[TNAWCW4LYF]

Just wondering what everyones opinion is on wwe changing alot of the classic ppv names they have had such as king of the ring, backlash, armageddon etc etc . does everyone seem to like the classic names for these ppvs better or the new trend of ppv names wwe is coming up with such as money in the bank, tlc, 4way, extreme rukles etc. It seems as if wwe is making a ppv for each type of match in the wwe, whats next, wwe: singles. every match is singles.

 

[Fri Night Delight]

whats next, wwe: singles. every match is singles.

Please God Dont give the creative team ideas fpalm

 

[radiatedrich]

I personally don't like the gimmick PPVs, but supposedly they're drawing higher buyrates than the old PPV names, and that's all that matters in the end (business wise).

Money in the Bank and Extreme Rules were surprisingly good though IMO.

 

[roy862k]

Elimination Chamber is good but they should have
1 a WWE or WHC Championship bout and who ever won the rumble
of it's respective brand the champ of the brand shouldn't
defend the title in the Elimination Chamber Match of the one
who's brand's wrestler didn't win the Rumble. That I would
like to see Changed.

Over the limit, didn't live up to the hype of the name
for most of the Card.

Fatal 4 Way was the worst PPV of 2010

Money in the Bank was Awesome and I'm accually a new fan of the Concept.

Night of Champions, is on it's 4th coming PPV and is alright.

Hell in a Cell, My favorite Stip which was good last year in my opinion.

Bragging Rights is ok!

TLC is decent enough but now we see more Rareity's in WWE.

 

[wee bru]

Its a good job WCW didn't go with this concept. Can you imagine WCW - Coal Miner's Glove on a Pole?

 

[ahmed313]

Those classic names were way better than these gimmick names. A few of them are giving buyrates, yes, but as for a PPV........naaa.....won't work at all.
Backlash,Judgment Day, Unforgiven, No Mercy....they are not included in those 4 all time great PPVs, but they do have history for some of the greatest matches.
Hope some day Vince comes back to his senses and brings back the old names!

 

[Mojo Stark]

I despise these gimmick pay-per-view names.

It's totally ruined anything cool about any of the matches they have, I mean not so long ago TLC and Hell in a Cell matches were only used for the most intense of feuds, and now, theyre throwing the gimmicks around for any old story. Tables had absolutely no relevance to the Sheamus/Cena feud, but they put them in a table match to fill a spot on the card.

I miss the old days (and no, im not talking attitude era. More like 2003-ish.)

 

[Vin Ghostal]

They're hit and miss for me. I LOVE the fact that Money in the Bank has its own PPV now - it was a really fun show, it highlighted a successful concept match without ruining the actual concept, and it opened up new storytelling possibilities with two cases a year instead of one.

My biggest concern regarding MITB is what the writers will do come WrestleMania. Think about it: year after year, they've used the MITB match as a crutch, a dumping ground for 8-10 guys who are talented but have nothing else to do. What will they do with those guys now? This year's MITB match alone featured Jack Swagger, Christian, Evan Bourne, MVP, Kane, Dolph Ziggler, Shelton Benjamin, Matt Hardy, Kofi Kingston and Drew McIntyre. Can you really imagine WWE dreaming up FIVE more singles matches to put these guys to use? What will WWE do with them? What would YOU have done with them if you were booking WM XXVI and had no MITB match to work with? It'll be interesting to watch the booking for next year. Maybe we'll see some sort of battle royal included in WM instead of the preshow.

Fatal 4 Way is an AWFUL concept for a PPV. I've always said that, of all gimmick matches, Fatal 4 Way represents the greatest disparity between how the WWE and the fans feel about it. The writers seem to love it, and they treat it as a big deal every time they announce such a match. I don't think fans are nearly as enamored with the concept, and it almost always gets a lukewarm reaction from live audiences and very rarely produces a good match. Centering a whole PPV around it was a FAIL.

Extreme Rules is generally fun, but I feel as though it should be moved a little further away from WrestleMania. I think it worked better when it was in June, with a "regular" PPV serving as a buffer, like Backlash used to. It also feels a TINY bit redundant now that so many other "extreme" PPVs (TLC, Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chamber, MITB, etc.) have been added to the calendar.

 

[Thumpa]

Extreme Rules always makes me feel a bit sad cos of the passing of ECW. TLC is good to watch but the matches have no relevance anymore.

Backlash, Judgement Day etc had some meaning behind them, Backlash in particular. It sorted out whatever had happened at Wrestlemania! No meaning behind them anymore, just ladders, steel cages, HIAC etc for the fun of it.

 

[The old nosy]

I despise these gimmick pay-per-view names.

