the match to take place at the next PPV. Moments like Stone Cold leaning over HHH's battered body and letting him know that he would have to battle Kevin Nash inside of a HIAC... when Teddy Long announced CM Punk would have to enter into a TLC match with Jeff Hardy... or just the mere words of "Elimination Chamber" being stated on Raw would cause a crowd to absolutely erupt. Those simple moments set the tone for buildups that would all culminate at the upcoming PPV inside of those hellacious matches. But now we know exactly when these PPV's are coming. So where's the surprise? Where's the buildup? You guessed it... it's long gone.

Not to mention that if you shove multiple showcasings of these matches into ONE pay per view, they'll completely lose their meaning. Personally, I was bored to tears at Hell in a Cell after the Undertaker decimated CM Punk. Then, I had to sit through two more HIAC matches that quickly became so bland that I forgot why they were placed into that type of matchup in the first place! And now we have to sit through the same garbage at TLC? I'm not entertained...

2. It makes no sense to have brutal matches that can't be brutal.
So not only do we have to sit through ONE gimmick match that isn't even a shade of its former self (pre-PG rating), but now we have to be let down 2-3 MORE times during a PPV?? I'm not trying to turn this debate into a PG rating rant, but it has completely killed the idea and concept behind these types of matches. There has been an outcry from the people that are left disgusted and disappointed after these matches occur because it lacks blood, violence, and brutality. After all, weren't those factors the reasoning behind the original concept of these gimmick matches? So now the WWE wants to have the <sarcastic> happiest-go-lucky TLC matches that the wrestlers can muster. But how can they tell their in-ring stories without using the brutality of these matches to their fullest extent? I understand that these matches have been a mainstay in the sport, but the more you showcase them and their faults, the more they're going to be exposed as being fraudulous and meaningless.

3. It's already begun to fail.
Facts that can't be disputed... raw numbers.

WWE has released the buyrate information for their Breaking Point PPV of 2009. The numbers are as follows:

WWE Breaking Point drew 169,000 buys which is down from the previous year's draw of 211,000 buys for the company's "Unforgiven" PPV.

It looks like they're off to a great start. Need I say more here?


There is PLENTY more information to prove my stance in this debate, but what I've provided already should be more than enough to shut down any type of reply that my opponent may have. I have true history, a concensus from the pro-wrestling community, personal opinion, and raw numbers to prove my claim. There are very few levels of convincing left for me to display here. But I'll leave our judges with a thought... ideas in wrestling that have worked in the past have been brought back full circle, abused, chewed up, spit out, and become an afterthought. If this trend continues, we're going to get sick of a lot more of these PG changes that the WWE is trying to shove down our throats. And if anyone agrees with my opponent's stance in this debate then they must ask themselves... Are they ready for Wrestlemania to turn into a pay per view called "Money in the Bank"? Keep that in mind when judging this.

Thank you for reading and good luck to Phoenix.

 

[Phoenix]

Thank you Mr. D-Man, lets bring it onnnnnn!

Now when it comes to the question of Should the WWE maintain their specialist Pay Per Views? the first matter is that naturally there are more than the our Pay Per Views (PPVs) named which are specialist and I will go into more detail about them during this debate as to support why the WWE should maintain their specialist PPVs.

While I won't repeat the main details of the history of the PPVs as D-Man kindly did that for me, but will bring some parts further, he has rightly pointed out that PPVs are magic and unique, which is why we tend to remember the events of them a lot better than an episode of Raw, Smackdown or ECW. So naturally PPVs have to be special in order for them to stand out.

Proven Success​

Now to elaborate on D-Man's history, while Wrestlemania 2 followed the success of the first Wrestlemania, the third one sparked everything off for Vince McMahon and the WWE that they were rolling in the big bucks, enough for him to decide in 1987 that a new PPV was needed, this PPV was none other than the Survivor Series, a PPV with the specialist theme of elimination tag team match, a tradition that is still even carried out at the most recent one we just had two nights ago in Washington, DC. Now instantly, this example of the Survivor Series being a unique and specialist themed PPV automatically shows a success in the format that a PPV with a special theme can be successful enough to have a 23rd edition this year. While no doubt the format has been altered with the audiences, it still holds the theme of Survival and keeps the specialist tag matches featured, or even a match related with the Elimination Chamber being introduced in the 2002 edition of the PPV.

What came next on 24th January 1988? My personal favourite PPV, The Royal Rumble, an event which is focused around a modified version of a Battle Royale which is made to last an hour long, which every year comes with unpredictability as well as excitement. Now again this is a PPV that has lasted for nearly 22 years and tends to be the most exciting and most anticipated PPV on the calendar (after Wrestlemania) as this begins the Road to Wrestlemania and provides one half of our Main Event, as Jerry Lawler rightly states "It only happens once a year and it feels like Christmas!" Now we see the standard Battle Royales occur very often (one happened on Raw last night), yet there's no complaints about the Rumble being stale as it's the same match type and provides a winner which gets a title shot (92 made a champion from it), yet it's the most hyped up PPV that starts our year! So if a specialist themed PPV is going to remain, then you need to look at the Survivor Series and the Rumble to start with, two specialist themed PPVs out of the "Big Four" that have been proven successes that people always anticipate each year.

Changing Times​

Naturally what this year has seen in particular has been a general overhaul of PPVs and their names and speciality, now I'll share no secret that I personally hated the changing of No Way Out to its new name, but then if we broke down the name changes and removals, let’s see what occurred:

No Way Out -> Elimination Chamber: Naturally as I said, I hated this name change, but both are straight to the point, the latter even promises what will occur at this event, I will go further into that one. But given the EC has appeared for 3 years now there, the change of the name is just being more appropriate.

Unforgiven -> Breaking Point: Currently until 2008, Unforgiven didn't have much for it except being the PPV that followed Summerslam, they introduced the Scramble Match in 2008 which I thought was going to be a regular feature at this PPV until the name change. When it became Breaking Point, its point was clear, a Submission Based PPV, as D-Man rightly pointed out, it failed, why? Because a. 75% (roughly) of the roster don't have a submission move b. The booking was poor:

Chris Jericho and The Big Show vs MVP and Mark Henry
Kofi Kingston vs The Miz (Made last minute)
The Legacy vs D-Generation X (Submissions Count Anywhere)
Kane vs The Great Khali (Singapore Cane)
Christian vs William Regal
John Cena vs Randy Orton (I Quit)
CM Punk vs The Undertaker (Submission aka Montreal II)

As a fan, none of that card appeals to me, the only thing I would personally tune in to watch would be Undertaker's return that night, most of the matches are the same as Summerslam, only that now the opponent has to submit instead of being pinned, and didn't Christian/Regal's first encounter end in 10 seconds?! That's purely why Breaking Point failed, while it is a themed PPV, the theme was a poor choice but also the booking was rubbish as well.

No Mercy -> Hell in a Cell: Now No Mercy was a very iffy PPV, while there has been unique moments, it just seems to be a bridge PPV until we get to the Survivor Series. Hell in a Cell gave it more of an appeal to be watched as No Mercy doesn't seem to draw the figures as much until the card is booked and announced. While the side effect is 3 matches of the same type, it did work, all three were effective in their own way, again I will break this down further.

Cyber Sunday -> Bragging Rights: A PPV concept that was losing appeal and buys made interesting again. While the Brand Extension is a joke, it gave a nice twist of giving some true warfare between Raw and Smackdown. Despite a small card (to compensate for the Iron Man Match), the first time this was tried out was pretty successful, no doubt the momentum can build this PPV to be a success as long the brand extension remains.

Armageddon -> TLC: Personally, this is another change I'm not a fan of as Armageddon was the PPV I most associate with Hell in a Cell, but the positive side is that some matches we don't see (ie Table) gets put on the card, what is can promise is a reduction to the amount of Ladder Matches we see each year, I think there's been at least 4 this year until TLC was announced.

What do the changes provide? Promises. It means that if a ticket buyer is going to pay to see a PPV outside of the Big Four, it gives them a promise of something to occur. As a fan based in the UK, I just purchased tickets for the next tour and I currently do not have a clue what's going to happen when it happens (come April), as far as I know, half the roster could be injured and I see a lacklustre show with Hornswoggle as Champion by then, not exactly an advertising appeal tbh. Now if I purchase a ticket to see Extreme Rules, it promises me hardcore gimmick matches, No DQs, Weapon use, Special Matches, it guarantees that I'm going to see something worth watching. It's already early advertising because the name gives me a promise that I'm going to see a special match, if I compare the names of the old PPVs and to the new ones, what anticipation do I get?

