Should that have been the last Extreme Rules?

[ringthebell]

WWE's recent Pay Per View Extreme Rules was a pretty good one. Decent matches and an overall, pretty nice night for wrestling. As I sat through the event though, I started thinking if they should change the name. Extreme Rules is a little bit over the top isn't it?

We saw a falls count anywhere which isn't very extreme. A tables match which falls in the extreme category, but not in the way it was performed. The only match that got near Extreme was Cena and Lesnar.

My concern is the event is really not extreme enough to keep carrying the name. The name has to be changed to have legitimacy behind it. I really do not call what I witnessed Extreme. Extreme would have been the following:

Fire, barbwire, ladders, tables, chairs, and any other weapon for that fact. The tagline is "The one night WWE goes extreme", well it wasn't very extreme at all. This is supposed to be a specialty pay per view where for one night, we get pure violence and bloodshed.

So, should they discontinue the name and use another? Do they have the legitimacy to keep carrying the name with the matches they have?

 

[Dysturbed]

The name and tagline may be a bit misleading depending on one's perspective but the concept of exaggeration is one of the foundations of wrestling so I personally so I have no issue with it.

Generally speaking, the relevance and impact of a lot of matches, moves, etc that take place on any given tv show or ppv are exaggerated on a frequent basis to at least some degree whether it be through ads and/or by announcers and wrestlers for the sake of making things out to be more exciting, impactful, or marketable then they often are. The same applies to the name of the ppv.

 

[Longtimeviewer25]

Since we are in the PG rating i think its cool to have a ppv where we can see the rating not exist. I do wish they would show blood and not black it out and have more of a ecw type feel but at least we have something

 

[TheChosenOne10]

Nah names fine. Plus Jericho/Punk got pretty extreme and I think it relates to just more of different rules rather than extreme ones.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Yep. They should just retire it. There is nothing "Extreme" in Extreme Rules anymore.

 

[Fugazi]

The only match that got near Extreme was Cena and Lesnar.

lol. I can see why you have red rep.

Yes, they should. It should go back to Backlash because Backlash was awesome. I'm tired of PPV's having the same names of matches. MitB, Hell in a Cell, Extreme Rules, TLC. It's so lame. This only works for the Royal Rumble because the Rumble is THAT massive that it warrants its place as the title of the PPV. I dunno if it's because they wanted to change them and couldn't come up with anything, I mean theres even the Elimination Chamber which is just stupid because it was better as New Years Resolution.

I personally think they should just scrap all those PPV titles. Money in the Bank should be held at Wrestlemania. That's just how it should be. The Elimination Chamber matches shouldn't be planned so far in advance. It's lame. Back in the day when they would announce an elimination chamber match it was like "holy shit are you serious". Now its all foreseen months in advance and the shock value simply doesnt exist. Hell, MitB at summerslam wouldn't be that bad really.

TLC matches should also be on the spur of the moment announcement instead of "All matches at the TLC PPV will be TLC matches". That's just lame. I haven't liked this since they started doing it. They don't need to name their PPV's after matches. If they wanna make an extreme rules match at a PPV called backlash, theres no fucking issue there, in fact, that just blew my mind.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Extreme Rules is the BEST concept at the moment. Know why kids?



Because then we wouldn't get a snooze-fest like Batista/Hunter II at a fuckin' Backlash!



What was Backlash huh? Almost every match had a rematch of sorts right? And then the feud would still continue (some that started in January), and there would be the first gimmick match? And if WWE creative would be feeling extra froggy, they would book, yet another gimmick match between the two?



No.


See the first match at Mania was a normal one-one-one affair, which should ALWAYS what it should be, and then the next match is that one last chance but in a very different setting. By giving the rematches a gimmick, there is a very sweet finality that puts the feud to sleep, that are usually dragged far far too long.





Kudos WWE, great PPV positioning.

 

[Nick Black]

Extreme Rules is the BEST concept at the moment. Know why kids?



Because then we wouldn't get a snooze-fest like Batista/Hunter II at a fuckin' Backlash!



What was Backlash huh? Almost every match had a rematch of sorts right? And then the feud would still continue (some that started in January), and there would be the first gimmick match? And if WWE creative would be feeling extra froggy, they would book, yet another gimmick match between the two?



No.


See the first match at Mania was a normal one-one-one affair, which should ALWAYS what it should be, and then the next match is that one last chance but in a very different setting. By giving the rematches a gimmick, there is a very sweet finality that puts the feud to sleep, that are usually dragged far far too long.





Kudos WWE, great PPV positioning.

I'll completely agree with you there. The timing is perfect for WWE to put in this PPV. It adds a crazy stipulation to a match that usually already happened at Wrestlemania. Wrestlemania is supposed to be the big one, the end all match, the one that is supposed to be amazing and full of story/talent. Extreme Rules is for feuds that haven't been settled, and adding a gimmick to a match that was already on the biggest stage in wrestling. Extreme Rules is in the perfect spot, and hopefully it won't get moved.

 

[Edge=GOD]

I'll completely agree with you there. The timing is perfect for WWE to put in this PPV. It adds a crazy stipulation to a match that usually already happened at Wrestlemania. Wrestlemania is supposed to be the big one, the end all match, the one that is supposed to be amazing and full of story/talent. Extreme Rules is for feuds that haven't been settled, and adding a gimmick to a match that was already on the biggest stage in wrestling. Extreme Rules is in the perfect spot, and hopefully it won't get moved.

Your sig needs fixing, Jericho isn't American, he's Canadian?

I would like to see No Way Out come back in place of EC, EC should be one of those matches that is like the "ultimate" way to settle things, kinda how it was bought in.

Hell In a Cell, Same as EC .. Should never be a PPV gimmick.

Lastly, Get rid of TLC and bring back Armageddon.

I don't understand why they felt the need to change these, if they're going to use match names as PPV names then atleast go back to the "In Your House: " concept .. "In Your House: TLC 2012", "WWE In Your House: EXTREME RULES" .. Sounds better than TLC and Extreme Rules, IMO anyway.

 

[Equimanthorn]

I prefer to gauge the Gimmick PPVs on the basis of the NON-gimmick matches on the card. TLC 2011 was a perfect example. Yeah, we had the title TLC and Chair matches as well as Table matches and Ladder matches, but they're to be expected. On the undercard though, we had Ryder finally getting his shot at the US title and even Booker T returning to the ring! Right there, we have 6 matches of interest including 2 that aren't even part of the gimmick, and in my eyes a well-booked PPV.

That said, Extreme Rules is the perfect gimmick PPV for after Wrestlemania, because there's no point in rematching that PPV under normal rules and there's such a wealth of stipulations to choose from, you'll never get bored!

 

[jg_awesome1]

I would love to see War Games return and replace Extreme Rules. Its would put some fun new creative ideas that haven't been used since War Games last appearance.