Deleted
Joined on: Jun 26, 2024 6:45:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 6:38:47 GMT -5
For years, it has baffled me, but why is this PPV so grossly misnamed?
1987-1991 were fine (the inclusion of a 1-on-1 match here or there is fine, especially when it was for the championship)
Beginning in 1992, there was only 1 "Survivor Series Elimination Match"
1993 was a return to what it should be.
1994-1997 was mostly elimination matches
1998 was a "series" of sorts
1999 had hardly any elimination matches
2000-2001 had 1 elimination match
2002 had no elimination matches
2003-2005 had a match or two, if that
2006 - picked up steam
2007 - return to 1 match
2008-2009 - About 50% elimination matches / 50% singles matches
2010-2011 - return to 1 match
2012 - 2 matches
2013 - 1 "traditional" match
Why do they still have this PPV if for the last 20 years it hasn't been much of anything? Why not have a Royal Rumble with no battle royale or hold Summer Slam in January?
Has there been a reason given as to why the heart and soul of the PPV has been relegated down to 1 "traditional match"?
Bring it back.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Apr 26, 2014 6:56:58 GMT -5
I see what you mean, i also hate it when they put like 1/8 matches at hell in a cell PPV in an actual cell.
Never made any sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ¡Twist Of Lime Green Jello! on Apr 26, 2014 7:14:53 GMT -5
As long as there's an elimination match, what's the big deal?
Also, 2002 had three elimination matches. The Tables match, another for the tag titles and the first Elimination Chamber.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 26, 2024 6:45:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 7:20:06 GMT -5
As long as there's an elimination match, what's the big deal? Also, 2002 had three elimination matches. The Tables match, another for the tag titles and the first Elimination Chamber. Because the word "Series" by common use and acceptance of the word when the PPV was conceived was meant to have multiple team matches, not just one. 2002 had no team matches. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 26, 2024 6:45:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 7:50:41 GMT -5
I see what you mean, i also hate it when they put like 1/8 matches at hell in a cell PPV in an actual cell. Never made any sense to me. Take a page out of tna's book and just put all matches in the cell. That would be cool |
|
|
|
Post by ¡Twist Of Lime Green Jello! on Apr 26, 2014 7:52:24 GMT -5
As long as there's an elimination match, what's the big deal? Also, 2002 had three elimination matches. The Tables match, another for the tag titles and the first Elimination Chamber. Because the word "Series" by common use and acceptance of the word when the PPV was conceived was meant to have multiple team matches, not just one. 2002 had no team matches. Clearly you've done no research and you're just pulling those numbers out of your ass. Below is a list of how many team matches were at each Survivor Series, feel free to check them if you want. 1987 - 4 1988 - 4 1989 - 5 1990 - 6 1991 - 4 1992 - 1 1993 - 4 1994 - 3 1995 - 4 1996 - 4 1997 - 4 1998 - 0 1999 - 5 2000 - 2 2001 - 1 (only one was needed, it was WWE vs WCW) 2002 - 2 (both not traditional but still team style elimination matches) 2003 - 2 2004 - 2 2005 - 1 (Raw vs Smackdown, only one was needed) 2006 - 3 2007 - 2 2008 - 3 2009 - 3 2010 - 1 2011 - 1 2012 - 2 2013 - 2 There have been a total of 27 Survivor Series events, and theres a grand total of *gasp* five events that only had one or less team matches. Certainly not enough to warrant this thread. I see what you mean, i also hate it when they put like 1/8 matches at hell in a cell PPV in an actual cell. Never made any sense to me. Take a page out of tna's book and just put all matches in the cell. That would be cool Two Hell In A Cell matches are overkill, all of them is just intellectually- disabled. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 26, 2024 6:45:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 8:00:07 GMT -5