(Italic means former, Bold means new, Underlined means it remains)

Royal Rumble - Royal Rumble Match, Wrestlemania coming soon, definitely will watch

No Way Out - PPV before Wrestlemania, a title change possibly..., exciting times

Elimination Chamber - PPV before Wrestlemania, some excitement there, an Elimination Chamber will be there!

Wrestlemania - Says it all

Backlash - PPV after Wrestlemania, definitely want to watch to see where feuds go

Judgment Day - A PPV with a spelling error, nothing promising...

Extreme Rules - Sweet, special rules in place!

Night of Champions - Every title on the line! Don't see this often!

Great American Bash - Bit patriotic there?

The Bash - Not an improvement really

Summerslam - Gotta watch, it's Summerslam

Unforgiven - Cool name, anything special going to come out of it?

Breaking Point - Submission Themed PPV, so-so

No Mercy - What comes of the feuds? Anything that will finish now or wait until Survivor Series?

Hell in a Cell - I love this match! Definitely will watch

Cyber Sunday - So WWE more money off of me so I can vote where my vote may not count down to rigging?! Great!

Bragging Rights - Smackdown vs. Raw, see some matches that we don't get to see often, I'll watch

Survivor Series - It's SS, so much watch

Armageddon - End of the year, something big will happen

TLC - Promises of extreme spots, are the Dudleys returning?

Now out of the changes (some of which I wasn't too appealed by), you can see by the names that responses people get from seeing the PPV name promises something will happen outside of the unpredictability of expecting a PPV on a roster subject to change and the moment matches are finally announced, I could be considering that I need to sell my ticket. While the promise that a Hell in a Cell match will happen means I can buy my ticket knowing it's going to happen. It's why you go to a gig to see your favourite band, you know the songs, you know what they should sing, you're promised a great time, the name and specialist change does that. While PPV buyers will have a chance to choose a few weeks before, ticket buyers don't get that choice until now as they have to buy and hope they get something good, now they have a promise of what they will see means they will have something to look forward to.

Look at these two PPV promos (No Mercy in 2000 and HIAC this year, see the difference in advertising and promises there?)

[YOUTUBE]/v/_3sLwG1ZSBA&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]/v/2Y-j2ceQxSM&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/YOUTUBE]

PG Friendly?​

The other situation is that WWE has chosen to go PG and what they are also doing is noting that the PPV will feature a certain match type. While no doubt it's all PG Friendly (or supposed to be), WWE is showing parents that their child wants to watch a PPV that is going to feature certain content beyond standard wrestling that the parents may not agree with, it's what PG stands for and WWE are simply trying to keep within the boundaries so they don't get accused of false advertising that a PPV may be safe to watch. I know it's meant to be all PG friendly, but there can be times where PG may not be family friendly enough, Roger Rabbit is one but it's epic and has Jessica Rabbit so we won't complain there now.

It stops gimmick matches from being overused​

Now while the side effect is possibly seeing 3 matches of the same type in one night, it stops a special type of match being overused. We've complained that Last Man Standing and Cage Matches get overused on a regular basis, what having specialist PPVs (not which are all) dedicated to certain matches, it means that you aren't going to have it being overused throughout the year. We had a TLC and Ladder match main event Extreme Rules and Summerslam, literally two months between each other, with Jeff Hardy featuring in both, already you see the same match type (tables and chairs not being exclusive to TLC with no DQ involved in both) Main Event two PPVs close to each other isn't really creative and can be seen as lazy booking, you just seen it once, why will people pay for it again?

As you can see so far that specialist PPVs have existed since 1988 and still remain today with two of the most anticipated PPVs of the year in the Royal Rumble and Survivor Series. But while the specialist PPV changes how feuds will end it creates promises that ticket buyers can go to a PPV knowing something special is going to happen. It limits down certain matches being overused to a point where the IWC get annoyed beyond belief and it also keeps in line with the PG changes so adults can know what to expect if they buy the PPVs for their children to watch. While WWE are watching their backs, they're giving a better advertising approach to appeal better to audiences rather than hoping the last minute card on the spot will draw people in.

D-Man, you may resume.

 

[D-Man]

Thank you, Phoenix.

And to the judges, I vow to keep this debate as clean as possible without the use of a cut and paste war. But not just for points... I have a feeling this is gonna be a good battle but I'd like to prevent myself from going blind just in case I make it to the finals... so, let's begin.

My opponent claims that specialty PPV’s of the past (i.e. Survivor Series, Royal Rumble) have been proven successes, therefore lightning will strike twice (or every month, for that matter).

First off, I think I need to explain that my stance in this debate is not as to whether existing specialist PPV’s have been successful, are to this day, or should be changed in any way. As a matter of fact, I concur that PPV’s such as the RR and SS should never change their format. After all, they were the main seeds for the current influx of the trend. However, this ties into the first point that I made during the first part of my argument. Just like many other things in the wrestling business (such as cage matches, finishing maneuvers, gimmicks, angles), excessive use of a good thing winds up becoming STALE.

Now, I don’t know what the intentions of the WWE are with moving in this direction of booking, but it seems to me that they are trying to make it out like the upcoming TLC PPV is something that ought to be treated as “special.” However, this is far from the case. As we all recall, CM Punk just faced Jeff Hardy in a TLC matchup just three months ago at Summerslam. The following Friday on Smackdown, they faced each other in a steel cage matchup. And now they want to repeat this magic during the TLC PPV and make it out like this is a rare PPV for viewing TLC matches? Also, does the WWE intend on reserving these specialty matches for these newly created specialty PPV’s?

The fact of the matter is that the WWE is going to realize that matches like this draw ratings and they need to execute them multiple times during the year. They’ve already tried reserving specific PPV’s for specific things… they were called “Brand-specific PPV’s” and they were another colossal failure. If you’d like to know more about what I’m talking about, feel free to read IC25’s debate with Gelgarin. He CLEARLY provided everyone with the numbers and abysmal buy rates of these PPV’s that only took a few years to change back from being inter-branded. This is a surefire sign that these “specialty PPV’s” will fail just as badly.

Furthermore, I agree with my opponent… they’re trying to recreate the magic that Phoenix just previously mentioned (i.e. a 22-year run of the Royal Rumble and a 23-year run of Survivor Series matches). The only problem is that to the average fan, matches like the TLC already happen multiple times during the year and are no longer as “special” as the Royal Rumble or Survivor Series! You can’t take used piece of clothing, dust it off, wear it again, and expect it to automatically be in style because it wasn’t worn everyday anymore. The only way to recapture this magic is to come up with a brand new concept and utilize it, similar to that of the RR and SS. Presently, the WWE has failed at doing this. They have used existing matches that were popular and decided to name a PPV after them in a scheme to grab some quick revenue. Which brings me to my next point…

My opponent claims that it’s better to know that these PPV’s are coming in order to boost ticket sales. It serves as a “promise” that something will occur.

While this appears to be a valid claim, it won’t guarantee ticket sales. Just because these special matches are going to (supposedly) occur at a specified date every year, that doesn’t mean that they are worth the price of admission. These matches are special not just because of their rules but because of their buildup involving the proper stars and proper storylines.

When tickets go on sale for upcoming PPV’s, customers normally don’t have a clue as to what they’re going to see at a WWE show. This has always added to their excitement and has kept ticket sales high. Now, if fans expect a specialty match during a PPV, they may be intrigued at first. But this means that the WWE must deliver during these matches EVERY TIME they occur. However, they haven’t done this in the past. For example, when Triple H was announced to be in a Hell in a Cell matchup with Kevin Nash, just the surprise of the initial announcement sparked the fans’ interest. It had tons of buildup and an effective storyline. But once it was over, it was known as one of the most disappointing HIAC matches in history. And it didn’t even have a PG rating. This proves that it’s not the match-types that sell the tickets… it’s the performers.

More recently, the WWE introduced its Breaking Point PPV with a submission-type concept. And, as per Phoenix’s exact words:

Unforgiven -> Breaking Point: Currently until 2008, Unforgiven didn't have much for it except being the PPV that followed Summerslam, they introduced the Scramble Match in 2008 which I thought was going to be a regular feature at this PPV until the name change. When it became Breaking Point, its point was clear, a Submission Based PPV, as D-Man rightly pointed out, it failed, why? Because a. 75% (roughly) of the roster don't have a submission move b. The booking was poor.

