High Road/Low Road 05.04.07: Fatal Four Way at Backlash
Posted by Sat & Chad Nevett on 05.04.2007
This past Sunday at Backlash, there was a fatal four way for the WWE title. Was there a good build towards this match? Did it live up to expectations? You decide in this week's High Road/Low Road!
Welcome back to the High Road/Low Road! A brief explanation of the column: Uncle Trunx takes the Low Road (negative view) on angles, gimmicks, and other wrestling related "stuff" while Sat takes the High Road (positive view).
The Results for the Tri-Branded PPVs:
High Road: 25%
Low Road: 52%
Both Roads: 23%
E-Mails:
These are all of the e-mails that we received this week. We do not respond to the actual e-mail, but the reply to your e-mail will be below.
Nathan Carter Writes:
I decided to go with the High Road for Tri Branded PPV's and to be honest, this is what I have been waiting for since the stopped doing it two years ago.
The only single branded PPV that I ever bought since they started was Unforgiven 2006 with the Cena / Edge TLC match because the card seemed somewhat decent. However the main reason that I like the Tri Branded PPVs is that they can get more exciting matches on the card. A perfect example would be this Sundays Backlash PPV. If it weren't Tri Branded and they would only have the fatal four way, tag team champion ship and the women's championship match. Since the women's matches are all abysmal they really only have two matches. I am sure Umaga / Lashley would have been added anyways and then they would have had three matches. If this were a single branded PPV the rest of the card would have been filled with crap like Masters vs. Super Crazy (despite injury), and mat classics like Khali vs (insert jobber here). This has been my biggest problem since the draft lottery started and that's that there are way too many horrible wrestlers that do not deserve to be getting any TV time yet with their limited roster they have to call up guys early and then they get put on PPVs and have horrible matches. With the exception of Melina / James I am really looking forward to almost all the matches on the card. It makes both SmackDown and Raw more interesting to watch to see the build towards each brands contribution to the PPV. With combined PPVs they can put on the best that each brand has to offer and hopefully it will be good.
The only worry I have about this is that they keep their 21341342 PPV a year schedule. That would be a problem if a three brands would be represented on ALL of the PPVs each year. 12 a year is enough. I would keep the PPVs in this order for each month. Royal Rumble, No Way Out, WrestleMania, Backlash, Judgment Day, Vengeance, Great American Bash, Summer Slam, Unforgiven, No Mercy, Survivor Series, Armageddon
Sat: I agree with your Backlash card if this was not a tri-branded pay per view. This was an awesome pay per view on paper and it delivered. The success of the tri-branded pay per views will be determined when they have three pay per views in a month. In an ideal world, twelve pay per views would be nice, but the WWE can throw a pay per view out there and get 200,000 buys (not counting December to Dismember of course).
Uncle Trunx: I have no argument with single brand pay per views, provided they clear up whether or not their wrestlers are now assigned to a brand or whether they can just shift around at random. This confusion is doing nobody any favours.
Leif Simpson
Low Road!!
I can appreciate the fact that WWE is looking for higher buy-rates on their PPVs but I have two major problems with this. The first is that we're going to be seeing a lot less of some of the great mid-card guys and quite a bit more of the main eventers from each brand. With certain guys appearing on multiple brands for no good reason (Hardys) and then appearing on a PPV each month the fans could very well grow tired of their act due to over-exposure. The second reason is that it kills some great mark out moments. A good example of this is if Kennedy were to jump to Raw to use his Money in the Bank title shot against John Cena. If the brand split had been handled well I would have been pretty excited to hear his music unexpectedly hit on a Monday night. Now it just wouldn't be seem like as big of a deal since wrestlers seem to jump from brand to brand on a whim.
Anyway, great column. Keep up the good work.
Sat: You make some good points. The mid-card guys are going to be on less pay per view, but I think that it can be solved with some unique matches (like a battle royal or cruiserweight open). You make a good point about Kennedy. When a SmackDown guy shows up on RAW, it does not have that same feel has a few years ago.
Uncle Trunx: As I say, they either need to end the brand split or make it mean something. Having this messy half and half arrangement is to the detriment of the company as a whole.
This week's High Road/Low Road featuring...
The Fatal Four Way at Backlash
Before Backlash
High Road:
John Cena has been the WWE champion for a long time. The WWE just does not want John Cena to lose at all and because of this philosophy, the WWE needs a new way for the fans to think that the title is going to change hands. Nobody expected John Cena to lose to Umaga at New Year's Revolution or the Royal Rumble. That is where this match comes into play because the champion does not have to be pinned to lose the title. This is a good idea by the WWE because it makes the fans think that there is going to be a title change, so they are more likely to order the pay per view.
