This is the first Wrestling post on this blog. My interest in Pro Wrestling tends to fluctuate. The last time I was following it even close to regularly was the year of Daniel Bryan, the build up to Wrestlemania 30 and the month or so after it. Because my Wrestling memories are often the most compartmentalized from the rest, I was kinda surprised when I did the math today and noticed that was before I started this blog. Shouldn't have been, as I obviously would have blogged about it if I was blogging back then, in fact this very subject was on my mind then.
Since then I've checked in here and there, but didn't feel compelled to stick around. The last week or so however I've been getting into it again. Yet not to able to get into actually watching any WWE programing.
Many have been complaining about doing Gimmick PPVs, but my take is a little different.
On the issue of the Gimmick PPVs cheapening the match itself, I'd say that applies mainly to Hell in a Cell. Hell in a Cell should be a feud ender, not something that happens just because it happens to be October, and so we sometimes wind up with HiaC matches between people who barely met before.
If they want to happen to write the story-lines so that most of the time a Feud reaches HiaC capacity in October, that's fine, I can suspend my disbelief for that, in 2003 and 2004 we had HiaC in the same month two years in a row and I didn't complain. But actually calling the PPV Hell in a Cell means they don't need to justify the match in the writing at all, some happen to have fit, but most don't. And doing more then one in the same event is overkill. Call the October PPV Bad Blood, like the event that introduced Hell in a Cell.
Other matches simply don't feel interesting or Epic enough to carry a PPV. Like Ladder matches, as awesome as they are, none of the great Ladder matches were the actual Main of Event of their PPV and there was a reason for that. So that there have been two PPVs based on a variation of the Ladder match just shows how much that kind of match has become a crutch, especially in the PG era with it being the most exciting gimmick where a lack of Blood doesn't feel like a disappointment.
However I am perfectly fine with Elimination Chamber having a PPV built around it. See any Gimmick match where the Gimmick requires more then two competitors I feel can have a PPV built around it. Feuds may be developed in the match but don't need to be the reason the match happens. Remember, two of WWE's big four PPVs were built around gimmick matches. Though one sadly often ignores it's founding gimmick.
My problem with Elimination Chamber is when they're doing it. I hate it being between Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania. I would like to go back to no PPVs between those two at all. But I especially hate having it almost guaranteed the Title will change hands (rarely does a defending Champion retain in an Elimination Chamber match). I want the Title Match of WM to be set in stone as soon as Royal Rumble ends, if a PPV has to happen in-between let it be something that puts WM opponents on opposing teams or something like No Way Out 98 did.
Maybe put Elimination Chamber a month and a half before SummerSlam, and make it not for the Title anymore but for the Title Shot at SummerSlam. Or put it in September, where WCW wound up settling on putting War Games for 93-99. Or make it the October PPV if they really want a guaranteed horrifying Cage match for the Halloween season.