|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 9, 2014 17:44:26 GMT -5
So im curious to see what my fellow board members think. When I was a kid I remember Survivor Series was a team vs team concept. It was cool because you would see men on the same team that might otherwise never be associates. I really miss the old concept, it had fresh unique matches, it had cool team names, and it created matches you might not otherwise see. I could see having 1 maybe 2 singles matches but these days it seems wwe has turned Survivor Series into just another ppv.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Nov 9, 2014 17:46:48 GMT -5
The roster is too small. You'd have like 3 five-on-five matches, 4 if you switched back to the four-on-four.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Nov 9, 2014 17:52:24 GMT -5
I would love a return to the old format. Survivor Series 96 and 97 did the concept best,I think - several traditional Survivor matches flanked by 2 or 3 singles matches showcasing hot feuds at the time.
wasn't it said that Vince said years ago that "people didn't want to see" the traditional Survivor tag matches anymore? or something like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Abed on Nov 9, 2014 17:53:24 GMT -5
I think people get bored way more easily today then they did back in the late 80's-early 90's. An all 5vs5 elimination match card worked back then, but now people can't sit through most matches where people arent getting thrown off cages or falling off ladders. I like the elimination matches myself but as stated by Joe/Smurf the roster is just too small to be running that type of card these days as well. 2-3 traditional matches are fine for me. wasn't it said that Vince said years ago that "people didn't want to see" the traditional Survivor tag matches anymore? or something like that? Idk bout that quote but I know Survivor Series almost got cancelled as an annual event a few years back around 2010-2011 or so. |
|
|
|
Post by jayrod2009 on Nov 9, 2014 17:54:53 GMT -5
I agree. I really miss the concept. Todays's Survivor Series with yesteryears concept would look like this:
Samoan Squad vs Intergalactic Warriors
Uso's and Roman vs Goldust, Stardust, Sheamus
Demented Dudes vs Climactic Ending
Ziggler/Ambrose vs Miz/Mizdow
American Patriots vs Unholy Alliance
Cena, Swagger, Big Show, Orton vs Cesaro, Rusev, Barrett, Neville
Teijuana Sunrise vs Devil's Advacate
Matadores/Sin Cara vs The Accension / Kane
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Nov 9, 2014 17:56:17 GMT -5
It should be the Elimination Match show, especially with no World Championship match this year. It gets guys who dont normally appear on PPV an appearance. The WWE has been neglecting this PPV for years especially in 2007 when HHHs team went up against Umagas team, somebody from HHHs team got injured and they didnt even bother to have a replacement.
|
|
|
|
Post by TurboEddie on Nov 9, 2014 18:04:34 GMT -5
I would like for Survivor Series to have more elimination styled matches: Classic Survivor Series Elimination Matches, Elimination Chamber Matches, Fatal Four Way Elimination Matches, Triple Threat Elimination Matches, Tag Team Turmoil, etc. That way it can at least still have the survival concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Nov 9, 2014 18:21:46 GMT -5
I like a mix of both. Personally, I would have it be all singles matches and two Survivor Series Tag Matches, and maybe if warranted replace one of those tag matches with the Elimination Chamber
|
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Nov 9, 2014 18:26:03 GMT -5
The roster is too small. You'd have like 3 five-on-five matches, 4 if you switched back to the four-on-four. There's about 40-45 full time performers on the roster. Plus use the divas for a divas SvS match (it would suck I know) and you could do an NXT one as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 9, 2014 18:29:48 GMT -5
The roster is too small. You'd have like 3 five-on-five matches, 4 if you switched back to the four-on-four. I would think that the wwe has enough wrestlers to carry out a traditional Survivor Series ppv. The Rumble requires 30 men just for the Rumble and they usually have singles and tag matches before the Rumble. So im sure they could have 4 on 4 teams. A ppv with 4 or 5 matches would require 32 to 40 wrestlers. Im sure wwe could do this if they wanted. What I think it comes down to is Vince doesnt want to pay 40 wrestlers for a traditional Survivor Series. It is much easier for him and on his wallet to have 5 to 9 singles matches and only pay 10 to 18 wrestlers for the same ppv. I still feel though that he looses customers by opting to cheap out and give us mostly singles matches. |
|
Infinite
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 27, 2009 13:49:36 GMT -5
Posts: 2,608
|
