Which gimmick PPV would you keep?

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

The gimmick PPV has been the ire of many a wrestling fan in recent times, especially old school fans. Pro wrestling, I feel is about wrestlers rather than match types. It is the wrestlers and the type of rivalry that they have between themselves that should decide the match types rather than them competing in a pre decided set of matches.

But still I'm asking you which gimmick PPV you would keep inspite of so many deficiencies. Which gimmick PPV, in your opinion, serves enough of a purpose for you to keep it going?

Personally I would like to keep the MITB. It is a modern day version of the KOTR PPV and is a great way to build up a future main eventer. I would do away with the MITB match at Wrestlemania though as there are plenty of good matches at each year's Wrestlemania to keep the viewer interested. So there is no need to crowd the card with an MITB match.

So which gimmick PPV would you keep?

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Gotta say TLC. MITB is all well and good but there is not much you can do with it because you either have a guy lose after hyping him for a long long time (ok not always) or have him win where he arguably doesn't deserve it (applies to pretty much all cash-ins). Mind you that isn't terrible, cue miz's inevitable gloating for the next 2 months to prove my point. But it doesn't work for faces AT ALL unless they are unsuccessful, once again consult CM Punk's first cash-in. In fact I have a problem with more than one MITB match a year because it leads to a paradox of those who, more often than not, wouldn't have a chance often automatically being champions over-night. This ends up in a situation where the bigger stars are not the ones with the belt and while it is both a good way of getting a superstar you want over, over, and stopping the same four guys having the belt from PPV to PPV it does feel like these guys are being rewarded for being the best by losing their belts when most vunerable. That's my little slice of beef with MITB anyway.

And the problem with all other PPV's listed up there (with the possible exception of bragging rights where a true gimmick has not yet been capitilsed on so I'll leave the door open) is they are all ONE type of match. Hell in a cell in particular being pretty much disrespectful to taker, foley, HBK, hunter and all guys who made it a feud-ender. These days it doesn't end a feud and the cage isn't capitilsed upon in fear of being too violent. The same can easily be said for elimination chamber, fatal four way and MITB.

TLC on the other hand open up the oppertunity for four different types of matches, all different in approach to match style (ladder matches being generally fast paced and volatile, chair and table matches being a little more methodical, and TLC being all-out carnage) What this does is allow you to theme the correct match around the feud of your choice so you don't have orton against sheamus, and they just happen to be in hell in a cell because it's that time of year again. You have ziggler against kaval where both are athletic and young so you pick a ladder match to bring out their best attributes. You stick orton or sheamus or barret in a chair match because it's very personal and one guy wants to do harm to the other.

TLC just opens more doors to more possibilities so it gets my vote.

P.S. The problem, as was mentionned before, about bragging rights is that it has one central match which is usually where less important story work goes on and has less long term implications. The main events and such are then by default normal matches in a themed PPV which is a bit of a waste. Bragging rights needs to have smackdown v raw matches up and down the card and then there would be a reason to brag. At the end of the night, the brand with the highest total number of matches won by their superstars wins something, and that isn't a cup, it is something more important like say a brand pick. Stick three superstars up for trading on each side and whoever wins gets the superstars of their choosing from the other side and they pass over in return the three superstars they chose to trade. You could preliminary matches on raw or smackdown on the previous week for people trying to avoid being relegated and being the "passed over" people. This may be because they are in a good spot where they are and when switching brands they have to start over again. Something along the idea of a brand exchange anyway so you get better superstars and lose ones you don't want.

 

[Dzone]

I'll go with Elimination Chamber, simply because if it wasn't a gimmick PPV there would have to be some random circumstances for it to occur... Plus it's pretty fun to watch in all seriousness.

I have actually been a fan of Elimination Chamber since it started, it really makes wrestling look brutal and the cage itself looks like it would rip your skin off... just by looking at it.

By the way I wouldn't bother putting Bragging Rights as a "gimmick PPV" it don't really fit the bill, if you get what I mean -.^?

 

[Tougie]

I honestly didnt think I would choose this but I'd keep Bragging Rights. Mainly for the reason that most of the other gimmick PPV's takes away from the shock factor when they are booked. For example, when a Hell in a Cell match was announced, you knew it was going to be good. Because the fued was pretty much always a great fued and was usually ended inside the cell. And you never knew when it was going to happen, 2001 never even had a cell match.

Money in the Bank, its a tough choice. On one hand if it remains a WM exclusive match, you always have something to look forward to as long as they dont overbook it with 10 people like they did this year. But on the other hand, having two briefcases really isnt a bad thing.

