Themed PPVs do more harm than good

[Andy]

This is something I've thought for a while.

Lets look at this year for example; on the PPV calendar for 2013 we have:

Royal Rumble
Elimination Chamber (themed)
Wrestlemania
Extreme Rules (themed)
Payback
Money in the Bank (themed)
Summerslam
Night of Champions
Over the Limit
Hell in a Cell (themed)
Survivor Series
TLC (themed)

So of the 12 PPVs in 2013, five of them are themed around a specific match type (or match types for Extreme Rules). On top of that, you have limited matches at Royal Rumble due to the lack of time available.

Now I have no problem with gimmick matches. In fact, they're an essential part of wrestling and more often than not produce better matches.

So what's the problem? Well, I think having themed PPVs actually harms the developments of feuds, especially in the midcard. In days gone past we would've seen a feud have, say, a standard match at a PPV. Maybe a screwy finish. The next PPV would have some sort of gimmick attached, maybe a submission match or a hardcore match. Then a blow off in a big gimmick match like a cage, a ladder match or something. Think of Benoit vs Jericho circa 2000/01. A brilliant feud that went something like normal match > submission > ladder with some stuff in between I think.

This should also apply to main event feuds. Ryback faced Punk in a cell and a TLC match with barely any build last year and it did him and the feud absolutely no good. We could all reel off endless main event feuds that have escalated matches to gimmick matches to blow off matches.

It makes sense for a number of reasons.

Firstly, having these themed PPVs restricts the options for midcard feuds including the IC, US and Tag titles.

For example, Cesaro had some good matches as US champ but no memorable feuds. He had a lot of matches with Miz but they never went anywhere. The most memorable match they had was a 2/3 falls but if I remember correctly it was on TV and wasn't for the belt. So lets look at the situation now: Kofi is the holder and Cesaro is due a rematch. So lets say they have a rematch on the pre-show at Extreme Rules and Cesaro wins via shenanigans. Where does it go from there? In recent years, it likely goes like this: one of them wins clean the next night on TV and their feud is over.

What I would like to see is the feud go to the next level. So lets have a look at the guys involved. Cesaro is hardhitting but a newcomer, whereas Kofi is an experienced player with high flying abilities. What would make sense here? How about a ladder match. Kofi has experience in ladder matches, Cesaro wants to prove himself. Easy. And that sounds like a really good match, right? Right, but they're not going to have a ladder match because Money in the Bank is right around the corner. And that means we're left with a TV match to blow the feud off in all likelihood. Unless they have a wrestling match for the ages, it's unlikely to do much for the credibility of either performer or the belt itself. Having these themed PPVs means the midcarders don't get to be a part of these matches, which is a real shame.

Similarly, main event feuds don't have to opportunity to develop organically.

Ryback vs Cena is going to START with a gimmick match due to the nature of the PPV. If you wanted to develop this feud and have it run to the autumn, you'd really need it to start with a wrestling match. If Cena goes over, you can play on the experience. If Ryback goes over, you can do it via shenanigans. Or if you want to really build Ryback into a bigger heel, you can have him get disqualified and just destroy Cena. That could lead to a no DQ match and then a blow off match. Maybe an I Quit or a Last Man Standing. If it's got a lot of interest, maybe even a cell match. But you can't do that. With the calendar as it is, we know that if they feud for a few months they're going to have a HIAC match and a TLC match. It diminishes the excitement of the feud and the importance of the match.

Secondly, having these themed PPVs means that gimmick matches are rarely tailored to the strengths and history of the wrestlers. In the past, we've seen the likes of Undertaker and Cena taken out of their comfort zone and challenged to a TLC match by Jeff Hardy and Edge. Triple H and Undertaker have always had the HIAC match as their match of choice for a big feud. Of course the Hardys had their ladders, Dudleys had the tables, E&C had their chairs. It meant that by the time Jeff Hardy and Edge had reached the main event, they had history in certain matches. I don't see any of that in any of the guys looking to reach the main event at the moment. Bryan, Ziggler, Miz and Barrett for example have no history in any different type of match.

So how do we fix this?

Easy. Starting from next year, get rid of all the themed PPVs. It doesn't need any big explenation or storyline. Just change the names. Bring back Fully Loaded, No Way Out, Armageddon etc.

