The Piledriver Report 10.14.09: WAR GAMES!

Posted by Ronny Sarnecky on 10.14.2009

Lately, the WWE has been turning their “B” pay per views, into gimmick pay per views. The Piledriver Report examines the positives and the negatives of these specialty formatted PPVs. We also take a look at the latest rumored gimmick pay per view- War Games!

In order to spice up their "B" pay per view buyrates, the WWE has been looking to revamp these shows. In order to gain interest in the "B" shows, the WWE has been turning them into "specialty" pay per views. In 2005, after the success of "The Rise and Fall of ECW" DVD in late 2004, the WWE held an ECW reunion show called One Night Stand. The next year, the One Night Stand pay per view was used as an introduction to the WWE's reboot of the ECW brand. In 2007, One Night Stand was no longer an ECW exclusive pay per view. The show was turned into a tri-branded pay per view where each match featured a gimmick. Also in 2007, the WWE turned their June 2007 Vengeance pay per view into Vengeance: Night of Champions. Last year, the event was officially called only "Night of Champions," where every match featured a title at stake. In 2008, the February No Way Out pay per view featured the first Elimination Chamber match of the supercard's existence. Earlier this year, the WWE featured two Elimination Chamber matches on the No Way Out telecast. Next year, No Way Out officially becomes the pay per view where the main event matches are contested in an Elimination Chamber. The show is even going to have its name changed from No Way Out to calling it "Elimination Chamber."

THE NEW PAY PER VIEW



This year, the WWE has sent out e-mail surveys looking to change the name of certain pay per views, while turning the shows into gimmicky pay per views. One Night Stand was changed to "Extreme Rules," using the same "every match is a specialty match" concept that the WWE used in 2007 and 2008. The WWE changed the name of their annual September pay per view to "Breaking Point." The gimmick of this newly titled show was that the top matches on the card would be contested under some form of submission rules. Earlier this month, the WWE created a pay per view entitled "Hell in the Cell," where the top three matches would be contested inside the confines of a Hell in a Cell. Later this month, the WWE will be presenting a pay per view called "Bragging Rights." Along with brand specific matches, "Bragging Rights" will feature matches that pit RAW superstars against SmackDown! competitors. The winning brand of these matches will have bragging rights over the other brand for a year. The year will close out with the WWE replacing Armageddon with TLC: Tables, Ladders, and Chairs. On this show, the main matches, or match, will be contested in, you guessed it, a Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match.

THE POSITIVES



These new pay per views have both positives and negatives aspects associated with being a "gimmick" pay per view. One of the positives on having each show feature specialty matches is that you get to see unique matches, or contests that you haven't seen in a long time. Before the WWE pay per view "Hell in a Cell" was created, you were not sure when you would get the opportunity to see a Hell in a Cell contest. However, with the advent of the new "Hell in a Cell" pay per view concept, the fans are guaranteed to see at least one Hell in a Cell match each year.

A gimmick pay per view also gives tired match ups a new lease on life. How many times can the WWE present John Cena vs. Randy Orton on a pay per view card? However, when you have them face each other in a submission match, or a Hell in a Cell match, there is added interest because you no longer are watching the same match you've seen fifty times before.

THE NEGATIVES



A negative of having a gimmick pay per view is that you can kill the gimmick match. On the Hell in a Cell show, the WWE featured not one, not two, but three Hell in a Cell matches! That can need to overkill. One of the main points in making a gimmick match work, and making it feel like a special match is by only using it sporadically. The longer a federation goes without using a specialty match that was a success in the past, the bigger the match will seem the next time it gets used.

Another negative, and one that the WWE has faced during the last two pay per views is that you can book yourself into a corner. A standard wrestling feud goes like this, two wrestlers have a conflict. They have a match, where the heel usually wins by cheating, or loses because he is caught cheating and gets disqualified. In the rematch, the babyface gets revenge, setting up the rubber match between the two. This final match is set under some form of a specialty match rules. This is where the face gain his complete revenge against the heel.

When you have "specialty" pay per views, you can be forced to go against this formula. Just look at the recent CM Punk/Undertaker feud. Punk was coming into the feud fresh off his SummerSlam World title victory over Jeff Hardy. Less then a month later, Punk was to defend his title against the returning Undertaker. With the Undertaker returning after being away from the ring since WrestleMania XXV, logic would tell you that his first match back in the fold would not be the ideal time and place for the Deadman to job. On the flip side, with only 3 weeks gone by since he captured the big gold belt, it was too soon for Punk to drop the title. What was the WWE to do? They pulled off a screw job finish where the Undertaker never submitted.

They were lucky to escape that bullet, but three weeks later, they were faced with the same dilemma. It was still too soon for Punk to drop the belt. However, you can't have the Undertaker job in two gimmick matches in a row, in two consecutive months, in the gimmick match he helped make famous. The WWE was in a no win situation. No matter whom they put over in the match, it could be argued that the decision was wrong. However, if the WWE wasn't forced to have the two fight in a gimmick match at the time, they could have ended the contest in a DQ or count out.

Despite being back into a corner from a booking standpoint, the WWE is at it again. A new e-mail has been sent out by the WWE this week. The WWE is now looking at changing the name of their May pay per view. They are asking the fans to choose between three possible names for this show. The choices include Riot Control, War Games and Multimania. For the first time since the WWE started these "gimmick" pay per views, I am truly excited.

WAR GAMES



It appears that Vince McMahon is finally listening to Triple H, and will be having the first WWE War Games event. According to past rumors, Triple H has tried to convince his father-in-law to have a War Games match. Unfortunately, Vince always said no. I guess the match is too WCW for him. I guess that no longer appears to be the case.

The very first War Games took place on July 4, 1987 during the Great American Bash tour. The last War Games match was held at Fall Brawl 1997 on September 14th, 1997. It has been over eight years since the demise of World Championship Wrestling, and over twelve years since that final War Games contest. I think the time has come for the WWE to give us a War Games match.

It will be very interesting to see how the WWE goes about creating their version of War Games. Will the WWE use two rings, something they have never done before? Will the structure be a steel cage with a closed roof, or will the cage be more in the mold of a Hell in a Cell? Who will be in the match? For the very first War Games match, the WWE should have only one contest, not multiple ones like at the Hell in a Cell or No Way Out gimmick pay per views. Hopefully the WWE will have all of the top superstars from RAW and SmackDown! in the match. I hope the WWE keeps the match as true to the NWA version as possible. Something tells me that they will "WWE" the War Games concept. It doesn't matter, as long as War Games returns. Seven months to go, I can't wait.