TLC, pretty much for the same reason as Hell in a Cell. Matches like this are better when the match is built up to at any time during the year, not just December. No shock factor what so ever.

Elimination Chamber, again for the same reason as HITC and TLC.

Fatal Four Way, nobody cares. Simple fact, nobody cares about this type of match. The only good fatal four way matches I can think of is the one at Backlash a few years ago and the one at WM2000.

Bragging Rights, basically I chose this by elimination. The brand warfare concept is better than the whole gimmick PPV concept. Their really isnt any specific match type to look forward to, except the Survivor Series like elimination tag match. Which I believe they had at Survivor Series 2005, so why wouldn't you just move it back?

All in all, all of these PPV's suck. They take away from the shock factor of when they are announced and honestly none of them have been good. Keeping Bragging Rights would allow the WWE to go back to the old way of announcing HITC's, TLC, and Elimination Chamber matches, which would be a huge plus.

 

[TJ Matics]

MITB

Really because this is my favorite type of match,
I just love to see the ring split up between high flyers and ground wrestlers brawling with ladders to reach the top. The match is just exciting and I really do just enjoy watching ladder matches in general, and MITB is like the premier ladder match now.
Though a strong second would be the Elimination Chamber,
another very exciting match.

 

[THE_UNCARING1]

I'd kill all the afforementioned gimmick PPVs. The one I'd keep wasn't even mentioned because it's just barely a gimmick PPV. Night Of Champions. To me this is the only one that makes sense. A test of all the champions. Who's the real deal and who's just holding a place. On a side note Money In The Bank should go back to being just at Wrestlemania and King Of The Ring should be brought back as a PPV. It annoys me greatly that one of my favorite events was turned into a "whenever we don't know what else to do, we'll do this" eratic bullshit booking plan. KOR deserves to be fully realized once again. It used to mean something and it can again.

 

[Stink Foot]

If Royal Rumble was counted as a gimmick PPV then it would have been easier to pick one to keep. With that said I think the only one on the list that can work long term is the MITB. Much like the Rumble and the King of the Ring PPV's of the past, these events/matches seem to be better at creating storylines and pushing superstars. Of course eventually someone will faiil when they try to cash in (heck I was thinking Nexus or Cena might have come back and screwed the Miz against Orton on Monday).

I would still rather just keep the MITB at WM and bring back King of the Ring as a real PPV.

All the other gimmick matches you can add to any PPV when they are apporpriate for a particular storyline.

 

[An Angry Blonde]

I'd kill all the afforementioned gimmick PPVs. The one I'd keep wasn't even mentioned because it's just barely a gimmick PPV. Night Of Champions. To me this is the only one that makes sense. A test of all the champions. Who's the real deal and who's just holding a place. On a side note Money In The Bank should go back to being just at Wrestlemania and King Of The Ring should be brought back as a PPV. It annoys me greatly that one of my favorite events was turned into a "whenever we don't know what else to do, we'll do this" eratic bullshit booking plan. KOR deserves to be fully realized once again. It used to mean something and it can again.

Damn straight, Night Of Champions is the only one that makes sense. The rest should be used when its appropriate for storylines. KOTR should return and replace MITB PPV and keep MITB at WM. I guess if I I have to pick one it would be TLC since it has mutlile match types(TLC, ladder,tables,and a chairs match). then BR since it changes up the flow of feuds and has feuds beyond the brands. I hate these gimick PPV and the names are even worse!!!

 

[Thephanboy]

I would keep bragging rights.......i like the whole mixing up wrestlers in matches you wouldnt normally see in the split show format. other then that i dont like the gimick pay per views. these special matches lose their specialness to me havin them all the time. MITB should be a yearly match at Wrestlemania only...and TLC, Hell in the Cell, Fatal 4 way etc. should be used rarely for special occasions........to keep these type of matches special.

 

[Skairipa Matrix]

i would have to say id keep either MITB or TLC for the fact tht IMO this year in wwe MITB was 1 of the top 2 ppvs along with wrestlemania 26. and i like the fact tht a money in the bank contract can be won other then at wrestlemania BUT i would keep the money in the bank match at wrestlemania also because that match allows guys like Evan Bourne,MVP or other guys get on the card who without that match wouldnt make it onto the card. TLC is worth keeping because in a way i like the whole idea of a TLC match guarneteed once a year because tables,ladder & chairs is my fav match type to watch always has been..the only thing that sucks about TLC is the frickin chairs match! wtf is a chairs match? god that sucked last year

 

[JohnOldSnake4]

I would keep Money in the Bank. I think the PPV this past July was very good and I like the idea of an actual separate event dedicated to the match now and this frees up more time to focus on more traditional wrestling matches at Mania, which is something I think WrestleMania ought to have more of a focus on...