As a fan, none of that card appeals to me, the only thing I would personally tune in to watch would be Undertaker's return that night, most of the matches are the same as Summerslam, only that now the opponent has to submit instead of being pinned, and didn't Christian/Regal's first encounter end in 10 seconds?! That's purely why Breaking Point failed, while it is a themed PPV, the theme was a poor choice but also the booking was rubbish as well.

This does more than prove my point. As a result, there is no advantage to having a pre-determined match-type for every PPV during the year.

My opponent claims that PPV’s such as No Mercy and Armegeddon needed a “makeover” since they’re nothing but “filler” PPV’s before the Big Four.

Last I checked, every PPV that is between the Big Four is considered to be “filler.” But calling them a name can’t justify your point. And using the fact that the WWE’s ratings have been at record lows over the past few years (including PPV’s) doesn’t justify your reasoning, either. Each “filler” PPV has had its share of history, Some of which were pivotal moments in WWE history (as you mentioned). But I digress…

Now, let’s take a look at my opponent’s example about No Way Out:

No Way Out -> Elimination Chamber: Naturally as I said, I hated this name change, but both are straight to the point, the latter even promises what will occur at this event, I will go further into that one. But given the EC has appeared for 3 years now there, the change of the name is just being more appropriate.

So like you said, even though the PPV hasn’t been named “Elimination Chamber” for the past three years, everyone knew that this PPV contained this specified match-type. However, this hasn’t helped its ticket sales.

2008 – 329,000 buys
2009 – 272,000 buys

The way I see it, the expectance of the Elimination Chamber hasn’t helped its ticket sales before and the audience knew it was coming. As a matter of fact, the most recent event had TWO elimination chamber matches and it STILL lost money from its previous year. How is renaming the PPV going to change anything? Once again, the WWE is off to a BAD start with this idea.

My opponent showed commercials that separated two styles of advertising from a previously-styled PPV to the new style.

I understand what you were trying to accomplish, but I think you hurt yourself here. These commercials tell us a few things. First of all, during our current, watered-down PG version of WWE programming, what good is advertising a Hell in a Cell match as being brutal when it will be anything but? This advertising is setting everyone up for MAJOR disappointment. Not to mention the fact that parents may be turned off by anything advertising violence, so they’ll be less inclined to purchase the PPV for their children.

Secondly, I believe that if the older PPV were chosen to be aired today, it would draw more than the current commercial. For reasons stated above, it’s a lot more family-friendly. And this commercial aired during the WWE’s more racy times of television. The way I look at it, they needed to switch those two styles around. The older commercial CLEARLY fits better with today’s PG product. The same goes for the change in PPV names and styles of wrestling matches. The time for advertising dark, dangerous matches has come and gone. The WWE missed the boat and should’ve aired the current stuff back then.

My opponent claims that the use of specialized PPV’s is going to stop gimmick matches from being overused.

This is a subject that I touched upon earlier. But let’s extend this a bit.

On our weekly television programming, the audience is used to seeing matches such as one-on-one, tag team, triple threat, six-man tag, and no disqualification. In my opinion, this is bland and redundant. Now, my opponent is saying that we should keep things this way and not utilize special matchups on weekly television. Instead, we should save them until PPV’s otherwise they’ll be overused. Do you realize what you’re saying? Now, the weekly product is going to SEVERELY suffer due to it not having enough exciting content to keep the audience long enough to actually purchase PPV’s!

Phoenix, you said it yourself… Extreme Rules is for hardcore, no rules, weapon-using, street fight types of matches. This eliminated NO DQ matches from weekly programming, which can possibly be its only saving grace for exciting television. And now that the new TLC PPV is going to utilize TLC matches, as well as tables, ladders, and chairs matches, what is left to be used to create exciting weekly television matches??

The bottom line is that these matches MUST be used more than once per year. And if this is the case, then they become absolutely meaningless when their respective PPV comes around, just as we’ve already seen at No Way Out and Breaking Point. The WWE is in the process of changing EVERY pay per view (besides the Big Four) into a specialized style. They’re taking an idea and (once again) overdoing it to the point of immediately becoming stale. If anything, the idea will only be good for one year and once the initial shock is over these PPV’s will go back to being abysmal failures, worse than they have ever been.

When it comes to the specialty PPV’s, in the long run, the WWE is going to hurt themselves more than help. Eventually, the fans will be screaming for more specialty matches throughout the year because their weekly product is going to grow boring and stale. Then the WWE will go back to spacing out the specialty matches throughout the year and renaming the PPV’s back to their original monikers. If they are looking for a way to battle the dismal PPV buys, they should be looking to improve their product as a whole. Fancy PPV names and short-term band-aids are not going to improve anything.

 

[Phoenix]

Why is there a sudden call by my opponents in each debate about what I claim? I should start booking some insurance with the amount of claims I could get back from these alone.

One mattered point I wanted to reference to that D-Man made was in regards to the other debate, as said:

The fact of the matter is that the WWE is going to realize that matches like this draw ratings and they need to execute them multiple times during the year. They’ve already tried reserving specific PPV’s for specific things… they were called “Brand-specific PPV’s” and they were another colossal failure. If you’d like to know more about what I’m talking about, feel free to read IC25’s debate with Gelgarin. He CLEARLY provided everyone with the numbers and abysmal buy rates of these PPV’s that only took a few years to change back from being inter-branded. This is a surefire sign that these “specialty PPV’s” will fail just as badly.

While no doubt Brand Specific PPVs have failed the WWE (December to Dismember anyone?), the fact is that Brand Specific PPVs solved a problem that the current inter-brands fail to cover, overbooking. Now while D-Man is strong to feel the special PPVs will fail, had they been booked brand related, the overbooking problem would be solved.

If you look at two of the last three specialist PPVs (Breaking Point and Hell in a Cell), the main theme of those PPVs were Submissions and Hell in a Cell. Now while it was understandable to book the matches in relation to the PPV itself, the problem WWE put themselves in from using inter-brand PPVs is the belittlement factor, mainly, if a WWE Title Match gets booked in a HIAC match, then the World Heavyweight Championship must be as well otherwise fans will complain that a brand is shown favouritism, so it goes without saying that the top two titles get booked. But wait, there's a third special themed match? Oh wait, it involves Triple H (or DX)! If you look at TLC atm, three matches booked so far, a Table, Ladder and a TLC Match, who gets the more special one? Triple H again! Now I don't want to turn this into a Triple H hatefest but Breaking Point, Hell in a Cell or TLC wouldn't get overbooked or lose it's speciality had either a. Brand Specific PPVs ended b. Triple H wasn't out of the Main Event. But seriously why does DX need to be involved with the speciality to put over a team that is now barely featuring on Raw? Great! Naturally, WWE can get itself out of these problems but at this current time, they want to keep both Main Events of Raw and Smackdown on par, regardless of the fact a Brand Extension is meant to be on...

Right, Triple H moaning out the system, but you can easily see that part of the problem plays a role on egos of higher up members of the roster because no-one wants to be booked weak when a PPV id dedicated to speciality.

Just like many other things in the wrestling business (such as cage matches, finishing maneuvers, gimmicks, angles), excessive use of a good thing winds up becoming STALE.

Which is why WWE are trying to make their PPVs more special, that they're not simply just a title match which will not see anything affect the outcome of the current top feud. People complain of the same people being booked in the same matches, so they try and bring a twist. While no doubt Raw and Smackdown should be the filler parts of how a story goes until the PPV roles in, why should PPVs serve as only a filler? I mean people are paying good money and while we may not see a feud end (ie Cena/Orton) they want to place emphasis on the feud by adding more elements.

Cena and Orton recently fought in a singles bout, I Quit, Hell in a Cell and an Iron Man Match. Now while HIAC should not have been sooner, look how interesting it made the feud, their matches got more praise than their standard outing and adding stipulations to their matches made their feud watchable. Now had it been Unforgiven, No Mercy, Cyber Sunday, the matches would be standard and they would get stale themselves, like D-Man says, repetition gets dull. Now because of the new PPV cycle that filled the Autumn, they were forced to face under new stipulations to give their feud some excitement to ultimately decide who will go out on top. The effect from this is that feuds are booked around the PPVs and not PPVs around feuds, while the unpredictability of not knowing a feud will finish is exciting, we usually have to endure two single bouts at least before a special match is brought in and this itself becomes stale, so they're trying to keep fans interested and it did work from this. It also means that we may not see Cena-Orton for the 50th time as we saw on Raw this week with a new contender rising in Sheamus, while it's a suprise, this is how booking a feud around a PPV gives a new excitement level to how things get booked in the WWE.

