Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Young winger learning from greats such as Downing
Joined
·
9,856 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This isn't a complaint about superstars not bleeding anymore or even a complaint about the PG-era like so many might expect.

It's a complaint about consistency.

The PG-era was a smart move that's done very well for WWE. The new rules on blood were a necessary rule to come with it. The ban on chair shots to the head, which are more health-related than PG-related, was obviously a necessary provision. But now we've got a problem: This Hell in a Cell match... well, it's not exactly "hell."

Remember the days when the Hell in a Cell match was a feud ender? When you turned on RAW the day after the PPV, and the contestants came out battered? That doesn't happen anymore.

At the inaugural Hell in a Cell PPV, D-X vs. Legacy was the only of the three matches to really put the match over. The Undertaker/Punk match was pathetic, and the Cena/Orton match ended with a weak punt. This year, I honestly didn't feel that any match truly sold the Cell.

In fact, it only took a couple of hours for me to see the inconsistency in booking which has been caused by the new standards of violence in WWE.

At the beginning of RAW, Michael Tarver took a beating and was said to be "taken out." But at the end of the show, Randy Orton can just walk quickly down to the ring and get face-to-face with his new challenger? No sold injuries? No visible wear-and-tear? It's a problem. A bad one. We all know the real reason Tarver has been "taken out" (an actual injury), but his beating was not more severe than the one Orton took in the Cell. How does WWE expect these matches to be believable if it doesn't translate across everything?

I already was a person that said the Hell in a Cell PPV needs to be thrown out. Now, I'm taking it one step further: Throw out the whole damn match. Not permanently. In its current state, how long is it going to be before a Hell in a Cell becomes a "cage match"? How long before WWE goes WCW about it and puts a Hell in a Cell match live on RAW?

The Elimination Chamber, at this point, is still believable, because it's a multi-man match, and there's glass and steel landings and potential high-risk opportunities involved. That, I'm not worried about.

I think the Hell in a Cell needs to be temporarily benched. Bring it back when the audience gets older and you can change the standards again. Because right now, it's suffering.
 

·
Student of the game? I am the f***in' Game!!
Joined
·
8,351 Posts
The Cell has been on Raw twice but thats besides the point.

It is dead. Its not necessary. It dilutes matches. It detracts from the psychology. It is not much of a game changer. It is irrelevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,186 Posts
It's only gotten worse because of the PG rating. If everything was still borderline PG-13/MA-TV then the hell in a cell would be really hardcore. We still get average matches in HIAC but they aren't using the actual cage/fence. Undertaker vs Kane in a HIAC in 1998/1999 would've been great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
Hmmm you bring up a good point. And i happen to find it funny that SHeamus can have so much energy to destroy/manhandle the great khali and he just had a 'Hell in a Cell' match 24 hours agos.

Adding on to the PG thing maybe its just me but before Nexus started ambushing people,has anyone noticed that there are no more backstage brawls??
 

·
Student of the game? I am the f***in' Game!!
Joined
·
8,351 Posts
It's only gotten worse because of the PG rating. If everything was still borderline PG-13/MA-TV then the hell in a cell would be really hardcore. We still get average matches in HIAC but they aren't using the actual cage/fence. Undertaker vs Kane in a HIAC in 1998/1999 would've been great.
How about Undertaker and Kane throwing themselves onto the walls for 20 minutes straight? Would that make anything better? Nope. You only think that when in fact the Cell has nothing to offer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
43,691 Posts
Well part of the problem is that the match has unfortunately been added to the long list of gimmick matches that has no real value anymore. It used to be a feud ender, a grand climax, & a match so brutal & so violent that only the most heated of heated rivalries would be settled within it.

Now, just about anybody can be put in the Hell in a Cell, and there isn't much of a difference between a Cell0 match & a regular match anymore. The PG Direction has something to do with that what with no blood and all, but designating an entire PPV for multiple bouts with that one gimmick takes away the meaning because they try to shoehorn bouts into the Cell that don't really warrant it (Sheamus vs. Orton this year is a great example).

It used to be mega violent, it's not anymore. It used to settle massively intense rivalries. It doesn't anymore. Everything that made the match special & one of a kind is pretty much gone now, unfortunately.
 

·
Purebred Powerhouse
Joined
·
5,754 Posts
I agree with the OP, but I'll go one step further.

To me, in my opinion, it's already a standard match. Last year hurt the image & reputation of its legacy. This year just flatlined it.

