Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Storm lashes out at gimmick matches

  • 02-05-2007 12:49am
    #1
    Mr.Nice Guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,630 ✭✭✭✭


    Lance Storm has penned another thought-provoking article, this time on the amount of gimmick matches being used in wrestling. In his opinion, they are all being done either for no reason or for the wrong reasons.

    I myself felt TNA was guilty of this but I hadn't really thought about it with regard to WWE but he made a great point here which got me thinking...
    Today we, more often than not, get gimmick matches where the gimmick has nothing to do with why the feud is on going, or why the conflict was not resolved the first time. A great example of this is the Backlash Undertaker, Dave Batista rematch. WWE built up a great conflict between these two men, and fans watched WrestleMania to see the conflict resolved. The match had a clear and decisive winner; Undertaker won right in the middle with a Tombstone Pile Driver (conflict resolved). We then went to Backlash and they were booked in a Last Man Standing match. WHY? What does this gimmick match offer us that the previous one didn’t? How will this gimmick change the outcome? Was a Tombstone in the middle of the ring some how not a decisive enough win? I don’t get it.

    On the other hand the John Cena, Umaga Last Man Standing match earlier this year made perfect sense. Umaga destroyed John Cena in the previous match, but Cena managed a fluke roll up win, to save the title. Vince, wanting Umaga to beat John for the title then booked the Last Man Standing Match. Based on how the previous match went, this certainly seemed like greater jeopardy for the champ. Fans would presumably buy tickets to see if the Hero John Cena could survive this new, greater threat!

    I think he makes a very good point. As good as the Taker/Batista match was, there wasn't really any logic in going down that route. He then finishes his article with some pretty harsh words for TNA (rightfully so in my view)...
    How about every match on the card being fought inside a steel cage, because… well perhaps just because it’s easier to leave the damn thing up than it is to take it down. Or better yet, that atrocity on Impact last week with the X-Division guys. I don’t know what it was called, what the rules were, what the hell was going on during the match, or why it was the means by which to select 2 guys for guess what… another freaking gimmick match (a three way dance for the X title) being done for no reason what so ever!

    I guess if you can’t book an interesting angle, it’s easiest just to book a bunch of gimmick matches and hope people are willing to spend their money to see those. Sadly I am not, and judging by domestic buy rates, neither are a lot of other people.

    You can read the article in full here.

    What do you make of his thoughts?


Comments

  • #2
    rizzla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,947 ✭✭✭rizzla


    Well any wrestling fan knows that TNA are doing way too many gimmick matches for no reason, so Storm isn't really bringing anything to my attention.

    But as for his comments on the Last Man Standing match, I never thought of it like that. The whole concept really of Backlash is the aftermath or "backlash" after Wrestlemania and since Batista was the champ they usually recieve a rematch for the title, but a gimmick match was not needed and having it end the way it did is just dragging out this feud a little longer.


  • #3
    Fozzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭Fozzy


    I agree. I brought up the point in my Backlash predictions that the last man standing match made no sense. I think that to the casual fan, hearing something like a gimmick match would make them more likely to buy the event. It's sad but true

    I went mad about TNA and their gimmick matches a couple of times. It gets so frustrating when not only does the gimmick not add to the match, but it takes away from it, like it did with Rhino vs AJ in the last man standing match. And the Elevation X match. And with every ppv match LAX have had this year. It's an attempt to grab the casual fan, but I don't think it pays off in the long run


  • #4
    gimmick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,296 ✭✭✭✭gimmick


    People still watch TNA?

    Gimmick matches are done to appeal to people who dont actually like wrestling. Im sure the people who hated Benoit Vs MVP (audible boring chants) loved Taker vs Batista. IMO, Gimmick matches are part and parcel of Sports Entertainment, but have feck all to do with wrestling.

    Prime example are The Dudleys/Team 3D - when last were they involved in a non gimmick match on PPV. Im reckoning never, and thats going way back to their ECW days. Yet they are huge in sports entertainment, while not being able to wrestle to save their lives.

    In short - TNA is crap :)


Advertisement