Furthermore, I agree with my opponent… they’re trying to recreate the magic that Phoenix just previously mentioned (i.e. a 22-year run of the Royal Rumble and a 23-year run of Survivor Series matches). The only problem is that to the average fan, matches like the TLC already happen multiple times during the year and are no longer as “special” as the Royal Rumble or Survivor Series! You can’t take used piece of clothing, dust it off, wear it again, and expect it to automatically be in style because it wasn’t worn everyday anymore. The only way to recapture this magic is to come up with a brand new concept and utilize it, similar to that of the RR and SS.

I'm glad you agree but when you break it down, RR and SS are modified versions of standard matches we see everyday in wrestling, The Rumble is a Battle Royal that was modified to look special, but it's still the same thing, on Raw this week, we got the same concept, the winner of the match gets a title shot, the Rumble may be more special because it's tied to Wrestlemania, but it's still a Battle Royal that's been repackaged. But now you have the Championship Scramble, people enter after minute intervals and the winner is the one with the final action (a pin/submission) to make him the champion, it combines the Rumble with a Hardcore Battle Royal to give a new match type, so it's bein repackaged and re-used before our very eyes.

As for Survivor Series, elimination tags occur as often as tag matches themselves, in 2000 we see Armageddon open the exact same way Survivor Series opened, with a six person intergender elimination tag team match, but while it's a tradition to use them at Survivor Series, they clearly aren't given a special sticker saying "reserved until next year" but yet they're cutting down on their uses because as rightly pointed out, they're testing to see how localising special match types will give the same effect that Rumble first did on it's tryout run in 1988.

When tickets go on sale for upcoming PPV’s, customers normally don’t have a clue as to what they’re going to see at a WWE show. This has always added to their excitement and has kept ticket sales high. Now, if fans expect a specialty match during a PPV, they may be intrigued at first. But this means that the WWE must deliver during these matches EVERY TIME they occur. However, they haven’t done this in the past. For example, when Triple H was announced to be in a Hell in a Cell matchup with Kevin Nash, just the surprise of the initial announcement sparked the fans’ interest. It had tons of buildup and an effective storyline. But once it was over, it was known as one of the most disappointing HIAC matches in history. And it didn’t even have a PG rating. This proves that it’s not the match-types that sell the tickets… it’s the performers.

But alas it's the anticipation factor that would play the better role because while your example of Triple H and Kevin Nash is a good example, can you honestly tell me that match would have been a good HIAC in the first place regardless of their history? In comparison, we talk about the Rumble or MITB at Wrestlemania and we start discussing and anticipating who will win that particular match or who will take part as they've become a stable in the WWE calendar. If you do that to special matches, we can talk about say Extreme Rules next year and try think who will face who in what match type, Cena vs. Kofi in a Last Man Standing Match? Orton vs. Rhodes in a Table Match? If you have a certain match type penned in like the Rumble or MITB, people's excitement comes from who could face off in them rather than second guess where will DX will go next or who will Undertaker retain against? It adds more to the anticipation rather than subtracts, while competitors make the match, the anticipation makes the tickets, the possibilites being open to suggestion.

More recently, the WWE introduced its Breaking Point PPV with a submission-type concept. And, as per Phoenix’s exact words:

Unforgiven -> Breaking Point: Currently until 2008, Unforgiven didn't have much for it except being the PPV that followed Summerslam, they introduced the Scramble Match in 2008 which I thought was going to be a regular feature at this PPV until the name change. When it became Breaking Point, its point was clear, a Submission Based PPV, as D-Man rightly pointed out, it failed, why? Because a. 75% (roughly) of the roster don't have a submission move b. The booking was poor.

As a fan, none of that card appeals to me, the only thing I would personally tune in to watch would be Undertaker's return that night, most of the matches are the same as Summerslam, only that now the opponent has to submit instead of being pinned, and didn't Christian/Regal's first encounter end in 10 seconds?! That's purely why Breaking Point failed, while it is a themed PPV, the theme was a poor choice but also the booking was rubbish as well.

This does more than prove my point. As a result, there is no advantage to having a pre-determined match-type for every PPV during the year.

Actually, it gives a better idea of what matches will sell tickets better which is why Breaking Point is not being brought back, you cannot have success without testing some failures. While it's unfortunate that Breaking Point was a failure, WWE has to test these out so they know what to come back with next, which means the fans get another anticipation factor, because we hated a PPV, it means that we will get a better more exciting one replacing it. Currently Night of Champions has been moved to September with a new PPV filling it's previous spot, showing they're giving a PPV worth watching in September while people can look forward to a newer one being brought out.

So like you said, even though the PPV hasn’t been named “Elimination Chamber” for the past three years, everyone knew that this PPV contained this specified match-type. However, this hasn’t helped its ticket sales.

Buyrates for No Way Out

2008 – 329,000 buys
2009 – 272,000 buys

The way I see it, the expectance of the Elimination Chamber hasn’t helped its ticket sales before and the audience knew it was coming. As a matter of fact, the most recent event had TWO elimination chamber matches and it STILL lost money from its previous year. How is renaming the PPV going to change anything? Once again, the WWE is off to a BAD start with this idea.

You got tickets and Buyrates mixed there my good friend, the ticket sales for No Way Out in the two years were:

No Way Out, February 17, 2008 in Las Vegas, NV
Thomas & Mack Center drawing 13,500
(NWO 09)2/15 in Seattle, WA: Sellout of 12,500 fans with 11,200 paid.

Both of them being sellouts, so with the anticipation, the ticket sales did prove successful. Now in comparison, the buyrates show that what was that important element you mentioned earlier? Oh yes, the competitors play a role in the buyrates with their drawing power and how a match can be reviewed.

Chavo Guerrero defeated CM Punk
The Undertaker defeated Batista, The Great Khali, Finlay, Montel Vontavious Porter, and Big Daddy (EC for No.1 WHC Contender)
Ric Flair defeated Mr. Kennedy
Edge (c) defeated Rey Mysterio
John Cena defeated Randy Orton (c) by disqualification.
Triple H defeated Shawn Michaels, John "Bradshaw" Layfield, Umaga, Chris Jericho, and Jeff Hardy (EC for No.1 WWE Contender)

(WWE EC)Triple H defeated Edge (c), The Undertaker, The Big Show, Jeff Hardy, and Vladimir Kozlov
Randy Orton defeated Shane McMahon
Jack Swagger (c) defeated Finlay (with Hornswoggle)
Shawn Michaels defeated John "Bradshaw" Layfield
(WHC EC)Edge (originally booked as Kofi) defeated John Cena (c), Rey Mysterio, Chris Jericho, Mike Knox, and Kane

Now if you compare those two PPV cards, firstly, 2009 was a smaller booking but also SHANE MCMAHON was on the card. How many people are going to tune in especially after seeing the botchfest he did after the Rumble. But also, the main matches aren't fully solid ones, everyone expected Cena to retain and Triple H/Taker to win the other match while in 2008 the Chambers were more unpredictable and you actually have a solid WWE Title match occuring at the same time. Again the card determines buyrates, the promise of the Chambers make the ticket sales.

On our weekly television programming, the audience is used to seeing matches such as one-on-one, tag team, triple threat, six-man tag, and no disqualification. In my opinion, this is bland and redundant. Now, my opponent is saying that we should keep things this way and not utilize special matchups on weekly television. Instead, we should save them until PPV’s otherwise they’ll be overused. Do you realize what you’re saying? Now, the weekly product is going to SEVERELY suffer due to it not having enough exciting content to keep the audience long enough to actually purchase PPV’s!

Phoenix, you said it yourself… Extreme Rules is for hardcore, no rules, weapon-using, street fight types of matches. This eliminated NO DQ matches from weekly programming, which can possibly be its only saving grace for exciting television. And now that the new TLC PPV is going to utilize TLC matches, as well as tables, ladders, and chairs matches, what is left to be used to create exciting weekly television matches??

The bottom line is that these matches MUST be used more than once per year. And if this is the case, then they become absolutely meaningless when their respective PPV comes around, just as we’ve already seen at No Way Out and Breaking Point. The WWE is in the process of changing EVERY pay per view (besides the Big Four) into a specialized style. They’re taking an idea and (once again) overdoing it to the point of immediately becoming stale. If anything, the idea will only be good for one year and once the initial shock is over these PPV’s will go back to being abysmal failures, worse than they have ever been.