Because the word "Series" by common use and acceptance of the word when the PPV was conceived was meant to have multiple team matches, not just one. 2002 had no team matches. Clearly you've done no research and you're just pulling those numbers out of your ass. Below is a list of how many team matches were at each Survivor Series, feel free to check them if you want. 1987 - 4 1988 - 4 1989 - 5 1990 - 6 1991 - 4 1992 - 1 1993 - 4 1994 - 3 1995 - 4 1996 - 4 1997 - 4 1998 - 0 1999 - 5 2000 - 2 2001 - 1 (only one was needed, it was WWE vs WCW) 2002 - 2 (both not traditional but still team style elimination matches) 2003 - 2 2004 - 2 2005 - 1 (Raw vs Smackdown, only one was needed) 2006 - 3 2007 - 2 2008 - 3 2009 - 3 2010 - 1 2011 - 1 2012 - 2 2013 - 2 There have been a total of 27 Survivor Series events, and theres a grand total of *gasp* five events that only had one or less team matches. Certainly not enough to warrant this thread. Take a page out of tna's book and just put all matches in the cell. That would be cool Two Hell In A Cell matches are overkill, all of them is just intellectually- disabled. haha yeah it was more of a joke, I wouldn't have the ppv if I was in charge. These gimmick matches mean more if their not used so much. Aka wcw and pole matches, they suck if their over used I agree 100% with you |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 26, 2024 6:45:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 8:52:53 GMT -5
1987 - 4 - My post backs this up1988 - 4 - My post backs this up1989 - 5 - My post backs this up1990 - 6 - My post backs this up1991 - 4 - My post backs this up1992 - 1 - My post backs this up1993 - 4 - My post backs this up1994 - 3 - My post backs this up1995 - 4 - My post backs this up1996 - 4 - My post backs this up1997 - 4 - My post backs this up1998 - 0 - Debatable as it was a "Series", but I agree it was not an elimination series, but then same argument you made for 2002 applies1999 - 5 - THIS ONE I DID GET WRONG, MISREAD IT WHEN FIGURING OUT, MY MISTAKE, YOU'RE RIGHT2000 - 2 - I WAS OFF BY 1, MY MISTAKE, YOU'RE RIGHT2001 - 1 (only one was needed, it was WWE vs WCW) - My post backs this up2002 - 2 (both not traditional but still team style elimination matches) - My post backs this up (because I'm talking about team elimination matches)2003 - 2 - My post backs this up2004 - 2 - My post backs this up2005 - 1 (Raw vs Smackdown, only one was needed) - My post backs this up2006 - 3 - My post backs this up2007 - 2 - There was 1, the Divas match was not labeled as an elimination match, just a tag match on Wikipedia, so to me it didn't count2008 - 3 - My post backs this up2009 - 3 - My post backs this up2010 - 1 - My post backs this up2011 - 1 - My post backs this up2012 - 2 - My post backs this up2013 - 2 - I WAS OFF BY 1, MY MISTAKE, YOU'RE RIGHTThere have been a total of 27 Survivor Series events, and theres a grand total of *gasp* five events that only had one or less team matches. Certainly not enough to warrant this thread. Take a page out of tna's book and just put all matches in the cell. That would be cool Two Hell In A Cell matches are overkill, all of them is just intellectually- disabled. We have nearly the same numbers, not bad for no research and pulling them out of my ass, clearly. And in a complete shocker, you missed the point of my post *GASP!!!!* My post was about how the Survivor Series started out for 5 years as almost exclusively elimination matches. I argue that it has become more of a November PPV with little to relate it back to its roots. 1-2 matches or less than 50% of the total card has become the norm. |
|
|
|
Post by World Champion Randy Orton on Apr 26, 2014 9:10:20 GMT -5
Yeah I always liked the idea from the older Survivor Series' where the sole survivors of all the matches would meet in the main event. They should bring that idea back and add some type of incentive for the winners, maybe have a battle royal and the winner is the number one contender. It kinda sucks they've strayed away from the 4 on 4 matches. That was part of the fun of the PPV, and the creative names they had for each team.