It's totally ruined anything cool about any of the matches they have, I mean not so long ago TLC and Hell in a Cell matches were only used for the most intense of feuds, and now, theyre throwing the gimmicks around for any old story. Tables had absolutely no relevance to the Sheamus/Cena feud, but they put them in a table match to fill a spot on the card.

I miss the old days (and no, im not talking attitude era. More like 2003-ish.)

Can't agree more with you.

I don't know about you, but about 2 or 3 years ago I received a form from the WWE in my inbox (I really don't know how they got my e-mail) in which they asked questions about our opinion of the PPVs, and one of the questions was: "Do you prefer gimmick PPVs rather than classic PPVs?" I had just watched eXtreme Rules, which happened to be one of the best PPV's I had seen and foolishly I answered "yes". If I did, I think most people (specially those who don't know about wrestling) answered the same, and maybe that's one major factor that helped them end with the old PPVs' format. But then again, this was 2 or 3 years ago, so maybe it had nothing to do with it...

 

[N-Zone]

They're hit and miss for me. I LOVE the fact that Money in the Bank has its own PPV now - it was a really fun show, it highlighted a successful concept match without ruining the actual concept, and it opened up new storytelling possibilities with two cases a year instead of one.

My biggest concern regarding MITB is what the writers will do come WrestleMania. Think about it: year after year, they've used the MITB match as a crutch, a dumping ground for 8-10 guys who are talented but have nothing else to do. What will they do with those guys now? This year's MITB match alone featured Jack Swagger, Christian, Evan Bourne, MVP, Kane, Dolph Ziggler, Shelton Benjamin, Matt Hardy, Kofi Kingston and Drew McIntyre. Can you really imagine WWE dreaming up FIVE more singles matches to put these guys to use? What will WWE do with them? What would YOU have done with them if you were booking WM XXVI and had no MITB match to work with? It'll be interesting to watch the booking for next year. Maybe we'll see some sort of battle royal included in WM instead of the preshow.

Fatal 4 Way is an AWFUL concept for a PPV. I've always said that, of all gimmick matches, Fatal 4 Way represents the greatest disparity between how the WWE and the fans feel about it. The writers seem to love it, and they treat it as a big deal every time they announce such a match. I don't think fans are nearly as enamored with the concept, and it almost always gets a lukewarm reaction from live audiences and very rarely produces a good match. Centering a whole PPV around it was a FAIL.

Extreme Rules is generally fun, but I feel as though it should be moved a little further away from WrestleMania. I think it worked better when it was in June, with a "regular" PPV serving as a buffer, like Backlash used to. It also feels a TINY bit redundant now that so many other "extreme" PPVs (TLC, Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chamber, MITB, etc.) have been added to the calendar.

Pretty much agree with this, they're very hit and miss for me. Money in the Bank and Bragging Rights are great concept PPVs and I'm glad they've been added. However TLC and Hell in a Cell I'm not so keen on as they're just putting whatever current feuds they have into matches that used to be massive feud enders. Like last year there really was no reason to have Undertaker vs. Punk in a HIAC match. Elimination Chamber I'm fine with as No Way Out always featured the Chamber matches anyways. Fatal 4 Way I can take or leave and Extreme Rules and Night of Champions are fine.

I especially agree with you on Money in the Bank in terms of the Wrestlemania match. The writers are gonna have to put their thinking caps on to work out how to use the usual 8 guys in other bouts. Hopefully they won't just dump half of them in the dark match battle royal, regardless of talent/momentum.

 

[Apostle Lukes]

I think Night of Champions and Elimination Chamber can be kept, but I want all the rest to be dumped. And Survivor Series becomes more like Bragging Rights, with the Survivor Series match Raw vs Smackdown.

 

[just1988]

I think the ones which they have started doing over the past 12 months are stupid (HIAC, MITB, Elimination Chamber, TLC etc.). But I'm a fan of Bragging rights.

I personally enjoy the ppv where we know what they're doing in advanvce, but they don't over do it. For example with Royal Rumble,Survivor Series, King of the Ring, Braging Rights we know what we're going to get, but it's not over-done.

Plus another problem with shows like Elimination Chamber is that it spoils the suprise that we're going to get an Elimination Chamber match at the show. Plus is spoils it's uniqueness because you get 2 in one night.

As a fan in attendence it must be terrible going to an EC ppv, especially if you're in the cheap seats because it's hard enough to see the in-ring action clearly as it is without the added annoyence of having a chamber surrounding it. So you turn up, get a card with 5 matches on it. 2 of them you can barely see what's going and one is a womens throw-away match.