As an aside, I would love to see maybe a four-team tag MITB match next year, with the same principle as the singles ones have had. Retrieve the briefcase, earn a shot at the Tag Titles any time. Just an additional thought...

 

[Ferbian]

I would actually keep the Elimination Chamber around. If you ask me it's the only one that makes little sense to remove. You can build suspense and create surprise elements with all the other Pay Per Views. And the Money in the Bank Pay Per View thrives just well at Wrestlemania.

However, the Elimination Chamber isn't anything you can use to truly blow off a feud, or to announce anything surprising. You have to have something ala "So we'll have an Elimination Chamber" announcement of who will then be in it, or some qualifications to be in there. There's absolutely no surprise elements around the Elimination Chamber.

All the others has surprise elements. The Hell in a Cell can be used to blow off feuds, so can TLC matches. Ladder matches are always cool etc. All of them, surprise and awesomeness elements that can be used and played around. I really don't see that happening for the Elimination Chamber. So I don't see why we should want to boot it off as a yearly happening to try and add suspense and surprise to it.

 

[FutureChamp328]

EC to keep because you can market it around that match without devalueing its impact. EC matchs were always at the same PPV either New Years Revolution No Way Out and now EC so it's not changing anything and people wait all year to see them.

Here's why I'd scrap the rest:

MITB - I like this better at Wrestlemania only. It makes it more exciting to know there's only one briefcase to be won every year instead of three.

Hell in the Cell - Knowing that these matches are coming is no fun. I like to be shocked and mark out when Taker or HHH challenges someone to one of these to blow of a feud and three in one night is just over kill.

Bragging Rights - This concept should be kept at Survivor Series like it was traditionally.

TLC - Same as Hell in the Cell but with the TLC match, but also the idea for the ladder, table, chair(which sucked), and TLC matches all in one night while fun is too much like Extreme Rules.

Fatal Four Way - I just never liked this to begin with kind of boring in my opinion at least to have like four in one night because these matches tend to drag on for too long.

 

[Scorpina]

Money in the Bank doesn't need it's own Pay-Per-View, since there's already a tradition of having the match at WrestleMania. I also don't think that there's enough strength to the Money in the Bank match concept for there to be three a year and for it not to get stale within significantly less than a decade, so - for my money - Money in the Bank is out.

Hell in a Cell is a tricky one. The buyrate for that one, this year, was quite high, and - while I'm not a huge fan of them myself, Hell in a Cell matches are hugely popular and there have been some truly great ones over the years. But, one of the reasons they're so popular is because they're so rare - which makes them so special. Checking now on Wikipedia, before the gimmick PPV was introduced there had only been 16 Hell in a Cell matches, ever. Obviously, since then there have been two a year. I think that's diluting the aura of the matches, and, furthermore, Hell in a Cell matches work best as the culmination of a heated fued, a rivalry so vicious that there's nowhere else to take it but to 'Satan's Structure'. That can be problematic when you have to have two at the next PPV just because it's that time of year again. So, Hell in a Cell is out.

Bragging Rights? It's an interesting idea, but it's a little too similar to Survivor Series, really, especially with them both falling around the same time of year. If it were up to me, I'd keep the name with the better lineage, which is definately Survivor Series. So, Bragging Rights is out.

TLC... I like TLC matches, but I don't get building a whole PPV concept around them. It just doesn't make sense to me. So, TLC is out.

Fatal Four Way? That's... just not even special enough to be a gimmick PPV. It's a dumb idea and should be done away with.

That leaves us the Elimination Chamber. I like the Elimination Chamber as a match to build a PPV around because, like the Royal Rumble, it doesn't need two wrestlers to be squaring off in it, so there doesn't have to be any specific rivalry. I don't like the PPV built around it falling between The Rumble and 'Mania, but that's probably just me being picky. I also liked 'No Way Out' better as a name for the Elimination Chamber show. So,
in conclusion, what I'd do is keep the Elimination Chamber, change the name back to No Way Out and move it to a different month.

 

[Disturbed]

I voted for Money in the Bank because I look forward to this match more than any other every single year. I love the high flying and crash and burn style of these matches that you don't see as much in a regular one on one ladder match. I like the concept of it because it helps younger stars get over with the fans.

I really enjoy Hell in a Cell matches but ever since WWE went PG they have seemed so boring and have used the Cell less. Hell in a Cell matches are meant to end long personal feuds and having two or three in one night is way to much.