Post by Infinite on Nov 9, 2014 18:37:22 GMT -5
The thing is that honestly, nostalgia aside, a card full of 5v5 matches with next to nothing on the line probably just wouldn't draw anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 9, 2014 18:46:31 GMT -5
The thing is that honestly, nostalgia aside, a card full of 5v5 matches with next to nothing on the line probably just wouldn't draw anymore. I feel wwe is in an era where pretty much everything is meaningless. Cena vs Orton for the title means nothing cause it's been done to death. Think about that, the top guy vs another top guy for the WWE title has been done to death, it's a sad state. Even if there was nothing at stake, IE titles, it would make for interesting match ups. Keep in mind that there was a Survivor Series Match, which had no titles on the line, between Dusty Rhode's team vs Million Dollar Man's team. There was really nothing at stake and yet that match will always be remembered as being the Undertaker's first wwf appearance and he was a monster at that match. Thus showing us that we do not need anything to be at stake in a match in order for a match to be great. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Nov 9, 2014 19:07:17 GMT -5
The roster is too small. You'd have like 3 five-on-five matches, 4 if you switched back to the four-on-four. I would think that the wwe has enough wrestlers to carry out a traditional Survivor Series ppv. The Rumble requires 30 men just for the Rumble and they usually have singles and tag matches before the Rumble. So im sure they could have 4 on 4 teams. A ppv with 4 or 5 matches would require 32 to 40 wrestlers. Im sure wwe could do this if they wanted. What I think it comes down to is Vince doesnt want to pay 40 wrestlers for a traditional Survivor Series. It is much easier for him and on his wallet to have 5 to 9 singles matches and only pay 10 to 18 wrestlers for the same ppv. I still feel though that he looses customers by opting to cheap out and give us mostly singles matches. The people in the openings matches on the Rumble pretty much always compete in the Rumble now, too. They employ about 40 wrestlers. Not all of them are worth a PPV spot. The roster is too small. You'd have like 3 five-on-five matches, 4 if you switched back to the four-on-four. There's about 40-45 full time performers on the roster. Plus use the divas for a divas SvS match (it would suck I know) and you could do an NXT one as well. Okay, but is Great Khali/Sin Cara/Zack Ryder/Justin Gabriel vs. Tyson Kidd/Curtis Axel/Titus O'Neill/Heath Slater going to put butts in the seats? Cause that would be one of your five matches. Just because they have 40-45 active guys doesn't mean all of them are worth a damn. They have like 20 characters that matter, evident by the fact that dudes are constantly pulling double duty on Raw these days. |
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Nov 9, 2014 19:11:39 GMT -5
I would think that the wwe has enough wrestlers to carry out a traditional Survivor Series ppv. The Rumble requires 30 men just for the Rumble and they usually have singles and tag matches before the Rumble. So im sure they could have 4 on 4 teams. A ppv with 4 or 5 matches would require 32 to 40 wrestlers. Im sure wwe could do this if they wanted. What I think it comes down to is Vince doesnt want to pay 40 wrestlers for a traditional Survivor Series. It is much easier for him and on his wallet to have 5 to 9 singles matches and only pay 10 to 18 wrestlers for the same ppv. I still feel though that he looses customers by opting to cheap out and give us mostly singles matches. The people in the openings matches on the Rumble pretty much always compete in the Rumble now, too. They employ about 40 wrestlers. Not all of them are worth a PPV spot. There's about 40-45 full time performers on the roster. Plus use the divas for a divas SvS match (it would suck I know) and you could do an NXT one as well. Okay, but is Great Khali/Sin Cara/Zack Ryder/Justin Gabriel vs. Tyson Kidd/Curtis Axel/Titus O'Neill/Heath Slater going to put butts in the seats? Cause that would be one of your five matches. Just because they have 40-45 active guys doesn't mean all of them are worth a damn. They have like 20 characters that matter, evident by the fact that dudes are constantly pulling double duty on Raw these days. That's where you gotta balance things out. What if I told you (which you probably know) that Ken Patera and Red Rooster were on the Main Event teams in the first two Survivor Series? I mean, neither are gonna put butts in the seats themselves...However you put them with Hogan, Savage, Andre The Giant etc...and it looks more balanced out. |
|
|
|
Post by Danger10 on Nov 9, 2014 19:24:51 GMT -5
I miss the old format and wish they would revert it to all traditional Survivor Series elimination matches, to me that's what made the PPV so unique.
