Gimmick matches-Your thoughts?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Centipede Hz, Mar 13, 2013.

  1. They have a time and a place for me as they should be used in certain feuds to make things fresh. Now days we have gimmick ppvs as well same as TNA with their lockdown ppv.

    Theses matches end up not being unique as they once were.
  2. Yeah, having gimmick matches put in place when the storyline calls for it is much better than "well, it's that time of the year again, go throw yourselves off ladders even though you've been feuding for two weeks".
  3. We've just seen so many different gimmick matches so many different times that it's desensitized many of us to them. Does anyone really get excited like they used to when they hear a match is gonna be hell in a cell or a non-sanctioned match? Speaking for myself, not much. I'd just as much watch a normal match as I would a no holds barred match most of the time these days.
  4. Sure, but five single matches in a row is boring. They have to have variety.
  5. I really dig Lockdown tbh, it still feels special as they don't do cage matches too often and LL is usually a pretty lengthy feud at least. I understand people like that variety feel but I'd rather they planned ahead and made sure feuds came to a head at the right time, it'd help fix HIAC especially IMO.
  6. I despise gimmick PPV's, but I actually think there is a lack of gimmick matches and stipulation matches in WWE at the moment. Most feuds tend to have no stipulation and just repeated matches. I like serious stipulations like Cena/Barrett with "Free or Fired" -- stuff like that.
Draft saved Draft deleted