Looking at the big scheme of things, it's really hard to believe that this is the same match that housed Foley/Taker, Foley/Hunter, Brock/Taker, and Batista/Taker.

I'll admit, even the earlier matches in the Cell were hit or miss. While we had Foley/Taker and Foley/Hunter to praise, we also got shafted with Taker/Bossman or Taker/Orton.

But it just doesn't even pack the same feel anymore. It doesn't elicit the same reaction. The build-up isn't there. The hype, the anticipation, and the excitement has been drawn out. Expectations have been lowered, and apathy seems to be the general reaction now.

I figured this would happen when they debuted the Elimination Chamber. But, to my surprise, WWE did a great job of keeping the two entities separate and completely distinguishable from one another.

But, with the introduction of the HIAC PPV, they've done it. They've turned the modern day attraction match into... well, just another Cage Match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,946 Posts
I couldn't agree more. The Hell in a Cell has absolutely no merit left in it, especially with the most recent PPV. Did Sheamus and Orton really have to take place inside the cell? No. Considering it was a main event match and for the WWE title, yes, but that's not the point.

You would have thought that Cena and Barrett was more deserving of a Hell in a Cell than Sheamus/Orton. You know, because the stipulation was that Nexus couldn't interfere. What better way to enforce that than having Cena and Barrett square off inside a cell? I'm still shaking my head on that one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,897 Posts
The Cell has been on Raw twice but thats besides the point.

It is dead. Its not necessary. It dilutes matches. It detracts from the psychology. It is not much of a game changer. It is irrelevant.
I disagree to a point. I think it's a game changer in one way only: it keeps guys, like Nexus, from easily disrupting in matches. In a regular cage match, the cage is easily climbed or the door is easily opened. In HIAC, there's still some drama involved in breaking in or out the cage, and that adds something. Not a whole lot in most cases, but in that DX vs. Legacy HIAC match, it was played up to great effect with HHH being stuck outside and trying to break in to rescue Shawn Michaels. I don't mark out often, but I did then when HHH left then came back with the bolt cutters.

Cage matches are dead. HIAC is the superior replacement. But neither gimmick can save an otherwise dull match.
 

·
Follower of Lockeism
Joined
·
13,482 Posts
I agree with most when they say the concept of Hell in a Cell needs to be thrown in the garbage for now. It's just a pointless stipulation match, they may as well have a singles match, or a cage match or anything else and it would be just as brutal. As Evo said, bring it back when the audience have grown older and it can be the feud ending match it once was.

Before last year, this was the match that was THE end of the feud. It was the last match to go to when a feud was that intense it NEEDED that kind of stipulation, therefore putting over the gimmick match and putting over the big feud. Now...they do Cell matches because there's a PPV called 'Hell in a Cell'. Who cares if the feud warrents a cell match. And as it goes, NONE of the feuds (maybe minus DX/Legacy) have warrented a Cell match since the PPV started last year.

CM Punk/Undertaker? No, and it was terrible. Orton/Cena? No because it didn't even end a feud. DX/Legacy? Yeh prehaps, it was the match which put over the stipulation most. This years, Orton/Sheamus? Definatly not. Undertaker/Kane? No because it's not feud ending. It's now just a match to bridge the gap between PPV matches. The gimmick has become so meaningless that I doubt having a gimmick PPV with that name would do them any good anyways.

So yeh, get rid of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,304 Posts
Yeah I agree its boring now, because theres no blood and no risk thanks to the PG era. It supposed to kill or "injure" or end stories and be a major factor in a feud. now its pointless and doesnt add anything, if you want to stop people from coming down just make it a " interfere and be fired "
 

·
The Power Of Three Will Set You Free
Joined
·
4,022 Posts
Why is it that when there is a thread, there is like 20 messages following it that always agree with it no matter what the subject is? And how hard is it for a man to walk to the ring, its not like Randy Orton did anything. So your wrong and your 20 followers are wrong to.
 

·
DAVID OTUNGA's Personal Assistant
Joined
·
9,748 Posts
this year, when i was watching the hell in a cell matches, i felt like i was just watching normal matches through a cage.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,848 Posts
It's a shame to see what themed PPVs have done not just to the Hell in a Cell, but to the Elimination Chamber, TLC and Money in the Bank ladder matches too. ALL of those matches have lost the prestige and hype they once possessed, and it's all down to WWE's lazy booking.

Does WWE need to have a themed PPV every month? No. Create compelling storyline, engage the audience with interesting characters, and people WILL watch. It's stupid. WWE builds storylines around PPVs, when it should be the other way round.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top