The gimmick PPV is misguided | WrestleZone Forums

The gimmick PPV is misguided

XgringolocoX

Championship Contender
I don't recall seeing a thread quite like this, if I'm wrong I do appoligize...

I was just thinking about the recent rash (just can't itch it can ya) of Gimmick PPV events.
Growing up watching wrestling I was excited about the old style Survivor Series matches where a bunch of my fav good guys battled my fav bad guys elimination stlye. I loved the Royal Rumble especially when the winner was the Wrestlemania main eventer. I even loved the King of the Ring. An entire PPV tourne to determine the toughest SOB of them all!!!!!!
Now they have Hell In a Cell, Elimination Chamber, Breaking Point(submission city)...what's the point of these PPVs?
My point is this: Gimmicks should have a reason, a purpose for being there. The KOTR gimmick was to crown the best in-ring talent on the roster. RR determined who was tough enuff to battle 29 guys and still stand strong to earn a spot at Wrestlemania. I think if these new gimmick PPVs had more of a purpose for being they'd be more over with the IWC.
I'll not suggest a style for each one as I'd like to hear what you guys come up with but peep this:
Elimination Chamber PPV: Only 1 Chamber event of the evening....the main event. Matches to earn your spot in the chamber are the prelim matches on the PPV. You can start with a qualifying match, have a divas match (that was painful for me to even type), then a tag team qualifying match, ECW title, match and so on. This would allow the inclusion of other feuds and titles but keep the focus of the PPV as leading up to the Chamber.....so many way you could book this that I don't think it'd get old for a while.

So would "gimmick ppvs" be better off presented like this (more or less) or are they just crap all together? Also for the gimmick ppvs what kinda set up would you like to see?
 
yeh, i do understand in some context as to what you mean. the hell in a cell ppv was kinda crap. the elimination chamber shudnt be as bad, since it leads to wm. bragging rights should be about which brand is better and have a 3 way elimination tag match, e.g raw vs smackdown vs ecw. but good concept
 
Well I think the Hell in a Cell PPV's purpose is to end fueds. Even though it didn't end Orton/Cena, it seemed to end Taker/Punk and DX/Legacy, and historically that is what the purpose of Hell in a Cell matches have been. So that PPV has a purpose.

The Elimination Chamber's purpose is to see who gets a World Titlte Shot if I'm not mistaken, or in some cases to see who will be Champion, so there is a purpose to that also.

I've always been a huge fan of Survivor Series matches but if anything, THAT has less purpose than Hell in a Cell and Elimination Chamber...its just two teams going at it for next to no reason. Sure, it's entertaining, but what's the purpose? So I don't think lack of purpose is the problem. I think the IWC doesn't like the name changes, and having too many of the same themes in one night, and no blood. Each of those reasons are pretty weak, but it's not a lack of a purpose that's the problem. I say those reasons are pretty weak because Breaking Point and HIAC really weren't bad in spite of these complaints.
 
Originally posted byXgringolocoX:
Elimination Chamber PPV: Only 1 Chamber event of the evening....the main event. Matches to earn your spot in the chamber are the prelim matches on the PPV. You can start with a qualifying match, have a divas match (that was painful for me to even type), then a tag team qualifying match, ECW title, match and so on. This would allow the inclusion of other feuds and titles but keep the focus of the PPV as leading up to the Chamber.....so many way you could book this that I don't think it'd get old for a while

I think as you say, in gimmick PPVs like the Elimination Chamber, Hell in a Cell and so on that there should only be one of those matches featured on each PPV. I think WWE has recently taken the stance 'oh...this PPV is called Hell in a Cell, therefore we must have loads of Hell in a Cell matches!' However, in my opinion three Cell matches took away from the legacy of the match and at least two of the bouts did not need the cage because it was rarely utilized. I like the idea of just one Cell match at the PPV, one Elimination Chamber at the PPV etc as it avoids overkill and I for one would rather have one quality Cell match over three rushed ones/poorer quality just for the sake of living up to a PPV moniker...

Also, I agree with your idea that, for example, in the Elimination Chamber PPV that the rest of the card could be made up of some qualifying matches to earn a spot in the Chamber later in the night. That way, the importance is still placed on the gimmick bout without fans having to sit through two or three of the matches in the same night. I think that would ultimatley raise the stock of the featured gimmick match considerably....but that's just my opinion, maybe others like having a few of the same gimmick bout on the same night.
 
