|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 16, 2017 19:52:33 GMT -5
I am always in favor of dropping any gimmick Pay-Per-View. I'm not totally opposed to moving the match itself to another point during the year, though. I don't think the Royal Rumble match would work as well if it was at Battleground.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 16, 2017 19:55:45 GMT -5
I am always in favor of dropping any gimmick Pay-Per-View. I'm not totally opposed to moving the match itself to another point during the year, though. I don't think the Royal Rumble match would work as well if it was at Battleground. i'm talking about the latest iteration of gimmick/stipulation Pay-Per-Views (Elimination Chamber, Extreme Rules, Money in the Bank, Hell in a Cell, TLC), not the original staple.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 24, 2024 17:56:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 19:55:51 GMT -5
Yes
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 16, 2017 20:04:25 GMT -5
I don't think the Royal Rumble match would work as well if it was at Battleground. i'm talking about the latest iteration of gimmick/stipulation Pay-Per-Views (Elimination Chamber, Extreme Rules, Money in the Bank, Hell in a Cell, TLC), not the original staple. What's the difference?
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jan 16, 2017 20:43:05 GMT -5
The PPV should definitely go but I'd like the match to stick around. I wouldn't mind then expanding the concept and start having them in NXT as well. But I cannot stress highly enough that all gimmick PPVs need to go.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 16, 2017 20:51:02 GMT -5
i'm talking about the latest iteration of gimmick/stipulation Pay-Per-Views (Elimination Chamber, Extreme Rules, Money in the Bank, Hell in a Cell, TLC), not the original staple. What's the difference? The Royal Rumble match has a near 30 year lineage and a very specific purpose - to generate a number one contender for a World Championship match at Wrestlemania. It happens when it happens because it's attached to the main event of Wrestlemania. Hell in a Cell happens when it happens because WWE decided that they'd name a Pay-Per-View in October after it. The other shoes shoehorn a bunch of gimmick matches onto feuds for no reason other than to pop a buyrate (initially)/generate Network subs (currently.) More often than not, the reason a World Title match is contested inside Hell in a Cell, for example, is "because it's October", not because the feud warrants a big blow off. That attitude significantly decreases the integrity of the stipulation.
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Jan 16, 2017 21:25:08 GMT -5
i only want 1 mitb winner per year
|
|
|
Post by Gone. on Jan 16, 2017 21:56:43 GMT -5
All match types shouldn't be PPV named events. Unless we have a WrestleMania match. A SummerSlam match and a.. Uh.. never mind.
|
|
|
Post by BROKEN on Jan 16, 2017 21:58:08 GMT -5
It is entertaining.
|
|
KPnDC
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 8, 2013 21:58:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by KPnDC on Jan 17, 2017 0:12:50 GMT -5
I think the biggest issue is the format of the match itself. Too many guys doing nothing except for lying around waiting for their spot. WWE doesn't know how to book multi person matches anymore. The briefcase concept is still exciting and several concepts on how to cash in can still be created.
|
|
|
Post by The Constable on Jan 17, 2017 0:56:46 GMT -5
No and because of the brand split there should be a Smackdown and a Raw MITB PPV
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 17, 2017 8:57:57 GMT -5
The Royal Rumble match has a near 30 year lineage and a very specific purpose - to generate a number one contender for a World Championship match at Wrestlemania. It happens when it happens because it's attached to the main event of Wrestlemania. Hell in a Cell happens when it happens because WWE decided that they'd name a Pay-Per-View in October after it. The other shoes shoehorn a bunch of gimmick matches onto feuds for no reason other than to pop a buyrate (initially)/generate Network subs (currently.) More often than not, the reason a World Title match is contested inside Hell in a Cell, for example, is "because it's October", not because the feud warrants a big blow off. That attitude significantly decreases the integrity of the stipulation. Sure, that complaint kinda works for Hell in a Cell and maybe TLC. But not for Money in the Bank.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 17, 2017 9:11:00 GMT -5
The Royal Rumble match has a near 30 year lineage and a very specific purpose - to generate a number one contender for a World Championship match at Wrestlemania. It happens when it happens because it's attached to the main event of Wrestlemania. Hell in a Cell happens when it happens because WWE decided that they'd name a Pay-Per-View in October after it. The other shoes shoehorn a bunch of gimmick matches onto feuds for no reason other than to pop a buyrate (initially)/generate Network subs (currently.) More often than not, the reason a World Title match is contested inside Hell in a Cell, for example, is "because it's October", not because the feud warrants a big blow off. That attitude significantly decreases the integrity of the stipulation. Sure, that complaint kinda works for Hell in a Cell and maybe TLC. But not for Money in the Bank. Hell in a Cell is no different than TLC in that regard. And sure, Money in the Bank works as it's own show - I never said it doesn't. That doesn't mean I particularly care for it. The only point that I made is that I'd prefer WWE did away with gimmick events, freeing the matches up to be used when they make logical storyline sense. Would Hell in a Cell be a higher priority to drop over MITB? No doubt. But, you've got to start somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 17, 2017 9:59:37 GMT -5
Sure, that complaint kinda works for Hell in a Cell and maybe TLC. But not for Money in the Bank. Hell in a Cell is no different than TLC in that regard. And sure, Money in the Bank works as it's own show - I never said it doesn't. That doesn't mean I particularly care for it. The only point that I made is that I'd prefer WWE did away with gimmick events, freeing the matches up to be used when they make logical storyline sense. Would Hell in a Cell be a higher priority to drop over MITB? No doubt. But, you've got to start somewhere. So MITB would only happen when there is a storyline that needs 8 guys to compete for a guaranteed world title shot at a moment of their choosing within the next year? And Royal Rumble would only happen when there's a storyline of 30 viable WrestleMania title contenders? I can't imagine either of them ever happening exclusively under circumstances of storylines. They both pretty much only work via the company saying the match is happening.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 17, 2017 10:32:44 GMT -5