|
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 9, 2014 19:58:51 GMT -5
I would think that the wwe has enough wrestlers to carry out a traditional Survivor Series ppv. The Rumble requires 30 men just for the Rumble and they usually have singles and tag matches before the Rumble. So im sure they could have 4 on 4 teams. A ppv with 4 or 5 matches would require 32 to 40 wrestlers. Im sure wwe could do this if they wanted. What I think it comes down to is Vince doesnt want to pay 40 wrestlers for a traditional Survivor Series. It is much easier for him and on his wallet to have 5 to 9 singles matches and only pay 10 to 18 wrestlers for the same ppv. I still feel though that he looses customers by opting to cheap out and give us mostly singles matches. The people in the openings matches on the Rumble pretty much always compete in the Rumble now, too. They employ about 40 wrestlers. Not all of them are worth a PPV spot. There's about 40-45 full time performers on the roster. Plus use the divas for a divas SvS match (it would suck I know) and you could do an NXT one as well. Okay, but is Great Khali/Sin Cara/Zack Ryder/Justin Gabriel vs. Tyson Kidd/Curtis Axel/Titus O'Neill/Heath Slater going to put butts in the seats? Cause that would be one of your five matches. Just because they have 40-45 active guys doesn't mean all of them are worth a damn. They have like 20 characters that matter, evident by the fact that dudes are constantly pulling double duty on Raw these days. So if I go by what you're saying and wwe only has 30 guys that are ppv worthy that is still nearly 4 traditional Survivor Series Match ups. Plus one Divas match, that's a ppv. Also Khali, Sin Cara, Ryder, Gabriel vs Kidd, Axel, Titus, Slater might not sell a ppv but it is a good under card match. See not every match on a ppv has to be a main event. Also back in the day WWF would stick these less then top guys into matches with top guys as filler for the match. Danny Davis Red Rooster Sam Houston Conquistadors Ron Bass Koko B Ware Col Mustafa Skinner These were all guys who arguably were not top draws, yet they were in Survivor Series matches, some with Hogan. The point is not every guy on the card needs to be a major draw, this is how new guys are introduced to the public. Undertaker was a nobody in the wwf. I bet if wwf advertised Undertaker being at the 1990 Survivor Series they would have sold minimal tickets, yet the man came out did his job, and the rest is history. My point is you don't need to be a main draw/selling point in order for wwe to put you in a match. |
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 9, 2014 20:02:32 GMT -5
The people in the openings matches on the Rumble pretty much always compete in the Rumble now, too. They employ about 40 wrestlers. Not all of them are worth a PPV spot. Okay, but is Great Khali/Sin Cara/Zack Ryder/Justin Gabriel vs. Tyson Kidd/Curtis Axel/Titus O'Neill/Heath Slater going to put butts in the seats? Cause that would be one of your five matches. Just because they have 40-45 active guys doesn't mean all of them are worth a damn. They have like 20 characters that matter, evident by the fact that dudes are constantly pulling double duty on Raw these days. That's where you gotta balance things out. What if I told you (which you probably know) that Ken Patera and Red Rooster were on the Main Event teams in the first two Survivor Series? I mean, neither are gonna put butts in the seats themselves...However you put them with Hogan, Savage, Andre The Giant etc...and it looks more balanced out. This. Wrestlers do not need to be the main draw on a card, all they need to do is their job. You put Joe Schmoe as Cena's tag team partner. The main selling point is Cena but it's cool to see Joe out there. Go to buy a Hamburger, you mostly want beef inbetween two buns not so much Catsup, but once you see they added Catsup to the burger you accept and enjoy it. See the Ketchup/Joe Schmoe isnt the main selling point, it isnt what got your money, but once you saw it you enjoyed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Yeeter on Nov 9, 2014 20:10:45 GMT -5
The thing is that honestly, nostalgia aside, a card full of 5v5 matches with next to nothing on the line probably just wouldn't draw anymore. Exactly. No silly conspiracy about "Vince doesn't want to pay 40 guys" -- the reality is that back in the squash match days, seeing superstars team up and face other superstars was a huge novelty. Now, it's something that happens on just about every Raw and Smackdown. Absolutely no drawing power at all besides nostalgia in pointless, random 5 vs 5 matches... And (pre-network) the ones in it for the nostalgia are the ones who either watch the show illegally for free, or buy every PPV regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by The Natural Eddy Valintino on Nov 9, 2014 20:13:25 GMT -5
I'd say there should be 3 Survivor Series match, and the rest should be other matches. I liked the days of the whole card being Survivor Series matches from watching old Survivor Series PPVs on tape as a kid, especially the all tag teams Survivor Series, which they had the ability to do a few years ago when they were starting to have a lot of tag teams. I'm not sure that today's age can have all Survivor Series matches. I say 3 is enough, throw in title matches or big one on one rivalry matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 9, 2014 20:23:35 GMT -5
The thing is that honestly, nostalgia aside, a card full of 5v5 matches with next to nothing on the line probably just wouldn't draw anymore. Exactly. No silly conspiracy about "Vince doesn't want to pay 40 guys" -- the reality is that back in the squash match days, seeing superstars team up and face other superstars was a huge novelty. Now, it's something that happens on just about every Raw and Smackdown. Absolutely no drawing power at all besides nostalgia in pointless, random 5 vs 5 matches... And (pre-network) the ones in it for the nostalgia are the ones who either watch the show illegally for free, or buy every PPV regardless. So a wwe ppv in which wwe wrestlers have matches against one another does not appeal to you because we get those matches on raw anyway? What does it take for you to be interested in buying/watching a ppv? See the nice thing about the Original style Survivor Series Matches was/is the team competition concept. You might see Bray vs Cena every week on Raw but you do not see Bray PLUS 3 or 4 other men vs Cena PLUS 3 or 4 other men on raw every week. The possibilities are endless. You might see Cena vs 5 other men. You might see Cena be the first man eliminated. Look back at the first Survivor Series, it was at the Height of the Hogan/Andre feud. At the time us fans thought Hogan unbeatable. Spoiler alert, Hogan lost at that PPV. It was a rare chance to see the main guy lose. Also that gave Bam Bam a chance to shine in the main event, thus taking some of Hogan's spotlight and showcasing another wrestler. |
|