The first rule that many IWC people say in regards to getting PPV sales is never give away a great match for free on TV before using on the PPV, but yet they have always done this technique. Think back to the year 2000, particularly the Hardys/Edge & Christian/Dudleys, now when they feuded with Tables, Ladders or Chairs, did they actually have any official matches named on Raw or Smackdown with those special matches? The answer is, no they did not. What they did was attack each other outside of match boundaries with these items to create excitement for the actual TLC match itself, it got people talking and excited because they didn't lose the appeal to watch because as rightly so on TV, they got a PREVIEW of the PPV, which is what Raw and Smackdown should effectively do. They shouldn't give a full blown match away for free, they need to create talk factors from moments in the show, what they talk about, what happens in the ring and what got them to make them consider buying the PPV. There's been plenty of exciting moments and matches without a gimmick match being involved, it stops us from rolling our eyes when Triple H and Orton re-use the Last Man Standing match once again!

But then this year, we have seen two matches return that we have not seen for a good five years, the I Quit Match and Iron Man Match. These two matches have special matches where they have been reserved for longer than a year and yet they get more hits and good feedback as a result of spacing out their uses. The same goes for Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chambers, TLCs. Prior to this year TLCs were only used once a year and now we're seeing two within 5 months, the only time where this has been a short period between that match was 2001 because people were allowed to see another one underexcitement values. It's not WWE's fault if Jeff Hardy can't pull a great singles match so that his last two matches have to be gimmicks types that are now being considered over used. But the fact is that if a gimmick match gets used more than once a year, it's considered over-used by the IWC. What the newer special PPVs do is spare them so they aren't being overdone, much like Wrestlemania is done to give the special matches that we don't usually see except on that night.

In the end, specialist PPVs have existed since Starrcade and Wrestlemania first appeared and when In Your House first came, they were special because something unique was based about them, the names would coincide with events but the name got repetitive and dull, much like the fillers did until the newer specialist PPVs came. Where Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series have succeded, we're seeing newer ones emerge as established parts of the system like Backlash, Extreme Rules and Night of Champions. What the specialist PPVs are doing is making PPVs special again, what draws people to watching outside of the superstars is the anticipation factor, the specialist PPVs bring that back and they are looking to deliver the quality once the PPVs are in full use and the effects expected from them take effect. People get excited about the Big Four already, it's about time they talk about the other PPVs instead of being simple fillers, which is what the WWE is rightfully doing and should keep doing.

 

[D-Man]

First off, the claims that I made were merely paraphrasing Phoenix's previous statements. I explained my purpose, which was to avoid a cutting and pasting war, but I guess it seems inevitable. My summations were stated as 100% FACT (as according to Phoenix) since I do not need to twist any of his words or views in order to get my point across. I backed up every view with facts of my own, and if anything that I "summed up" seemed to be inaccurate, I ask that he point it out immediately and we will take it from there.

If you look at two of the last three specialist PPVs (Breaking Point and Hell in a Cell), the main theme of those PPVs were Submissions and Hell in a Cell. Now while it was understandable to book the matches in relation to the PPV itself, the problem WWE put themselves in from using inter-brand PPVs is the belittlement factor, mainly, if a WWE Title Match gets booked in a HIAC match, then the World Heavyweight Championship must be as well otherwise fans will complain that a brand is shown favouritism, so it goes without saying that the top two titles get booked. But wait, there's a third special themed match? Oh wait, it involves Triple H (or DX)! If you look at TLC atm, three matches booked so far, a Table, Ladder and a TLC Match, who gets the more special one? Triple H again! Now I don't want to turn this into a Triple H hatefest but Breaking Point, Hell in a Cell or TLC wouldn't get overbooked or lose it's speciality had either a. Brand Specific PPVs ended b. Triple H wasn't out of the Main Event. But seriously why does DX need to be involved with the speciality to put over a team that is now barely featuring on Raw? Great! Naturally, WWE can get itself out of these problems but at this current time, they want to keep both Main Events of Raw and Smackdown on par, regardless of the fact a Brand Extension is meant to be on...

I have to be honest... in all respect to Dave, none of this made any sense to me. I really don't see how any of this had to do with my argument.

All I said was that changing the PPV's to specialty themes was in good comparison to Brand-Specific PPV's in the sense that they would both be failures because they focused too much on only ONE specified aspect of the product. Once the WWE realized that leaving strong suits out of PPV's by making them brand specific (i.e. leaving out some of the promotion's top superstars and leaving out the current, most popular feuds involving those stars) was hurting the product, they smartened up and put all of their strong suits back together again. Specialized PPV's carry flaws that are just as important. By basing their PPV's around only one type of matchup (to be used multiple times throughout the night), it leaves the specialized match to become stale immediately. Hell in a Cell was a perfect example of this. By the time the audience got to watching Legacy vs. DX, they were no longer interested in the idea of the cell and it made for an unentertaining matchup.

Which is why WWE are trying to make their PPVs more special, that they're not simply just a title match which will not see anything affect the outcome of the current top feud.

But how have they become more special? The WWE is taking them away from the audience. Matches like TLC and Street Fights used to happen multiple times over the year (when they were warranted) and now the audience has to wait until once a year to see them? And when they do, they have to watch a whole night of nothing BUT those matches? It really takes the fun out of it.

The WWE was always about shock value in their programming. In today's television world, this is what draws ratings. Our television audience feels like they've seen it all. So if they continue to make their entire product so cookie-cutter by reserving PPV's for specified matches, it takes all of the excitement and shock value out of what the fans expect. With this new concept, whenever December comes around, the audience already knows that the top feud is going to take place inside of a table, ladder, chair, or TLC match. I don't think this is going to excite very many people. They don't want to already know what to expect. This takes that luxury away from them.

Cena and Orton recently fought in a singles bout, I Quit, Hell in a Cell and an Iron Man Match. Now while HIAC should not have been sooner, look how interesting it made the feud, their matches got more praise than their standard outing and adding stipulations to their matches made their feud watchable. Now had it been Unforgiven, No Mercy, Cyber Sunday, the matches would be standard and they would get stale themselves, like D-Man says, repetition gets dull. Now because of the new PPV cycle that filled the Autumn, they were forced to face under new stipulations to give their feud some excitement to ultimately decide who will go out on top.

So you're saying that just because a PPV had a special theme, this is the only reason why Orton and Cena were thrown into these types of matches? That is completely ridiculous. They were thrown into these matches because the audience had seen these two battle a million times over and whether the PPV was called No Mercy, Hell in a Cell, or Escape from Guantanamo Bay, they still would have been thrown into a specialized match because there was nothing left to entertain the fans except for a high-profile, gimmick match.

But why name the whole PPV after it? And better yet, why take away from its momentum by making two OTHER matches have the same stipulation? If there are two other matches just like it on the card, their match doesn't seem so special anymore now, does it?? It just becomes another match in a gimmicked pay per view. What made high-profile matches special in the past was the fact that the specific feud between the two competitors hit such an all-time high that they needed to be set aside from everyone else. Thus, they became the main focal point of the PPV and the main draw. Now, when you try and juggle two or three more of these matches and storylines, it takes away all of its momentum!

I'm glad you agree but when you break it down, RR and SS are modified versions of standard matches we see everyday in wrestling, The Rumble is a Battle Royal that was modified to look special, but it's still the same thing, on Raw this week, we got the same concept, the winner of the match gets a title shot, the Rumble may be more special because it's tied to Wrestlemania, but it's still a Battle Royal that's been repackaged. But now you have the Championship Scramble, people enter after minute intervals and the winner is the one with the final action (a pin/submission) to make him the champion, it combines the Rumble with a Hardcore Battle Royal to give a new match type, so it's bein repackaged and re-used before our very eyes.

As for Survivor Series, elimination tags occur as often as tag matches themselves, in 2000 we see Armageddon open the exact same way Survivor Series opened, with a six person intergender elimination tag team match, but while it's a tradition to use them at Survivor Series, they clearly aren't given a special sticker saying "reserved until next year" but yet they're cutting down on their uses because as rightly pointed out, they're testing to see how localising special match types will give the same effect that Rumble first did on it's tryout run in 1988.

I don't think it's fair for you to downplay the Royal Rumble to be a "glorified battle royal" and for the Survivor Series to be "just another elimination tag match." The Rumble was never used before it was incepted back in 1988. The Survivor Series elimination matchups were never used in the WWE prior to 1987. That's why they've stayed so special and successful.