Hell in a Cell is no different than TLC in that regard. And sure, Money in the Bank works as it's own show - I never said it doesn't. That doesn't mean I particularly care for it. The only point that I made is that I'd prefer WWE did away with gimmick events, freeing the matches up to be used when they make logical storyline sense. Would Hell in a Cell be a higher priority to drop over MITB? No doubt. But, you've got to start somewhere. So MITB would only happen when there is a storyline that needs 8 guys to compete for a guaranteed world title shot at a moment of their choosing within the next year? And Royal Rumble would only happen when there's a storyline of 30 viable WrestleMania title contenders? I can't imagine either of them ever happening exclusively under circumstances of storylines. They both pretty much only work via the company saying the match is happening. Why do you insist on continuing to bring the Rumble into this? I already indicated that it happens when it happens because it has a distinct purpose. I don't know how you could argue that the Royal Rumble match and Hell in a Cell are in any way similar. When Hell in a Cell starts determining who is going to compete in the main event at Survivor Series, then we can have that discussion. Money in the Bank can happen any time during the year - Wrestlemania, for example, like it used to. It doesn't need to have its own show. That's where the connection to Hell in a Cell, TLC, Extreme Rules, and Elimination Chamber comes into play. That's it. It is the least concerning to me of all the gimmick Pay-Per-Views, but given that it is a gimmick Pay-Per-View, I would be fine if it no longer existed. You're scrounging for some weird argument that isn't there based off of me preferring that these stipulation matches be free of the constraint of a designated Pay-Per-View.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 17, 2017 12:36:57 GMT -5
So MITB would only happen when there is a storyline that needs 8 guys to compete for a guaranteed world title shot at a moment of their choosing within the next year? And Royal Rumble would only happen when there's a storyline of 30 viable WrestleMania title contenders? I can't imagine either of them ever happening exclusively under circumstances of storylines. They both pretty much only work via the company saying the match is happening. Why do you insist on continuing to bring the Rumble into this? I already indicated that it happens when it happens because it has a distinct purpose. I don't know how you could argue that the Royal Rumble match and Hell in a Cell are in any way similar. When Hell in a Cell starts determining who is going to compete in the main event at Survivor Series, then we can have that discussion. Money in the Bank can happen any time during the year - Wrestlemania, for example, like it used to. It doesn't need to have its own show. That's where the connection to Hell in a Cell, TLC, Extreme Rules, and Elimination Chamber comes into play. That's it. It is the least concerning to me of all the gimmick Pay-Per-Views, but given that it is a gimmick Pay-Per-View, I would be fine if it no longer existed. You're scrounging for some weird argument that isn't there based off of me preferring that these stipulation matches be free of the constraint of a designated Pay-Per-View. What's the purpose of Money in the Bank being held at WrestleMania rather than at its own event? Or the purpose of the Royal Rumble being held 2-3 PPVs out from WrestleMania rather than directly before it? Complaining about the existence of the MITB PPV strikes me as complaining for the sake of it just because it's something that happened in modern WWE. It's a bit... bangarang. And the question we should all be asking ourselves before we post is, is this a post that bangarang would like? And if the answer is ever yes, time to re-evaluate life.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 17, 2017 13:12:03 GMT -5
Why do you insist on continuing to bring the Rumble into this? I already indicated that it happens when it happens because it has a distinct purpose. I don't know how you could argue that the Royal Rumble match and Hell in a Cell are in any way similar. When Hell in a Cell starts determining who is going to compete in the main event at Survivor Series, then we can have that discussion. Money in the Bank can happen any time during the year - Wrestlemania, for example, like it used to. It doesn't need to have its own show. That's where the connection to Hell in a Cell, TLC, Extreme Rules, and Elimination Chamber comes into play. That's it. It is the least concerning to me of all the gimmick Pay-Per-Views, but given that it is a gimmick Pay-Per-View, I would be fine if it no longer existed. You're scrounging for some weird argument that isn't there based off of me preferring that these stipulation matches be free of the constraint of a designated Pay-Per-View. What's the purpose of Money in the Bank being held at WrestleMania rather than at its own event? Or the purpose of the Royal Rumble being held 2-3 PPVs out from WrestleMania rather than directly before it? Complaining about the existence of the MITB PPV strikes me as complaining for the sake of it just because it's something that happened in modern WWE. It's a bit... bangarang. And the question we should all be asking ourselves before we post is, is this a post that bangarang would like? And if the answer is ever yes, time to re-evaluate life. I didn't complain. I said I preferred. That is literally it. It's not one of my biggest wishes, I'm not the one who started this thread. It's not even that big of a deal to me, but it was the topic at hand and I responded in kind. You're taking a completely harmless opinion, and twisting it to infer some larger flaw when there isn't one, for absolutely no reason other than to start an argument.
|
|
Cameron Stone
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 16, 2013 18:16:15 GMT -5
Posts: 2,014
|
Post by Cameron Stone on Jan 17, 2017 13:31:57 GMT -5
I'd prefer to get rid of it. It's just boring now.
My worry is they'll go back to each brand getting a case. At least do one multi brand match, with winner being able to cash in on either title
|
|
|
Post by HHH316 on Jan 17, 2017 13:36:31 GMT -5
I'm in different, but leaning towards keeping it. It's an added match to look forward to during a long summer, while we wait for Summerslam. But I don't want to see multiple MITB matches. That's how I think it lost its luster.
|
|
|
Post by TheHitmanKid on Jan 17, 2017 22:42:55 GMT -5
Yes it should! Throw Hell in a Cell and TLC in the mix too.
|
|