|
|
|
|
Post by ¡Twist Of Lime Green Jello! on Apr 26, 2014 9:23:49 GMT -5
1987 - 4 - My post backs this up1988 - 4 - My post backs this up1989 - 5 - My post backs this up1990 - 6 - My post backs this up1991 - 4 - My post backs this up1992 - 1 - My post backs this up1993 - 4 - My post backs this up1994 - 3 - My post backs this up1995 - 4 - My post backs this up1996 - 4 - My post backs this up1997 - 4 - My post backs this up1998 - 0 - Debatable as it was a "Series", but I agree it was not an elimination series, but then same argument you made for 2002 applies1999 - 5 - THIS ONE I DID GET WRONG, MISREAD IT WHEN FIGURING OUT, MY MISTAKE, YOU'RE RIGHT2000 - 2 - I WAS OFF BY 1, MY MISTAKE, YOU'RE RIGHT2001 - 1 (only one was needed, it was WWE vs WCW) - My post backs this up2002 - 2 (both not traditional but still team style elimination matches) - My post backs this up (because I'm talking about team elimination matches)2003 - 2 - My post backs this up2004 - 2 - My post backs this up2005 - 1 (Raw vs Smackdown, only one was needed) - My post backs this up2006 - 3 - My post backs this up2007 - 2 - There was 1, the Divas match was not labeled as an elimination match, just a tag match on Wikipedia, so to me it didn't count2008 - 3 - My post backs this up2009 - 3 - My post backs this up2010 - 1 - My post backs this up2011 - 1 - My post backs this up2012 - 2 - My post backs this up2013 - 2 - I WAS OFF BY 1, MY MISTAKE, YOU'RE RIGHTThere have been a total of 27 Survivor Series events, and theres a grand total of *gasp* five events that only had one or less team matches. Certainly not enough to warrant this thread. Two Hell In A Cell matches are overkill, all of them is just intellectually- disabled. We have nearly the same numbers, not bad for no research and pulling them out of my ass, clearly. And in a complete shocker, you missed the point of my post *GASP!!!!* My post was about how the Survivor Series started out for 5 years as almost exclusively elimination matches. I argue that it has become more of a November PPV with little to relate it back to its roots. 1-2 matches or less than 50% of the total card has become the norm. Your second post in here states that Survivor Series should have multiple team matches, I pointed out that only six (I'll give you 2002 even though the first match was an Elimination Six Man Tag) of the 27 events had less than two team matches. So all up, 21 of those events had 'multiple' team matches. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 26, 2024 6:45:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 10:57:35 GMT -5
We have nearly the same numbers, not bad for no research and pulling them out of my ass, clearly. And in a complete shocker, you missed the point of my post *GASP!!!!* My post was about how the Survivor Series started out for 5 years as almost exclusively elimination matches. I argue that it has become more of a November PPV with little to relate it back to its roots. 1-2 matches or less than 50% of the total card has become the norm. Your second post in here states that Survivor Series should have multiple team matches, I pointed out that only six (I'll give you 2002 even though the first match was an Elimination Six Man Tag) of the 27 events had less than two team matches. So all up, 21 of those events had 'multiple' team matches. Again, you missed the point. Yes, in my second post I did say "multiple", however that was in your response to "As long as there's an elimination match, what's the big deal?". Between '87-'91 there were 4-6 elimination matches per event, some comprised 100% of the card, so to make things easier I generalized by saying "multiple". By taking me out of context it would look like I set the parameters that so long as there is more than 1 match (be it 2 or 6) then it is OK. However, my main argument, that you keep missing, is more of a call back to the late '80s era Survivor Series, where the entire card was elimination matches (with team captains, names, themes, etc.). I asked why has it been OK to keep the moniker of Survivor Series, if the PPV has watered it down? By trying to pose your alpha male technicality (through reiteration of my posts, taking single words out of context) and failing to miss the point of the post several times, you have ruined this post. I'll still be your friend though.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Apr 26, 2014 12:01:01 GMT -5
I see what you mean, i also hate it when they put like 1/8 matches at hell in a cell PPV in an actual cell. Never made any sense to me. That's why I hate that there's a PPV called Hell in a Cell. It would be lame to put 8 Hell in a Cell matches on one show and having a PPV named after it leads to matches that don't deserve a Hell in a Cell, being in a Cell. For example, CM Punk vs. Ryback. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Apr 26, 2014 12:12:59 GMT -5
Every Royal Rumble PPV only has one Royal Rumble match.
Every Backlash PPV had 0 Backlash Rules matches.
Over The Limit never has any Over The Limit Rules matches.
Basically, you're taking the entire thing too seriously. It's just a show name -- plus, your post detailing the events confirms that every Survivor Series has had elimination matches of some kind that wrestlers had to survive.
|
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Apr 26, 2014 13:09:02 GMT -5
I wish they would include more Survivor Series matches. Have you WWE champion captain a team against the Heel contender's team. Then if someone defeats the champion they have instant credibility. And you're next PPV/Special Event has a Main Event.