As usual, the WWE is on the right track but is dropping the ball...again. I actually like the concept of gimmick matches representing certain pay-per-views, BUT...and that is a big but...I do NOT like the fact that the WWE is completely overhauling their pay-per-views and overusing these gimmick matches. Let me break it down.

We often refer to the WWE as having "The Big Four" pay-per-views...The Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and The Survivor Series. And three of those four pay-per-views are known for having a gimmick style match. But ONLY The Royal Rumble actually has their pay-per-view named after that match. So the point I'm trying to make is that you can still have a gimmick style match at a pay-per-view without actually having to change the name of the pay-per-view. Because when you boil it down, many of the pay-per-view names can easily represent certain gimmick style matches such as "No Way Out" or "The Survivor Series." And overall, naming a pay-per-view after the gimmick match that will occur sounds corny and one dimensional.

The other problem I have, which is much more serious than the actual pay-per-view names, is the way the WWE is wearing out certain gimmick matches. And I don't like it one bit! A ladder match, hell in a cell, TLC, cage, etc. are supposed to be special and not overused. That's what made them so special over the years!!!! They were rare occurrences. Now, each pay-per-view is having two, three, or more of the same match on the same night. So by the third straight hell in a cell, elimination chamber, etc., you are completely immune to that style match, and it really takes away much of your enjoyment.

My solution is quite simple. They should keep the pay-per-view names the same...No Way Out, Backlash, No Mercy, etc....and give each pay-per-view one and ONLY one gimmick style match. That way, you don't have to book the entire pay-per-view around the gimmick, but at the same time, you get to see that gimmick match for probably the only time that year. For example, The Royal Rumble is fine. We have it as the main event, but there is only one royal rumble. No Way Out should keep the elimination chamber as their gimmick, but only have one elimination chamber match. Wrestlemania obviously has Money in the Bank. The Survivor Series has their big 5 on 5 tag team elimination match. And for each pay-per-view, you can select a gimmick match that has some relevance to the pay-per-view. In my opinion, Hell in a Cell would be best at either Summerslam or the last pay-per-view of the year. Night of Champions is special in itself so a gimmick is not really needed. Extreme rules can have a hardcore or no holds barred main event. They can bring back King of the Ring. One pay-per-view can adopt a ladder match as their main event. Another can use a cage match, TLC, stretcher, etc.

So to wrap it up, I believe gimmick matches are a great thing, they just shouldn't be overused nor should they be the entire focal point of the overall pay-per-view.
 
Ye, I totally agree with what you presented here. I would rather have it your way rather than 3 of the same gimmick matches in one night.
 
We often refer to the WWE as having "The Big Four" pay-per-views...The Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and The Survivor Series. And three of those four pay-per-views are known for having a gimmick style match. But ONLY The Royal Rumble actually has their pay-per-view named after that match.

Actually, the elimination tag matches since the beginning of the Survivor Series were called a "Survivor Series Match", and in fact, when they have those matches on the card still, they call them a "Traditional Survivor Series Match". You can almost say that the Royal Rumble and Survivor Series matches could have been named after the event as well.

But, to get to the point that I want to make, themed PPVs can work. WCW had World War 3, which was built around their 3 ring, 60 man battle royal and Fall Brawl featuring War Games, which was built around, you guessed it, the Wargames Match. If you don't believe that, how many other WCW shows had multiple rings.

I personally like the War Games concept for the match. It's always been the one match WCW held that I liked. I also liked that it was a match that could only end when you made the opposing team give up.

But, I also hate that these "gimmick" ppvs do hold multiple matches that the PPV is based around, especially Extreme Rules where EVERY MATCH is a gimmick match. No Way Out/Elimination Chamber/PPV that only exists because they need one between the Rumble and Wrestlemania should only have one EC match, but I disagree with having the preliminary matches lead up to it. That's why you have 4-5 weeks to build up to the event. Make it for one title. Don't have 3 World Title Matches in the Chamber. It loses it's luster. Just like with HIAC, there should have only been one match in the Cell....unfortunately, that one match didn't end the feud. With TLC coming up, I really don't like what they're going to do with that one. Bragging Rights I like that concept, except it looks like to have the SD vs Raw ME, they're going to have to take ECW off the show....again.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top