Next step, start building feuds properly. Have big feuds and matches use gimmicks which make sense for them as a feud. Give the tag titles a TLC match again. Give the IC title a Last Man Standing match. Give the US title a street fight. Develop the feuds and let them play out with interesting matches and stipulations. It will make the title important and it will give the wrestlers credibility.

MITB can take place whenever both briefcases aren't in use. Or bring it back to Mania, which the one just past really could have done with. And don't use the HIAC stipulation unless the feud really needs it.



Thoughts?

[turdpower]

I'd just like to point out that of your list, Royal Rumble is as themed as Elimination Chamber.

Night of Champions is basically themed, even if the theme is pretty loose.

Survivor Series is also basically a theme.

[Andy]

I left the rumble out because although it is themed, it's not overused. It's probably the second most popular event in the calendar and of course you only have one of them in the actual PPV.

Night of Champions isn't really themed. It isn't dictated by certain match types, other than titles being defended. And even then there's still room for other matches on the card.

Survivor Series is a little different I feel because any elimination tag match type thing is rarely the main event.

[Beer-Belly]

Extreme Rules, Hell in a Cell, TLC, and Night of Champions are unnecessary. Get rid of them and bring back King of the Ring.

[The Law]

I pretty much agree. I don't mind Extreme Rules because it allows flexibility and the show after Wrestlemania is generally going to feature a lot of gimmick matches for the Wrestlemania rematches. Elimination Chamber is okay too, since it fits well with the build to Wrestlemania. Hell in a Cell is a really stupid concept. TLC is a bit more complicated, but it overall leads to a lot of shoe-horning in terms of trying to make matches fit the gimmick. I can't really complain about Night of Champions since it's barely a gimmick. All titles defended is much simpler now that there are only six championships (it used to get messy where there were eight or nine and no room for any non-title matches).

The reason they do the themed shows is because they seem to draw pretty well. Hell in a Cell in particular consistently does a good buyrate. TLC generally has not sold well, but the December PPVs have pretty much always done poorly. I think overall the gimmick shows are a net negative, but it's far from the biggest thing ailing WWE right now.

[dunno]

I would completely scrap Over the Limit. Three PPVs in basically a month is overkill.

Hell in a Cell should not be its own show.

I'm also hoping this is the last year for the Money in the Bank PPV. Something like King of the Ring (where the winner gets a title shot at Summerslam) would be better there.

[Fanny Batter]

Money in the Bank is a great PPV, commonly in the top 3 of the year.

[Mills]

See, I love MITB as a PPV, but youre right on the rest. Hell in a cell really stunts the natural progression of a a feud too, Punk and Ryback shouldn't be in a HIAC for their first encounter, for example

[Chris]

The big gimmick matches should develop organically. They should fit the context of the feud, rather than simply taking place at an arbitrary time each year. It's stupid that the wrestlers are forced to have a TLC match or a Hell in a Cell match on a specific date, when those types of matches could occur earlier or later depending on how the feud is received by the fans.

I've never liked the Night of Champions concept, as having all the titles defended on a single PPV shouldn't be a special attraction. It should be pretty standard, if WWE actually gave a damn about its titles. Also, I don't think Money in the Bank needs its own PPV. I'm not always a fan of throwing a lot of people on the Wrestlemania card in a ladder match instead of giving them proper storylines, but at least that kind of match would add some variety to the biggest show of the year.

[Vice]

MITB is generally a great PPV, and I enjoy the ladder matches, but I think the MITB concept is kind of crappy at this point.

HIAC is a giant no-no in my book as well.

[Ringo]

HIAC and TLC are the worst. They tend to be good shows but the whole concept can damage both the feuds and aura of those big matches. We've talked the hind legs off of this in the last couple of years though. It's shit.

I liked NOC and ER better when every match fit the theme. I think NOC is worth keeping. ER makes sense for a post-Mania PPV but it does mean that they tend to use up all their other gimmick matches which can negatively effect the hype for those types of matches when they happen elsewhere.

I like the Chamber tradition going into Mania and Money In The Bank is an excellent annual event - Mania does suffer as a result but they could come up with something else that's fun and features a bunch of guys if they wanted to. I'd rather have the MITB PPV and no match at Mania over a throwaway July PPV just to keep MITB for WM.

[Beer-Belly]

The MITB briefcase should be for both titles. That would make things more exciting.

[Cewsh]

Just one match instead of two, then?

[Kdestiny]

I feel like that'd be a good idea

[Cewsh]

One one hand it seems like it would make things unpredictable, but realistically, it would just screw over Smackdown, because the winner would never go after the World title, and that'd steal a central plot point that Smackdown uses all year.