Any and every wrestling fan knows there is a VERY FINE LINE between a battle royal and a Royal Rumble. Elimination tag matches happen here and there, but not ones with 8-10 men competing against each other. And battle royals are common but when you thrown THIRTY men into the mix with one entering the ring every two minutes, you've got something special. That is why these matches only happen once per year.

On the other hand, tables, ladders, chairs, cage, hardcore and "I Quit" matches have been held multiple times per year since their inceptions. So all of a sudden the WWE wants to take them away from the audience, utilize them once a year, and call them "special" now? They already made the mistake of overusing them in the past. Even though putting more time in between the matches may make them more sporadic, they're no longer special. They've all become just another match concept. Like I said before, to recreate the magic of the RR and SS the WWE needs to figure out brand new match concepts. I understand that they failed with the championship scramble, but I'm sure they'll think of something unique again.

But alas it's the anticipation factor that would play the better role because while your example of Triple H and Kevin Nash is a good example, can you honestly tell me that match would have been a good HIAC in the first place regardless of their history?

This paragraph proves my point more than making a new one of your own. It proves that changing the names and concepts of a yearly pay per view does nothing for the shows. It's all about the booking. Let me explain...

I think we all agree that TLC, HIAC, Elim. Chamber, and "I Quit" matches should be saved for feuds that deserve the honor of competing in those matches. They need months and months of buildup and the competitors need to reach somewhat of a boiling point with their opponents so the audience can feel their emotion and fully understand what these match concepts bring to the table.

Now, in the past four months (September-December), we've seen the WWE "sandwich" the HIAC, Breaking Point, and TLC matches together. This left them with no time to build the feuds that were required those matches. It was almost a waste to put them in those matches in the first place because none of them got to a point where those matches were needed (with the exception of Cena vs. Orton and possibly DX vs Legacy). With specialized matches set in a specified place during the year, buildup no longer matters. A feud could've been created on Raw three weeks before a PPV involving Cena and the Undertaker (for example, which would be an extremely anticipated feud) and they would automatically be thrown into a Hell in a Cell... does this NOT make sense to anyone else besides me?? It's a total waste of a matchup.

Once more thing that needs to be remembered is the midcard talent that would not be involved in these types of matches. For example, in the Elimination Chamber and Hell in a Cell PPV's, the midcard talent would be left as nothing more than filler matches outside of the HIAC and Elmination Chamber main events. Therefore, this would make them all look weak in their matches. Perfect examples of this are:

Hell in a Cell
R-Truth vs. Drew McKintyre
John Morrison vs. Dolph Ziggler
Jerishow vs. Batista/Mysterio
Mickie James vs. Alicia Fox

Breaking Point
Kofi Kingston vs. Miz
Kane vs. Great Khali (Singapore Cane match)
Jerishow vs. MVP/Henry

No Way Out 2009 (Elimination Chamber format)
Swagger vs. Finlay (ECW Championship match)
Orton vs. Shane McMahon

I mean, come on now... who really cared about these matches? The main events with the "specialized theme" completely took all of the momentum away from these matches. No one really cared about them and they were overshadowed by the main events, therefore rendering them weak, filler, and a complete waste of time to the audience.

Actually, it gives a better idea of what matches will sell tickets better which is why Breaking Point is not being brought back, you cannot have success without testing some failures.

See? This is what I'm talking about. After all, this is the topic of debate, isn't it? How many failures do you need to see that the concept itself is a failure? The numbers speak for themselves.

You got tickets and Buyrates mixed there my good friend, the ticket sales for No Way Out in the two years were:

No Way Out, February 17, 2008 in Las Vegas, NV
Thomas & Mack Center drawing 13,500
(NWO 09)2/15 in Seattle, WA: Sellout of 12,500 fans with 11,200 paid.

Both of them being sellouts, so with the anticipation, the ticket sales did prove successful. Now in comparison, the buyrates show that what was that important element you mentioned earlier? Oh yes, the competitors play a role in the buyrates with their drawing power and how a match can be reviewed.

First off, if I said ticket rates instead of buyrates then that was a typo. But what does this matter? Tickets to live PPV's will ALWAYS wind up selling out. The WWE makes the majority of their money from PPV buys. If they're low, the show is an abysmic failure. I've already proven that the new format for No Way Out and the Breaking Point PPV's made significantly LESS money than their predecessors. It proves that the new format isn't working. It also proves that no matter what format the WWE chooses to use, the live ticket sales are going to to sell out, anyway. So why change them?

But then this year, we have seen two matches return that we have not seen for a good five years, the I Quit Match and Iron Man Match. These two matches have special matches where they have been reserved for longer than a year and yet they get more hits and good feedback as a result of spacing out their uses.

Once again, you're missing my point. It seems like you're thinking that I believe specialized matches ashould be cut out of the product COMPLETELY, which couldn't be further from the truth. I believe that specialized matches are required when it fits the feud. You can't cookie-cut them and reserve the same PPV every year only for those matches. That means that storylines and angles have to be built around specialized matches instead of specialized matches being built around feuds! It's like the writers are working backwards while writing the show.

And you mention the IWC and their views. They're already upset about the current booking situation because feuds are too rushed and not built up correctly. How would they feel if they found out that the WWE's writers were trying to squeeze storylines into timelines that were based around special matches that occur at specific times of the year during specialized PPV's?!? Storylines are supposed to be written and taken to consequences based on their turnout by reading the crowd's reaction and satisfaction as a result of the feud. A match like a TLC of a HIAC is only supposed to be used as a last resort during a feud, otherwise it's being wasted. Whether it happens once a year or once every three years it should be rare and used only when required... not just because "December is coming up"! That is why the "I Quit" and Ironman Matches have been so successful over the years. There is a good and justified reason as to why they are used in storylines that has nothing to do with what month it is when the feud is taking place.

The same goes for Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chambers, TLCs. Prior to this year TLCs were only used once a year and now we're seeing two within 5 months, the only time where this has been a short period between that match was 2001 because people were allowed to see another one underexcitement values.

These facts are wrong. According to Wikipedia, the TLC match was only used eight times in history. Four times between 2000-2002, twice in 2006, once in 2008 and once in 2009. It has been spread out the same way as the Ironman and "I Quit" matches for the reasons that I just mentioned earlier. They were used when the time was right... not because a timecard had to be punched because a PPV was coming up that month that required that match to take place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In closing, I want to reiterate the fact that I believe in specialty matches. Without them, the product that I've come to love wouldn't be exciting to me anymore. My opponent is trying to convince the judges that I feel they serve no purpose in PPV's, and this is incorrect. My opponent is using "smoke and mirrors" such as cutting and pasting YouTube videos of WWE commercials, pulling irrelevant facts from Wikipedia, and taking my words out of context in order to prove his point. Yet he hasn't come up with a shred of evidence to support any positivity about keeping the WWE current direction of PPV's.

However, I have proven that buyrates from the new format have declined since the previous year, I've spoken about the subject as a true fan with my own opinions, and I've cited the IWC and other audience's views about the subject at hand all being in favor of my side of this debate. There is nothing more that I can do in this debate to prove to you that the WWE should NOT maintain their specialist Pay Per Views any longer.

Thank you to Phoenix and the judges.

 

[Phoenix]

I have to be honest... in all respect to Dave, none of this made any sense to me. I really don't see how any of this had to do with my argument.

All I said was that changing the PPV's to specialty themes was in good comparison to Brand-Specific PPV's in the sense that they would both be failures because they focused too much on only ONE specified aspect of the product. Once the WWE realized that leaving strong suits out of PPV's by making them brand specific (i.e. leaving out some of the promotion's top superstars and leaving out the current, most popular feuds involving those stars) was hurting the product, they smartened up and put all of their strong suits back together again. Specialized PPV's carry flaws that are just as important. By basing their PPV's around only one type of matchup (to be used multiple times throughout the night), it leaves the specialized match to become stale immediately. Hell in a Cell was a perfect example of this. By the time the audience got to watching Legacy vs. DX, they were no longer interested in the idea of the cell and it made for an unentertaining matchup.

But despite the risk WWE took, they made the DX/Legacy Cell the better one of the night so it didn't feel like a wasted night, granted 3 is just too much but had we not seen the outside element of Triple H having to be in a Cell Match, then we wouldn't have complained about how overbooked it was on the PPV. Again to further point that the current Main Event makes it impossible to have a filled out PPV without the Brand Extension in place and again, when booking how a PPV is going to, egos will fire out, especially on Triple H's case. The flaw of the PPV is down to the flaw of booking, until Triple H retires from the ring, we can always guarantee that a speciality will be overbooked if he's not Main Eventing the PPV in the title picture. But when eliminating that element, the matches can be entertaining, which is why TLC is a fresher version, where you got 4 different special matches available which gives something to look forward to and the fans will agree. TLC didn't seem like a PPV worth watching but it's getting a lot of talk in the build right now.

