Andy
April 17th, 2013, 1:40 PM
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?
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?