[Beer-Belly]

Throw six or eight guys in the match and let them choose which belt they want to go after.

They could, you know, build up the World title as something bigger than Intercontinental title version 2.0. Bring up the belt's legacy and perhaps make it a more "wrestling" based title.

[Kyle_242]

I actually think that the themes do more good than harm. Certain PPV's are now always on my radar (e.g. MITB, Elimination Chamber), whereas the only "themed" one I would pay attention to before was the Rumble.

If anything, they should just make the themes better. I have no desire to see two watered-down Hell in a Cell matches, but I would love a King of the Ring return, for example.

[Vice]

If they keep the MITB concept around, I think it should just be one match for one briefcase, and both titles are eligible.

Too many title wins come from cashing in. They need to let some of these younger guys get their first title wins by building them up to make sure they're ready.

It worked well for Edge, but they could have easily built him up to be a legit contender. Though cashing it in on a dead Cena was fairly brilliant for his character.

It worked really well with RVD, because he made the challenge to Cena at the ECW show.

Then it started getting a bit tiring for me. I'm mixed about Punk winning the belt via MITB. He's a guy I could have seen winning the belt eventually in a fantastic moment with a bit of a push. Swagger had no business sniffing the title. It was nice seeing Kane get another title run after all his years of dedication, but they could have easily done it without MITB. Miz really had no business getting the title. Daniel Bryan is similar to Punk. Alberto Del Rio should have won the title legit. Ziggler should have won the title legit.

10 titles switching hands after someone is beaten to death is a bit much for me, really. Now if the contract let the dude make a title match at another show, and have it be an actual match, I don't think I'd be as opposed to it. And I suppose I could tolerate two MITB briefcases running around simultaneously if one was for a title shot whenever (ie: beaten to death), and one had to be announced in advance. Could make things more interesting.

[Atty]

I hated the themed PPVs.


Also, looking at that calendar, if they're going to call a PPV Payback, it should be the one after Mania, not two months after.

[Kyle_242]

It should also include Mel Gibson.

[Cewsh]

It worked well for Edge, but they could have easily built him up to be a legit contender.

I do feel the need to dispute this. They tried for YEARS to do it the normal way. For some reason it never worked no matter what they tried. Only through Matt Hardy/Lita, the whiny heel turn and the MITB did it finally catch on.

I'm not saying that MITB was the only way, but getting him there was far from easy.

[turdpower]

One ladder match, two briefcases.

Runner up gets the WHC (just what it needs ;) )

[Vice]

I do feel the need to dispute this. They tried for YEARS to do it the normal way. For some reason it never worked no matter what they tried. Only through Matt Hardy/Lita, the whiny heel turn and the MITB did it finally catch on.

I'm not saying that MITB was the only way, but getting him there was far from easy.

Well, had he not won MITB, they could have easily built him up during the Hardy/Lita fiasco because eeeeeveryone despised him. But since he already did have the contract at the time, I suppose they had to put it to use. Though I do think that if they gave him a solid push as a heel, they could have made him a proper champion within a few months. But he just had a lot of bad timing with injuries and WWE pulling the rug out from underneath him a few times whenever he was getting some real momentum.

[Andy]

I love the MITB concept. People have been chanting for Ziggler for months and it does a great job of creating suspense and excitement. If Ziggler didn't have they briefcase he would've been in real danger of becoming totally irrelevant over the past few months like Cesaro, Rhodes and Sandow have (through no fault of their own of course).

If they worked it so that there was always one taking place at Mania and one six months on it would be better I think. But two matches on the same PPV is always a bit much I think. Multi man ladder matches should be epic. Two on the same PPV is overkill.

[Cewsh]

Well, had he not won MITB, they could have easily built him up during the Hardy/Lita fiasco because eeeeeveryone despised him. But since he already did have the contract at the time, I suppose they had to put it to use. Though I do think that if they gave him a solid push as a heel, they could have made him a proper champion within a few months. But he just had a lot of bad timing with injuries and WWE pulling the rug out from underneath him a few times whenever he was getting some real momentum.

Well he carried that briefcase for about 9 months, during which time they just about pushed him to the moon, and it still didn't work until he cashed in. I remember at the time a lot of people were upset because he was still basically an upper midcarder who didn't feel ready for that spot.

It's complicated when it comes to Edge, really.