But how have they become more special? The WWE is taking them away from the audience. Matches like TLC and Street Fights used to happen multiple times over the year (when they were warranted) and now the audience has to wait until once a year to see them? And when they do, they have to watch a whole night of nothing BUT those matches? It really takes the fun out of it.

But yet as pointed out, TLC matches have only happened 8 times in 9 years, the speciality is that people won't have to wait longer for a match to happen. But when you compare it to any sport, they always have a fixed feature of when the Superbowl, the Playoffs, the FA Cup (for example) all take place, they have to wait the same time each and look forward to the variation that someone (or team) are the same or different in the newer version of the fixture. Also at the same time, it stops pointless chatter about when WILL a TLC or Hell in a Cell match occur but rather when IS the TLC or Hell in a Cell going to take place. It happens with Mania, S'Slam, Rumble and S' Series, we ask when are they going to happen and where? WWE is trying to bring the filler PPVs to play an important role as each PPV can be seen as watchable as the Big Four.

The WWE was always about shock value in their programming. In today's television world, this is what draws ratings. Our television audience feels like they've seen it all. So if they continue to make their entire product so cookie-cutter by reserving PPV's for specified matches, it takes all of the excitement and shock value out of what the fans expect. With this new concept, whenever December comes around, the audience already knows that the top feud is going to take place inside of a table, ladder, chair, or TLC match. I don't think this is going to excite very many people. They don't want to already know what to expect. This takes that luxury away from them.

But you have to remember that the WWE's target audience is children, their attention span tends to be less than our own, so how do they make it easier? By telling the kids fan their favourite match is going to take place at this location on this date by a giving them a year to prepare for it. As said before, the Big Four are given this treatment already, we know what is the Main Event or matches that take place each year for all of them (bar Summerslam), yet they're always the most excited about each year. If WWE is taking away the big matches by putting them on once a year then what is the point of having the Rumble or Money in the Bank? Reason being is because there is a talk element about who is going to be involved in those particular matches, this is why the speciality PPVs are doing so each PPV can have a talk factor than "Oh yeah it's them two again"

So you're saying that just because a PPV had a special theme, this is the only reason why Orton and Cena were thrown into these types of matches? That is completely ridiculous. They were thrown into these matches because the audience had seen these two battle a million times over and whether the PPV was called No Mercy, Hell in a Cell, or Escape from Guantanamo Bay, they still would have been thrown into a specialized match because there was nothing left to entertain the fans except for a high-profile, gimmick match.

But how would you know? Can you honestly tell me had they been the standard fillers that they would be in specialised matches anyway? Of course not. The last time Cena and Orton had a feud between just themselves was in 2007 and for nearly 3 straight months, the PPV was headlined with Cena/Orton ONE-ON-ONE (until Cena got injured). Now with the PPVs have a specialty match required, it allowed them to do a new and different match because back in the day, it would usually require two or three standard matches before the feud was over, the third usually being the specialty if allowed. The PPVs gave us a better reason to give the special matches because if they hadn't, they would have just thrown them into a match for the sake of it and not give a good enough backing to be in a special match which the PPVs give a better answer to.

Any and every wrestling fan knows there is a VERY FINE LINE between a battle royal and a Royal Rumble. Elimination tag matches happen here and there, but not ones with 8-10 men competing against each other. And battle royals are common but when you thrown THIRTY men into the mix with one entering the ring every two minutes, you've got something special. That is why these matches only happen once per year.

On the other hand, tables, ladders, chairs, cage, hardcore and "I Quit" matches have been held multiple times per year since their inceptions. So all of a sudden the WWE wants to take them away from the audience, utilize them once a year, and call them "special" now? They already made the mistake of overusing them in the past. Even though putting more time in between the matches may make them more sporadic, they're no longer special. They've all become just another match concept. Like I said before, to recreate the magic of the RR and SS the WWE needs to figure out brand new match concepts. I understand that they failed with the championship scramble, but I'm sure they'll think of something unique again.

Again, you already said that the TLC matches happened a lot less than you're making them out to be. While they got booked 4 times in the first 3 years of its existence, the other 4 have been spread out between 7 years. Much like the "I Quit" Match happens even on lesser occasions, since 1995, out of 12 "I Quit" Matches, only three different years have seen it put on twice. So WWE isn't taking them away but actually giving them more of a presence and a better importance, which is why matches like "I Quit" get under-appreciated because they're not used often. While they can remain special, how many will see it as special enough when the WWE doesn't even book enough to feature once a year?! The PPVs are restoring that value back.

This paragraph proves my point more than making a new one of your own. It proves that changing the names and concepts of a yearly pay per view does nothing for the shows. It's all about the booking. Let me explain...

I think we all agree that TLC, HIAC, Elim. Chamber, and "I Quit" matches should be saved for feuds that deserve the honour of competing in those matches. They need months and months of buildup and the competitors need to reach somewhat of a boiling point with their opponents so the audience can feel their emotion and fully understand what these match concepts bring to the table.

Now, in the past four months (September-December), we've seen the WWE "sandwich" the HIAC, Breaking Point, and TLC matches together. This left them with no time to build the feuds that were required those matches. It was almost a waste to put them in those matches in the first place because none of them got to a point where those matches were needed (with the exception of Cena vs. Orton and possibly DX vs Legacy). With specialized matches set in a specified place during the year, buildup no longer matters. A feud could've been created on Raw three weeks before a PPV involving Cena and the Undertaker (for example, which would be an extremely anticipated feud) and they would automatically be thrown into a Hell in a Cell... does this NOT make sense to anyone else besides me?? It's a total waste of a matchup.

But then when you look at the three feuds that ran through the special matches that Breaking Point and Hell in a Cell centred around, all were justified reasons for having those matches. You said yourself, Cena/Orton needed to be interesting again having feud before. Taker was screwed out so he got revenge in his own way. DX and Legacy had been lasting out for nearly 4 months and the Cell was a good way to end it. They've now had Survivor Series to give a fresh feel to the title picture and TLC now finishes off some other feuds while starting new ones. If you actually look to the revived calendar they're doing for next year, they are actually booking it so a speciality theme PPV is effectively used given feuds last around 2-3 months for a standard amount of time,

See? This is what I'm talking about. After all, this is the topic of debate, isn't it? How many failures do you need to see that the concept itself is a failure? The numbers speak for themselves.

One failed new PPV and three of them are retained for next year...nope don't see it there.

First off, if I said ticket rates instead of buyrates then that was a typo. But what does this matter? Tickets to live PPV's will ALWAYS wind up selling out. The WWE makes the majority of their money from PPV buys. If they're low, the show is an abysmic failure. I've already proven that the new format for No Way Out and the Breaking Point PPV's made significantly LESS money than their predecessors. It proves that the new format isn't working. It also proves that no matter what format the WWE chooses to use, the live ticket sales are going to to sell out, anyway. So why change them?

No, you have proven that the booking was not efficient enough. You said yourself that the under-card outside of the Main Event matches did not justify the means to order the PPV if you're seeing it just for one match (again December to Dismember anyone?) While the PPV centres around a particular match, it does not mean the format is failing, it's how the booking has been a failure. I mean outside of the EC matches at No Way Out this year, you had Shane McMahon taking out Orton's momentum he won from the Rumble, given I'm suppose to care about the Wrestlemania Main Event, why would I watch the top contender facing off against a non-wrestler? No doubt the ECs get people tuned in, but when you compare the two No Way Outs of 08 and 09, the booking of 08 was better throughout the whole show rather than the MEs specifically. From watching Raw and Smackdown alone between Rumble and NWO you can see that the Chambers weren't being made important as they should be, which is why for 2010, the focus is purely going to be about how important the Chambers are. At the moment, a format failing has not been proven when most of these PPVs have only been brought in this year. The main exceptions are Night of Champions, Extreme Rules and NWo into Elimination Chamber, all three are still going strong on the PPV calendar.

Once again, you're missing my point. It seems like you're thinking that I believe specialized matches ashould be cut out of the product COMPLETELY, which couldn't be further from the truth.

When did I ever say that?