I liked Bragging Rights last year because of the Ironman but this years sucked. Plus IU don't understand the point of the SD vs Raw match when they don't hype it up like they should and Survivor Series is just a month later.

I don't know why those were the only ones named. DId you forget about Night of Champions, Survivor Series, and Extreme Rules? They aren't new one but they certainly are gimmick pay per views.

The TLC matches are matches I enjoy but just like the Hell in a Cell it overdoes it. I would rather just see a match like this at a pay per view once a year in stead of having a ladder, tables, chairs, and then a TLC match. Whats the point of a chairs match anyway because it makes no sense to me.

Elimination Chamber doesn't seem like it has been as good either since WWE switched to PG. They don't take as many bumps and the match just seems boring to me these days.

Lastly there is no use in a fatal four way pay per view. I like the idea of a Fatal Four way match for the title every now and then but not a pay per view specifically named after the match because thats just ridiculous.

 

[Dagger Dias]

It comes down to either TLC or Money In the Bank. If they intend on keeping the idea of having three MITB cases then they could easily insert the Red and Blue cases into the Wrestlemania MITB match and then also the one that could go towards either world title, where it would then have to be three different cases up for grabs by three different potential winners in the same match. The booking would be insane but it could be good. As long as three different guys won the cases I would support that idea. They can keep the Red and Blue cases on the MITB PPV though. I would rather keep TLC than MITB though because with TLC even though it's a gimmick theme you get some very awesome match types in it. You get a chairs match which while it sounds random can be interesting, a tables matches which is always fun, a ladder match which we know how good those can be, AND a TLC match to top it all off. WWE should keep that show going every year. I'd save both TLC and MITB but if I had to pick one of the two it would be TLC due to it being several gimmicks in one.

 

[Rated Straight Edge]

The Elimination Chamber is perhaps the single best gimmick oriented PPV due to the sheer marketing value of having two world titles up for grabs in what is arguably one of the most difficult match stipulations to date. It makes fans cheer on their favorite faces harder than ever and boos their most hated heels ever harder. Hell in a Cell would have been my pick if it were made similar to the Elimination Chamber PPV with at least one Armageddon Hell in a Cell throw-back style match for either the WWE or World Heavyweight, or granting the winner a title shot at a later PPV of their own choosing. TLC is my third choice but the initial PPV failed on more ways then one and with Ladder and Tables matches ever more uncommon and uncalled for with the PG rating, it could be dropped with any such stipulations worked back into storylines at other PPVs.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I do not like the idea of any gimmick PPVs, except maybe Extreme Rules- only because that allows for a variety of DIFFERENT gimmick matches to appear on one card.

I really hate the fact that having a PPV dedicated to a gimmick match means you already know before hand that you will get 2 3 or 4 of the same/very similar type of match on the main card, therefore killing any excitment of when wrestler X challenged wrestler Y to a "HELLLL IN A CELLLL!" match for example.

If I had to choose one out of the list though, I would go with TLC. This is because matches like HIAC or Elimination Chamber need to be brutal to have the maximum effect, and in matches like that blood is usually seen to increase the intensity of the contest, which is something that cannot be done in PG times. A PG Hell In A Cell does not have the same appeal for me.

At least in TLC matches you can have the same level of excitement/violence as you used to have without having to bleed. I cant remember anyone ever bleeding in a TLC match (other than Joey Mercury when he got his face destroyed...or maybe that was just a ladder match?). The high-flying stunts that we all love can be done in PG times no problem, and a TLC PPV at least allows different types of matches to happen...table matches, ladder matches etc.

I do not think a PPV should be based around HIAC matches or Elimination Chamber matches as these should be rare one-off matches designed to END FEUDS, not just stuck in the middle of them.

Also, Money In The Bank should be a Wrestlemania only match, as it was working fine before they gave it its own PPV slot...another stupid decision.

So TLC is the only one I would be interested in keeping. Night Of Champions or Bragging Rights arent really gimmick match PPV's to me, one is simply a PPV of title matches, and the other is for brand supremacy. Lots of different types of matches can be on these cards so they dont count in my opinion.

 

[Undertaker the 5th]

I actually chose the Elimination Chamber.

I think this is the only pay per view out of all the gimmick pay per views you listed that I would buy. I don't think it kills that once a year feeling of the HIAC. I think it makes the chamber better to have two matches from that on one night. It is mainly the most important guys on the roster and they get the mos time. I do hate when they make a random match right on the pay per view though. I feel like that kind of exposure is bad in a way because people don't want to see it and feel like it forces those wrestlers down their throats.

