Shining a Spotlight 10.01.09: Cooling Off Hell

Posted by Michael Weyer on 10.01.2009

A look at how WWE's devoting an entire PPV to Hell in the Cell can ruin the meaning of one of the biggest matches around.

Another shorter column this week as I've just returned from a long weekend in London. A pretty good trip overall with great weather for touring the big sites and checking out a few shows. Was originally just going to do a few "odds and ends" bits but then hit upon a quick rant I wanted to get out of my system.
　



This weekend sees WWE attempting one of their biggest experiments yet: A PPV of nothing but Hell in the Cell matches. The idea of an all-gimmick PPV has been done of course but not with a bout that's meant to be one of WWE's most unique and important. It's a troubling idea in some ways, despite how great the HITC concept is and how it usually leads to some wild action. However, by doing an entire PPV of it, WWE risks ruining one of the few great draws they have and weakening the entire meaning of it all.
　

Hellish Oversaturation

As I said before, overdoing a gimmick for an entire PPV can be risky. TNA took that on when they had the first Lockdown and while that has been a staple, doing an entire show of cage matches makes the cage itself seem less effective than it should be. When HITC was first brought out in 1997, it was a huge deal. A cage that covered not just the ring but the entire ringside area with a metal ceiling on top, it was a damn cool sight. Even better was how the first two bouts made it so impressive. The Shawn-Undertaker fight was great with both men bleeding buckets and Shawn taking a fall from the cage through a table. But of course, that second bout with Mankind taking his dual falls set the stage for HITC always been known for brutality.



More important than the brutality is that HITC was established as a major feud-ender or at least the climax of a big program. HHH vs. Jericho, Brock vs. Undertaker, HHH vs. Batista, hell even the McMahons vs. DX and Bobby Lashley. In each case, HITC was used to bring things to a major head and did so remarkably. Indeed, the Brock-UT battle really established Brock with his clean win over the Undertaker who did one of the most gory blade jobs I've ever seen. Likewise, despite beating HHH twice before, doing so in Hell in the Cell established Batista as the real deal champion for fans. Thus, HITC was seen as a way to really sell the big matches for big stars.

So giving it to an entire PPV is an odd choice to say the least. Sure, we do get some big bouts to pay off on programs like Cena and Orton or DX/Legacy. But the Punk/Undertaker feud is just starting off, it's way too early to have the big blow-off for it. Plus, while it sounds historic, the idea of a woman's match inside the Cell doesn't really seem right. Overdoing a gimmick can be a very bad thing, especially for a match meant to be really unique. Just look at how the TLC matches were awesome at first but became a bit less special once they became more commonplace. WWE has generally been wise spreading out HITC so that when it happens, it's really a big event and blowing it all on one show just strikes of desperation.
　




The War Games Influence

Now being a guy who likes to examine both sides of an argument, I feel the need to point out that just because something is a rare occurrence doesn't mean it's automatically stellar. A great example of that would be the match that inspired HITC: War Games.

There's been a tendency among a lot of people to deify War Games a bit. Yes, the first couple of them were truly awesome. Ten of the biggest stars of the NWA clashing in a two-ring cage in a brutal match that could only be won by submission, it was a true spotlight for stunning action. You just didn't see stuff like this on the major promotions so the match became a staple for WCW for years afterward. That was aided by WCW keeping the matches spread apart, often going a full year between them. When they instituted the Fall Brawl PPV, it made sense to make War Games a part of that.

However, those matches are not fondly remembered. You had ‘93 with Sting, Davey Boy Smith, Dustin Rhodes and the Shockmaster against Sid, Vader and Harlem Heat. The whole thing was to boost the Shockmaster, whose tenure was doomed from his infamous face-planting entrance and having him win with an ultra-quick submission didn't help. The next year you had Dustin and Dusty with the Nasty Boys against Robert Parker's gang. Until then, War Games had been meant to use the biggest names in the company and wasting it on what was basically a mid-card feud was a bit much, particularly with no blood involved. Then the next year had Hogan, Sting, Luger and Savage against the Dungeon of Doom with Hogan pretty much single-handedly beating the Dungeon down until the Giant attacked him.

Sure, it picked up in ‘96 with the wild battle that led to Sting making the big shift in his persona that would shoot him to a major push in WCW against Hogan. But then ‘97 had the New World Order beating down the Horsemen and let's not get started on the mess of ‘98 with the Warrior making a bizarre appearance amid a horrible bout. All that really watered down what War Games was meant for and it's interesting how shifting it to an annual event coincided with that fall in appeal.

Still, to do that with HITC like this is a poor move. Money in the Bank works because it's only at Wrestlemania and even weakened as above, War Games was still something unique. HITC is meant to be that as well but using it for matches that really don't warrant it can do damage when the time comes to use it again.
　

Summation

Gimmick bouts are tricky to work out. Once upon a time, tag team matches were pretty rare and unique. Ditto for battle royals and no-DQ bouts and even ladder matches. HITC was created to serve as an incredibly powerful match, one that could make careers and provide the climax for major feuds and programs. With so few bouts capable of being instantly huge in the minds of fans, one would think WWE would want to keep it that way. Instead, they're devoting an entire PPV for it and in doing so, are risking forever robbing HITC of the qualities that made it so memorable in the first place. What was one of the biggest draws the company had, a match that was always meant to be cool and notable, now runs the risk of being just another stipulation match. And that would be one hell of a shame.


Next week, I'll be taking a look at a unique new book that goes in depth with the wrestling business both good and bad. For now, the spotlight is off.