Gimmick Pay-Per-Views (Part 3)

This is the third and final part of my look at the gimmick pay-per-views that the WWE give to us each year. This section will look at quite possibly the gimmickiest part of the year.

Events discussed here will be Hell in a Cell, Survivor Series and TLC (Tables, Ladders and Chairs). This will be followed by my verdict on what these gimmick pay-per-views brings - and takes away - to/from feuds and the wrestling year.

Hell in a Cell - October

"Hell in a Cell matches are rare in the WWE as it is designed to be the climax to most feuds. There have only been 26 such matches in WWE, 23 of which have been broadcast on pay-per-view events due to the logistical difficulty in setting them up and it's perception as a special attraction due to the nature of the match." - Wikipedia

I found this description and it sums up this match type very well. The Hell in a Cell ppv debuted in 2009, but the actual match type was first presented to us in October 1997 when Shawn Michaels defeated Undertaker after interference from a debuting Kane.

Throughout the years, the Hell in a Cell match has been seen as a - if not the most - brutal match type where there is no way out - this match will end by pinfall or submission. It always was the way to finish a feud - Michaels/Taker, Triple H v Cactus Jack at No Way Out 2000, Undertaker vs Randy Orton at Armageddon 2005. This last feud in particular ran nearly all of 2005 before ending in the cell match.

This match type should not be restricted to October only, though. It should be utilised as and when a feud needs it. By having it in the October slot every year, we know that the WWE Title will be defended in this type of match a year in advance - what if that feud isn't ready for a Hell in a Cell?

One match that has always stood out to me as being this case is CM Punk vs Undertaker from the Hell in a Cell ppv in 2009. After winning the World Title at Summerslam, it was announced that Punk would defend the title against Undertaker at the following Breaking Point ppv. After the disputed finish to that match a rematch was to take place at the debuting Hell in a Cell ppv in October of that year - I never felt that this feud warranted this match type at that point. It seems that it was simply because that pay-per-view was happening in October so that was the match type that was going to happen regardless.

Survivor Series - November
Survivor Series was the second main pay-per-view put in place in 1987. This would be a Thanksgiving night tradition that would rival Starrcade (NWA/WCW).

The first four events, between 1987 and 1990 would see four man teams taking on each other to see who could 'survive' the match. These matches also included the WWE champion, whoever that was each year. This would change from 1991, when Undertaker defeated Hulk Hogan in a separate singles match for his first title reign in WWE.

This tradition of four man teams continued until the 1998 edition where a tournament was put in place to determine a new WWE Champion. This would be the start of the death of how the Survivor Series should be. 1999 saw a return to the 4on4 team set up and then from 2000 onwards there have been no more than three survival matches on the card (usually there is only one). This years Survivor Series added a 5on5 elimination match at the last minute to highlight the growing tag team division - this is also what Survivor Series is about - teams. It's a great way of showing off the tag teams that there are each year; therefore strengthening that area and giving them some much needed exposure.

There seems to be such a great opportunity with this pay-per-view to take a break from the usual. By having survival matches throughout the card - including the WWE Champion - means that titles can be rested for a month and feuds can continue but in a different way. There are several ways that a person can be eliminated in this match type and feel hard done by, leading to a continuation of that particular feud. It seems to make sense to the feud and the tradition of this great event.

TLC (Tables, Ladders and Chairs) - December
The TLC match is a glorified ladder match, with the addition of tables and chairs. The first match of this type was at Summerslam in 2000 between Edge/Christian v Dudley Boys v Hardy Boys. These six men made this match a must see and followed it up with a rematch on a slighty grander scale at Wrestlemania the following year.

Over the years there have been a little over ten such matches used at various times throughout the year. There have also been ladder matches and tables matches. This is the beauty and versatility of this match type as there are three match types coming together to make a standard ladder match look a million dollars. This match type/ppv gives a chairs match a higher standing, too, as this could be seen as boring in comparison to the other two.

I don't think this particular pay-per-view is a bad thing. It's exciting and brings together different match types into one massive opportunity to highlight the different combinations that you can use these weapons in.

The Verdict
After looking through the pay-per-view calender, I can see some positives and potential mainstays. Unfortunately, there are a lot of gimmicky pay-per-views that need to be reduced to 'as and when' they are needed.

It goes without saying that Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Royal Rumble and Survivor Series have got to remain. They are traditions and each bring something different to the table - if not for match type, they are a presence purely because of their name.

I think a lot of themed ppvs could be toned down to simply singles/title matches instead of the need for a fixed stipulation main event each year. Extreme Rules, Over the Limit and No Way Out could just be regular pay-per-views with added stipulations when they are needed. With all the other gimmick ppvs throughout the year, it would be nice to simply have a event of regular matches. I think when you look at Money in the Bank and TLC they are very similar - basically ladder matches with a prize hanging (Title/Contract) - therefore I would say that the Money in the Bank ppv could be sacrificed and simply have the match back on the card at Wrestlemania - it would give the winner more of a rub. It should only be one match, too. As I've said before, if there is only one Mr MITB then there is an even bigger unpredictability of when they are going to cash in and WHO they might cash in on. It also means the sole focus is on that one guy.

Wrestlemania is the main show of the year but it's not so much the titles that take centre stage as it is the spectacle of the night and the boiling points of the feuds. Therefore Night of Champions is a welcome addition to the calender. It focuses on the titles - something that doesn't happen too often these days. If done right, this ppv could help to reclaim the different title's prestige so that they mean something again.

The two pay-per-views that I have the biggest issues with are the Elimination Chamber and Hell in a Cell events. These two match types are brutal and career changing. They need to be utilised as and when they are needed along the way of a feud - preferably ending a feud. They are such attractions that having them annually (in the same spot in the calender) will dilute the perception that they are dangerous and a last resort to ending a heated rivalry. Maybe the Chamber ppv could stay as it is harder to get six guys together in one match without the excuse of this match. The Hell in a Cell needs to remain a match type used when it's absolutely necessary, though.

Of course, I realise that the point of all these events ultimately is money. The WWE is a business and as long as the dollars keep rolling in then they're happy. The downside to this is that the product is going to suffer in the long term. I worry that one day, the writers will forget how to put a great feud together and tell a compelling story. If gimmick pay-per-views continue to populate the calender then all we're going to get is exciting matches with no investment in the characters themselves. I need to care about a person in order for me to care if they're going to win a match or not.

(Hope you enjoyed my look at the WWE's Pay-Per-View calender. For more posts read the rest of my blog and follow me on Twitter: @jimmosangle for future notifications of posts!)