Week 1: Relax Its Me vs Disturbed

[Baller]

Relax Its Me is the home debater and may choose which side he wants first. He has 24 hours to choose, or it becomes a free for all.

Debaters you have till Sunday at Midnight to debate the following topic, good luck:

Should WWE continue with their gimmick pay per views (Hell in a cell, Elimination Chamber, etc.)

 

[Kiffy Lube]

24 hours? I'm already here. I will defend gimmick PPVs.

 

[Baller]

Feel free to make your opening arguments at any time, good luck!

 

[The Wrestling Addict]

Should WWE continue with there gimmick PPV's?

Since RelaxIt'sMe chose to defend the gimmick PPV's, I have no choice but to oppose keeping them around. If I was the home debator, I would still have chosen getting rid of these ridiculous gimmick ppv's.

Why should WWE scrap there gimmick PPV's?

That's easy. When you have a ppv based on a gimmick match, it overdoes the gimmick match in itself and the gimmick match becomes stale. When a gimmick match has it's own ppv, the match in itself also doesn't seem as BIG. Part of the reason I have looked forward to Wrestlemania in recent years was because of the Money in the Bank. It was one of the main matches that entertained me on the card for five years in a row. Then WWE decides to make it a gimmick pay per view and have not one but two money in the bank ladder matches, with one for each brand. I think that that also leads to less suspense. Used to, you didn't know if the Money in the Bank winner was going to cash in on the WWE Champion or on the World Heavyweight Champion. Now you know exactly which title they are cashing in on.

Lets step away from Money in the Bank for now and I'll discuss other gimmick pay per views. Who was it that started the gimmick ppv's? I believe it was TNA with Lockdown in 2005. That sort of makes WWE look like they copied off TNA in a way, don't you think? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Breaking Point 2009 was the first ever Gimmick PPV? It wasn't to bad but a Tag Team Submissions count anywhere match? I mean it wasn't a bad match at all but it sounds like Vince Russo came up with the idea. Then they have the Hell in a Cell ppv a month later and the opening match was CM Punk vs the Undertaker in a Hell in a Cell for the World Title. It lasted like nine minutes and it was the most boring Hell in a Cell match I have ever seen. Then later on in the night Orton and Cena's match was also boring. The PPV ended with Legacy vs DX and it wasn't bad but nothing special. Used to Hell in a Cell was the most violent gimmick match in WWE and you only had one if you had been feuding for a few months. Now they just throw random crap on like any other ppv.

When a gimmick match becomes a PPV, it becomes lest prestigous because these gimmick matches should have a lot of hype to them and with it being just a regular ppv, there isn't much hype and the match is usually boring compared to what the match was before it was a PPV.



So yeah not much but it was my opening statements.

 

[Kiffy Lube]

The reason I chose to defend PPVs is based on the day and age we are in. It's not like it used to be when you could talk to wrestling fans about main events in wrestling. Hell that day started and ended in the Attitude Era. It depends who you talk to, but as far as I'm concerned that era ended in 1999. After that it was all downhill. You can say 2001, but it's not like it wasn't dwindling before then. It was just less noticeable.

That is a good starting point, but we are discussing gimmick PPVs. You have to realize people nowadays that watch and discuss wrestling. We are those people and most of us are internet savvy. We understand the product. We understand that it's evolving. We also understand that we can always download it later or run around looking for streams. We aren't casual fans. This is where WWE centers there advertising schemes. They realize we aren't going around the internet to pay 40 bucks. They need to branch to casual fans so they still pay for their PPVs. Since they don't watch weeklies they have to try something else. That something else is gimmick PPVs by having Elimination Chamber, Money In The Bank, Extreme Rules and others... These semi-active fans don't have to think about the main events since they have no real idea what is going on. They just have to see the PPV name. This is the way WWE thinks. They don't look at us productive internet fans. We are proactive. They look at the outsiders. So the WWE assumes that these casual fans will buy based on the PPV name. It's quite sad to say we aren't the majority.

It's not my fault WWE looks at it like this it's just the way it is. It doesn't help the WWE quality, but neither does changing the name to some generic fight squad name like it was before. Complaining about ladder matches won't help because those are a big draw. I'd actually go out on a limb and say you'd prefer them more than I do. I actually have a deep hatred for spotty matches. Hype has gone to the wayside since hype doesn't matter unless you watch every week. WWE would have to create angles which fans that don't watch would like to see. That is extremely hard to do nowadays since wrestling is perceived in less then positive light. These PPV names help since no one cares what is going on, so if they see a name like Money In The Bank and see ladder matches they might just be in tuned to watch. This how WWE has changed with the people around them.