Low Road:
A 4 way is seldom a great match. There are other ways to make Cena seem beatable and yet keep him strong; the 55 minute classic from Raw is a good example. I would much rather have seen that as a pay per view match than a 4 way mess of a match, which this was.
High Road:
This is an excellent match because all of the competitors have been former champions. Edge is a former two time WWE champion, Randy Orton is a former world champion, and Shawn Michaels is a former four time world champion. It is a great idea to have this many former champions against John Cena because it does a good job in convincing the fans that this is John Cena's toughest challenge.
Low Road:
It would've been a good way to convince people that this was Cena's toughest challenge if they actually built it like that. As it was, they built it up to look like Michaels was Cena's equal and the pairing of Orton and Edge were there to make the numbers up. Seriously, if they want to make the heels seem like a credible thread, this was not the way to do it. They may be former world champions but they're being made to look as if they're a level below Cena and Michaels.
High Road:
The fatal four way at Backlash is a great idea because it is combining two feuds into one. John Cena has been feuding with Shawn Michaels and Edge and Orton have been having problems for awhile. This also allows for each of these feuds to be extended. The Edge and Randy Orton feud will happen, but by having this fatal four way match, the WWE is continue the solid build to the first match between the two. John Cena and Shawn Michaels can also be extended because of this fatal four way, which I will explain in the next high road.
Low Road:
Perhaps, rather than jobbing out the heels in a mess of a match, they could have split it into two matches. Cena vs. Michaels rematch, after they have recently won one each is a perfectly logical match to show, while the Orton and Edge angle could be furthered in so many other ways.
High Road:
John Cena and Shawn Michaels had their first match at Mania, which John Cena won. The second match happened at RAW, which Michaels won. The second match was the important won because Shawn Michaels was able to get a non-title win over John Cena. This was the only way to go because when two wrestlers have a three match series, the best thing to do is keep the title on one person. If the title is switched on all three matches, it downplays the title. The non-title match gave Shawn Michaels the second fall and a legitimate claim to a rematch. This match could not happen at Backlash because it does not make any sense for a non-title match to happen at a pay per view. I expect something to happen with John Cena and Shawn Michaels that will lead us to the third match.
Low Road:
I fail to see why the third match couldn't happen here. The matches have been that good that we could stand to see another. Cena could as easily get a fluke win in a 1 on 1 as he could in a 4 way. Instead, we get a messy 4 way.
After Backlash
High Road:
I was worried that this match could be a bad match because there were going to be four people in the ring. After watching the match, it was better than expected. The problem I have with this match is that it should not have gone last. I think that the reason for it going last was that Undertaker/Batista is going to go on last in the next pay per view, so it made sense for it to go it.
Low Road:
I think they didn't want ‘taker vs. Batista to go last because a) SmackDown is seen as the "B show" and b) ‘taker and Batista were going to a double knockdown. The trouble was, 4 ways are seldom great matches (I struggle to think of any that have been all time classics) and to me, that's disappointing given how good the matches between Cena and Michaels have been, and how good a match with any 2 of the 4 could be.
High Road:
The WWE had the right idea with the ending because all of the guys had a shot at winning. All four guys had the opportunity to win and John Cena was lucky to get the win. John Cena was super kicked to a win, so Shawn Michaels has a legitimate claim to the title. The problem that I had with this ending is that you could see the endings coming. I would say that the WWE had the right idea with the ending, but it was poor execution.
Low Road:
I thought the ending was horrible. It was a contrived ending, which served only to bury Edge and Orton, two of the best heels in the business. What do we get instead of them? Why, look below the spoiler warning….
**Potential Spoiler**
High Road:
I am actually a big fan of putting the Great Khali in the title hunt. Most likely, he will challenge John Cena at Judgment Day and Rated RKO and Shawn Michaels can have a number one contenders match. The rumors are that Batista and the Undertaker are going to be fighting in a hell in a cell, so you don't want to give two great matches in one pay per view. Cena/Michaels III is going to be an excellent match, so it should be saved for the next pay per view.
Low Road:
So it's a good thing to have a bad title match on a pay per view event? It's a good thing to have the least talented worker on the roster pushed into the title hunt just because he's freakishly big? It's a good thing to have this happen at the expense of Edge, who has been working his backside off to be the best heel in the business, and putting on great matches with all sorts of people in the process? Orton's demotion I can understand; he's currently a bit of a "problem child" by all accounts. However to relegate Edge in order to put Khali into the title picture is a move that is beyond my understanding. I know I wouldn't buy a PPV where Khali was "wrestling" for the title.
Are you taking the High Road or the Low Road?
High Road/Low Road Plugs
We are taking the high road on these articles so you should read them...
There are other articles that we didn't list, so check them out as well.
E-mail us your reasons for taking the High Road or the Low Road and suggestions for future High Road/Low Road at satuncletrunx@gmail.com. Your reply will be included in next week's column.
