With Breaking Point coming up this Sunday, I guess the expected thing for this week would be for me to give my predictions for the show. But as I said in my debut three weeks ago, that’s not the type of column I want to write. But at the same time, I don’t feel like I should ignore it completely. And it’s not like I have nothing to say about it. There are two things in particular that concern me as we go into this month’s show.
The first is the fact that Breaking Point apparently is the beginning of a new re-branding of the “expendable†monthly WWE pay per views. This re-branding is apparently being used to create a series of themed shows, where the matches pertain to the theme. We of course, have seen variations on this idea from the WWE in the form of the Survivor Series (where teams of five, strive to survive!), King of the Ring, and Cyber Sunday (which according to the WWE Kids website, will apparently retain it’s internet voting theme, while being re-titled Bragging Rights). The first five years of Survivor Series in particular were theme focused events, as they featured nothing but what we now call “traditional†Survivor Series match ups. Another example of the so called theme pay per view would be TNA’s Lockdown PPV, where every match takes place inside the six sides of steel. In fact, the WWE is inadvertently copying this with one of their upcoming themes.
That theme, of course, is Hell In A Cell, which according to the upcoming PPV page on WWE.com, will come right after Breaking Point and will be followed by Bragging Rights, which in turn will be followed by Survivor Series, and then Tables Ladders and Chairs. As the Lockdown ppv has shown us, a ppv of entirely cage matches does nothing overall. It doesn’t create more excitement, it doesn’t increase buy rates in any meaningful or lasting way, it increases the odds of a wrestler getting injured; in fact it seemingly doesn’t do ANYTHING but dilute the idea of a cage match via over exposure. Judging from the WWE’s decision to make only the main event matches at Breaking Point submission based (a wise move, considering how little time has been spent getting submission moves over in the month since the theme was announced on television), this will not be the case with the as yet un-named HIAC ppv (though based on the WWE.com website, the ppv name will actually be called Hell In A Cell). However, one of the main reasons for HIAC’s success is that it has become THE blow off match for a feud.
If one looks at the last two No Way Out ppv’s, both of which featured two Elimination Chamber matches (and 3 out of the 4 were excellent, there is no doubt about that), having multiple HIAC matches might not seem like such a bad idea. But the reason the WWE can get away with doing multiple Elimination Chamber matches in one night, is because the nature of the Elimination Chamber is competition, not a grudge match. It’s closer to the traditional Survivor Series match or King of the Ring tournament than it is the War Games. Because of this, having two EC matches in one night does not necessarily water down the concept (though it should be noted that the 2009 No Way Out got less buys than the 2008 version, which had increased buys from the previous year. Whether this can be placed at the feet of the repeat of the Elimination Chamber matches, I can not say).
Whether WWE copies Lockdown outright and has gimmick matches occur inside the Cell, or continues down the Breaking Point path and have only the headlining matches utilize the Cell, it is an effective end to what has been one of the most successful match stipulations to date. The same holds true for the WWE’s plans for a Tables Ladders and Chairs ppv, a theme that is even more unwise given the limited nature of that match. Even two TLC matches on the same ppv would expose it’s limitations; after all, how many ways are there for a man to get hit with a chair and fall from a ladder through a table. And how many times can you see it in one night before it becomes repetitive?
Survivor Series, and the subsequent demand for traditional Survivor Series matches in the years in which there were none, does show that a regularly scheduled, theme pay per view can be a successful, in demand product. But the Survivor Series match is not a regularly used match, or a match that is used as the be all end all of a feud. We get Survivor Series matches exactly one time per year: at the Survivor Series pay per view. Sometimes in small doses, sometimes in large, but that is the only time we have a Survivor Series. That is what gives that match its legs. The same applies to the Royal Rumble and King of the Ring (when we get it). These are special, once a year things. Much like the Big Show, that’s how they work best and that‘s how they draw the most money. The same holds true for big match stipulations like HIAC and TLC.
My second concern when it comes to this Sunday lies in what hopefully will be the main event match of the evening: World Heavyweight Champion CM Punk pitting his Anaconda Vice against The Undertaker‘s gogoplata, which apparently has been named the Hell‘s Gate. With ‘taker returning after months off and Punk just coming off his first truly over feud in the company (not to mention having been given the rub from the departed Jeff Hardy, who like it or not was demonstrably the top baby face in the company upon his departure), neither man at this point should be taking a loss, and a screwy finish seems most likely in the eyes of the educated fan. However, there is another option.
That option is to have the loser pass out in his opponents submission hold.
The “pass out in your opponents submission hold†ending is of course best known from the classic Bret Hart/Steve Austin double turn at Wrestlemania 13, a match that many point to as the start of the Steve Austin era in the WWE. It also serves as the ending to one of my (admittedly many) favorite matches, that being Chris Benoit vs. Raven from WCW Souled Out 1998, in which Raven passed out in the Crippler Crossface. And not just passed out, but passed out SMILING. It truly added to Raven’s character, and helped him look strong while still technically losing the match. The same thing needs to happen here.
It’s an ending that is simple, effective, sets up a rematch, and best of all it does nothing to damage either man’s credibility (one could argue of course that at this point in his career, almost nothing could damage the Undertaker’s credibility, and I would absolutely agree). This last point is especially important for Punk, who has only just started to unleash his heel persona on the WWE, and is at a point where a clean loss could effectively end his credibility as a champion. If Punk passes out in the gogoplata without tapping, it can be used as fodder for his superiority complex, and allow him to claim he never truly lost the belt. Should the booking go the other way, this allows the Undertaker to maintain his mystique and momentum of his return, while making Punk look especially strong while still giving ‘taker the moral victory.
Of the two choices, it seems to me that the WWE would be more likely to go with Punk passing out in the Hell’s Gate than Undertaker in the Anaconda Vice (which is a shame, since other than a brief, blink and you’ll miss it mention at the end of Punk’s AWESOME promo last Friday, the WWE has done nothing to get the move over as a finisher in over a year, let alone remind the casual fan that the move even exists). But the reality is, we are far more likely to get a screwy disqualification finish to yet another ppv title match (an event that is becoming as regular a monthly feature as the ppv‘s themselves). It seems most likely that this will come in the form of a Punk count out, thus creating a need for him to be trapped in a cage.
A cage like Hell In A Cell.
On a pay per view called Hell In A Cell.
Featuring Hell In A Cell.
Just 4 weeks away.
What a waste.