And you mention the IWC and their views. They're already upset about the current booking situation because feuds are too rushed and not built up correctly. How would they feel if they found out that the WWE's writers were trying to squeeze storylines into timelines that were based around special matches that occur at specific times of the year during specialized PPV's?!? Storylines are supposed to be written and taken to consequences based on their turnout by reading the crowd's reaction and satisfaction as a result of the feud. A match like a TLC of a HIAC is only supposed to be used as a last resort during a feud, otherwise it's being wasted. Whether it happens once a year or once every three years it should be rare and used only when required... not just because "December is coming up"!

But yet the wrestling calendar is booked around the Big Four, we have them marked in our calendars, we are excited and looking forward to seeing them come up. Feuds get booked around those PPVs and the fillers only get us along the way, it's why WWE are trying to make them special as the Big Four because they want the fans to feel that every PPV is unique and watchable each year as oppose to "It's this standard PPV, don't expect anything" while now they can go "It's December, it's TLC, it's time to watch some great matches" as they go "It's April, Wrestlemania is here!"

These facts are wrong. According to Wikipedia, the TLC match was only used eight times in history. Four times between 2000-2002, twice in 2006, once in 2008 and once in 2009.

My bad sorry, but you made the same error in this post.

In Summary​

Regardless of whether my opponent thinks my tactics are the important matter or not, that's irrelevant when the discussion is about maintaining the specialist PPVs. Firstly, when you look at the Big Four, Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, Summerslam, the reason they're the most popular PPVs each year is because they are the original special PPVs, fixed to one calendar point every year that gets people talking about matches they expect and build anticipation about how the next one will bring new factors that refresh the old formulas they bring.

Prior to this year, only four of the filler PPVs were considered special or will be considered enough to be watchable, No Way Out, Backlash, Extreme Rules and Night of Champions. You know where they are, you know what's special and unique about them, which is why they continue to remain on our calendar. WWE sees that outside of the Big Four and their regular 13-14 PPVs, only another FOUR get considered watchable, that's half of the PPV fixtures. Now WWE has tried to make ALL PPVs watchable by giving them a speciality to them, whether it's a match type, all titles being defended, brand warfare, they're giving something to make fans who buy their tickets and/or the PPVs that something is going to be worth watching in advanced. All year we talk about Wrestlemania, The Rumble and the other Big Four, but only about the filler ones when they came up. WWE is now giving a reason to care for those as much as the Big Four so we can talk about who will go in the Cell or who will face who in what match, they're bringing back the excitement factor for the whole year with a promise being hooked to them.

The subject of the debate isn't about the specialist matches, but the PPVs. Now while we have seen examples of a specialist PPV being booked to a match type, like Breaking Point, they may not succeed, but there is no success without having failure to know what to correct. In the end, the specialist PPVs bring excitement and promise to the WWE calendar for the audiences of all ages rather than get them waiting each year for Wrestlemania, they get them waiting for the following month with another exciting PPV to watch.

I thank D-Man for a great debate and I thank the judges for their time to read our posts.

 

[CH David]

I would like to thank Phoenix and D-Man for another solid debate. Kudos to the both of you. Two of the top rookies locked horns again. Onto the score card.

Clarity: Both were very clear and well written. I just think D-Man kept his a little neater and tried to stay away from the copy and paste war.

Point: The D-Man

Punctuality: I hate to be a stickler, but Phoenix was a few hours late with one of his posts. D-Man remained on time.

Point: The D-Man

Informative: Both brought some good info to this debate, but I think Phoenix was doing more subjective debating, using more of what did happen, and not their success. D-Man was more hard facts debating.

Point: The D-Man

Emotionality: I loved how D-Man took a page out of the Gelgarin and IC book and going with the "My opponent claims" bit. I truly did get a kick out of it. However, I thought Phoenix had his moments as well. He gets the point.

Point: Phoenix

Persuasion: This debate, compared to IC and Gelgar(t)in lol, I was more on the fence about. I have been fairly optimistic with the specialized PPVs, I enjoyed what I saw from Breaking Point, I thought HIAC was overkill, and I think TLC could be enjoyable for me.

But as I read this debate, I started thinking about upcoming TLC. Now I love Ladder and Table matches. I figure I should love this PPV right? Right now, I look at JeriShow vs. DX in a TLC match. What the fuck is wrong with this picture? The only one with experience in a TLC match is Jericho, although HBK knows his way around a ladder. I see no reason for it to be a TLC match, especially with Show and Hunter.

I apologize for the tangent, but it serves my purpose. DX and JeriShow have no business near the TLC match itself. PPVs that specialize stuff like this will be overkill on matches we have all come to love, and you also will end up having people in matches (like DX vs. JeriShow) that clearly shouldn't happen. D-Man got me thinking about this side, and I tried to find something from Phoenix to get me back on the fence, but it just wasn't there.

Point: The D-Man

Remember people, these two are fan-fucking-tastic rookies, who beat a lot of other contestants to get to this point. I will say it in this like I did in IC vs. Gelgarin 10. Phoenix didn't lose, D-Man just beat him, and that is all you can say at this time of the Debator League.

CH David scores this The D-Man 4, Phoenix 1.

 

[BooCocky]

Clarity: All the posts were well written but I believe D-man went the extra mile and stayed away from all of the copying and pasting.

Point: The D-Man

Punctuality: I can't penalize either one of them. A few hours can't be considered late on a wrestling forum. People do have real life to attend to so no one gets the point.

Informative: The debaters used some good info, but I am going with D-man because I believe he used facts and not "what" happened kind of points.

Point: The D-Man

Emotionality: both did well... No one gets the point.

Persuasion: I am giving this point to D-man for the simple fact that I agreed with him from the get-go and Phoenix didn't do enough to persuade me enough to change sides. D-man also did a good job at keeping me on his side. Therefore he gets the point.

Point D-man

Becker's score

D-man- 3
Phoenix- 0

You shouldn't be ashamed of the zero but D-man was on his game throughout this debate...

 

[Mr. TM]

I feel bad, because I questioned this division. I didnt see anyone who could beat Gelgarin, IC, or even Tastycles (Though he was eliminated). But one man stepped up in his conference in this round, and he put forth his best argument of the debate, improving in all categories, and proving he is ready to take on the winner of the other conference. I am talking about The D-Man here.

Clarity: As I was saying, Dman doesnt usually get this point here, but he kept his debate in a very clear order. Phoenix made great clear posts, but the flow of The D-Man raelly helped his cause.

Emotion: The D-Man usually does not get this one either, but he did a terrific job here. Phoenix has been one of the, if not, no the MOST calm debater of all time. But he couldn't get over The D-Man here.

Punctuality: Phoenix was late here. Not sure why Becker didn't take a point off.

Information: The D-Man brought forth a ton of information in this debate, using fact over subjective material here. He really deserves this point.

Persuasion: Information, emotion, clarity, everything went The D-Mans way. And so is this. This is not about Phoenix slipping here, he made it to the Conference final, and is a terrific poster. But The D-Man stepped up here huge, and was able to beat Phoenix at every point. He deserves to move on to the next round.

 

[Blade]

This hurts. This really hurts right here. 2 of my favourite people on this site and I'm being forced to choose. Simply heartbreaking. So, with that in mind, let's do some judgin'!

Clarity: D-man takes the point for this one. I think Phoenix seemed to get a little sidetracked on some of his posts, so it didn't really flow well on some occasions. D-Man kept his posts very neat, for want of a better word...

Punctuation: Phoenix was late, supposedly. D-Man's point.

Information: Both brought decent amounts of info to their arguments. Perhaps D-Man a little more so. But since Phoenix had to correct D-Man on the mistake with the No Way Out tickets/buyrates, Phoenix gets a point here.

Emotion: Meh. Both men bored me here in terms of emotion, if I'm honest. Great posts and arguments, but I like a little emotion. But this was very business like. So I'm saying screw you to both guys (even though I love you both, really) and no one gets the point here.

Persuasion: I think I'll have to go with Phoenix here. Both men had so many great arguments that kinda cancelled each other out. But the one that really got me was Phoenix's argument about at past gimmick PPVs, Rumble and Survivor Series, became so popular. I thought that was a brilliant argument on Phoenix's behalf, and I don't think D-Man did well enough to counter it.

D-Man 2 Phoenix 2

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

D-Man gets points for clarity and punctuality and half a point for persuasion.

Phoenix gets point for informativeness and emotionality and half a point for persuasion.

tdigle's Score

D-Man - 2.5
Phoenix - 2.5