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Apr 26, 2014 13:24:31 GMT -5
I wish they would include more Survivor Series matches. Have you WWE champion captain a team against the Heel contender's team. Then if someone defeats the champion they have instant credibility. And you're next PPV/Special Event has a Main Event. The contender beating the champion in a tag match is pretty much a Raw main event now, not a PPV main event (although with the network, the difference isn't as stark now). Survivor Series team matches were dead as a PPV draw when Nitro came along and forced McMahon to start doing team-up matches on regular TV. The thing is, just like Hell in a Cell, Survivor Series could still work if WWE would write storylines in a way that a big team-up match fits perfectly by November. They've done it before, with Smackdown vs Raw in 2005 and the WWF vs the Alliance in 2001. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 26, 2024 6:45:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 8:54:21 GMT -5
Every Royal Rumble PPV only has one Royal Rumble match. Basically, you're taking the entire thing too seriously. It's just a show name -- plus, your post detailing the events confirms that every Survivor Series has had elimination matches of some kind that wrestlers had to survive. Yes, because its called Royal Rumble, not Royal Rumbles. The name implies one. This is a poor example to attempt to go against this post as every Royal Rumble has had a Royal Rumble Match. You expect a grand battle royal and you get it. And I'm not taking this entire thing too seriously, you also are missing the point. I'm attempting to have people stop misreading or misinterpreting a rather simple question, but it has brought me to a dead end. This whole posts intention was always about how the beginning years of the Survivor Series was different than what it has become and ask why that is. If the second post came out and said its just been a change in direction and the fans don't seem to mind, then the post seriously could have been locked cause that would have been a satisfactory answer. Instead people have taken secondary information I've given to loosely back up my post and have run with it as if that's my statement. I'm talking about the drop in amount (IN PERCENTAGE & TIME OF THE ENTIRE CARD) of matches AND overall feel since its inception. By some peoples standards in this post it seems that if I ordered a large pizza with pepperoni, so long as I have at least 2 slices of pepperoni on the whole pie then that's completely acceptable. If I may, since you're in England, I go to Sainsbury and get a loaf of giraffe bread for dinner, but instead they sell me a roll, then that's completely acceptable. The late 80s to mid 90s were MY golden years and I was attempting to pose a question and get some discussion going about a PPV I used to like. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Apr 27, 2014 9:18:59 GMT -5
Yes, because its called Royal Rumble, not Royal Rumbles. The name implies one. This is a poor example to attempt to go against this post as every Royal Rumble has had a Royal Rumble Match. Just as every Survivor Series has had at least one match based on surviving eliminations. Because the big novelty of Survivor Series matches largely wore off as a standalone draw after the first few years, and the PPV needed more selling points (like the grand finale match in 1990, title match in 1991 etc)... Same thing happened with the Royal Rumble. People had already seen it several times, so they had to start adding stipulations like the winner getting the vacant title, or the WrestleMania title shot. Then wrestlers teaming up started happening on TV all the time from the mid-nineties, so random teams stopped being a big selling point for a PPV. Imagine how I felt when I ordered Armageddon 2005 and the PPV didn't even have the final battle between good and evil at the end of the world. It just had Boogeyman feeding Vito worms. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 26, 2024 6:45:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 15:40:32 GMT -5
Just as every Survivor Series has had at least one match based on surviving eliminations. True, but my argument against that is (correct me if I'm wrong), you've always seen (except once?) a 30 man battle royal at the Royal Rumble. You were always given the original PPV gimmick, it was never stretched thin. For the Survivor Series, it started out as an entire card of team filled elimination matches, then became watered down. It would be like the years they had King of the Ring, what if it was just a single one-on-one match that they called a tournament. It would feel cheap. That's how I feel about it. I personally wish they would bring it back. Bring it back to Thanksgiving or Thanksgiving Eve, I'd tolerate the holiday better. Thank you! This is what I was hoping to get when I first made the post. Valid point. I'm just very nostalgic, and now with the WWE Network I'm rewatching a lot of old PPVs and became curious. Like this: 
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 26, 2024 6:45:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 20:23:14 GMT -5
The answer is because the show doesn't draw with all tag matches. If you look back at the old ones, most of the pairings were random and nonsensical, and the matches often were not any good.
|
|