I would have chose MITB, but I think they do it too many times a year. 3 times, 2 if it is not at Mania anymore next year. I get that it elevates some talent up to main event, but I don't want to see different unknown guys like Swagger getting Cahampionship gold every year. Let them build up and than give them the case after 1 or 2 years, not hand out so many cases a year.

 

[LSN80]

No love for Elimination Chamber? That one easily gets my vote. Its not as if they drag it out multiple times during the year, they do so only as the final stop on the Road to Wrestlemania. It often finalizes/cements angles, and the champion that emerges from the 6 man chamber truly deserves to walk into Wrestlemania the Champion. I love the concept of the match, and its placement on the schedule right before Wrestlemania makes it the best of the gimmick PPV's. It truly serves a purpose, where many of the others simply water down the gimmick, especially Hell in A Cell and Money In The Bank. Hell in a Cell should be done during the year for the purpose of concluding an extremely heated feud, not just for a simple title match because its the next PPV on the schedule. The Money in the Bank PPv was fun, but it waters down the value of the win by having it done 3 times per year, in essence. It started as a Wrestlemania staple, and should stay that way.

 

[The Crock]

Elimination Chamber, definitely. It is the most demonic structure in the WWE, the on thing that surpasses Hell in a Cell. It is a very useful match, it is exciting and keeps the fans entertained, while at the same time being a good way to end a huge feud. It just has that big match feeling to it. There is a whole aura surrounding it and I, for one, would not want to see it go. The others can all easily be fit in with another card, but and Elimination Chamber is a huge event, it needs its own Pay-Per-View.

 

[OWEN-ing It All]

I love ladder matches, easily my favorite type of match. So I'll say Money in The Bank.

However I wish they would ditch the match at Mania. I miss having one on one ladder matches and having 3 PPV's with automatic ladder matches on the card hurts the chances of seeing one at the biggest event, which is kind of lame. And I would also decrease the amount of superstars in the MITB match from 8 to 6. Half the time guys are just lying outside the ring waiting for their next spot. It's too cluttered.

Royal Rumble
Elimination Chamber
Wrestlemania
Backlash
Extreme Rules
Night Of Champions
Money In The Bank
Summerslam
King Of The Ring
Hell In A Cell
Survivor Series
TLC

That's how I would have it.....I'd ditch Fatal 4-way, over the limit and Bragging Rights. Bring Back Backlash and KOTR.............they could just have a bragging rights match at Survivor series. That PPV is pointless, it doesn't mean anything......unless they add some stipulation for one side winning it's like an All-Star Game. MLB has home field advantage in the world series as the prize for it's all-star game. How about the brand that wins gets to have an entire royal rumble match to itself......something like that would make it more interesting.

 

[Jackiz Kirey]

Elimination Chamber because it is not as predictable. Normal PPVS you only see 2 people wrestle in the main event, or maybe 3. At Elimination Chamber, there are 6 people. It makes it more interesting.

 

[coolboarder]

I would not keep all those gimmick ppv. I would rather to keep the traditional big 4, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series. Season should start in SummerSlam have PPV every 2/3 months, end of August, November, January and the climax, end of March or April, keeping in balance. I wouldn't want to watch the PPV during the summer after the wrestlemania because Wrestlemania is supposed to be the climax and the PPV on the next month is anti-climax.

I would do away with Eliminator Chamber because I don't like to see the title change after the Royal Rumble. It is predictable but if I want to see it, make it happen in November, replacing Survivor Series. No title match on Eliminator Chamber, make it the #1 Contender match for each brand. Winner get to face the champion on the RR PPV. Giving it 2 month promo feud between them. In order to qualify for the Eliminator Chamber, I would make it a "regular season" schedule for wrestler to face each other once leading up to big event in November with top 6 in standing from each brand to qualify. It would make the live house show to mean something since it would count toward the standing, win/loss column, making the house event a must see for a regular season and Eliminator is our "playoff" for the #1 contender against the champion for RR. This is an incentive for finishing first in the standing. The card event in Chamber Eliminator PPV includes normal one-on-one WWE or World heavyweight title match on the card to the top wrestler in the "regular season" with an option to enter Eliminator Chamber as main event if he loses the title match. If the champion loses, he has an option to enter Eliminator Chamber match even though he doesn't wrestle on a regular season schedule.

That would make the World Heavyweight/WWE Title to mean more because I hate to see title change every month. Longer reign would be possible because of this format. Keep the rest of the format for RR qualification and the cards for wrestlemania to maintain feud with other mid-card title and tag-team titles. I would create a Tag-team eliminator chamber to make things interesting with a regular-season schedule as I mentioned for the tag-team division. Just an idea that might work.