Tables and Ladders and Chairs... Oh shit...
 

So yeah, Armageddon's gone.

http://www.ticketmaster.com/event/0C...minorcatid=105

"TLC: Tables, Latters, and Chairs"

Whose fuck up was that?

Anyway, why do they feel the need to do all of these gimmick PPVs? They're cheapening what little appeal these matches still have.

Should we discuss our favorite Armageddon moments here? Can't really think of any off the top of my head unless the last Armageddon was the one with HBK/Y2J.

:nono:

When owenbrown is disappointed, something's gotta change.

These gimmick ppvs are a bad idea. At absoulute most you should have one a year. Heck, when TNA started doing Lockdown I thought it was rediculous, now this is beyond rediculous.

Also, I guarentee that someone gets hurt because of this. That or they are going to massively reduce the dangerous spots in these matches.

I'm assuming this is just going to be "ALL THE MAIN EVENTS ARE TLC MATCHES!!!!!!".

I'd rather there not be a TLC match for the Divas title or anything.

Wow.

And people flame TNA for ridiculous ideas.

Way to ruin another gimmick match.

Still, 2 or 3 TLC matches in a night is a terrible idea. (2 a year is fine with me)

This is somewhat like what deathmatches became in Japan.

Also WTF! The WWE is supposed to be PG now and they are promoting a fucking PPV called Tables 'Latters' and Chairs, who the fuck comes up with this shit.

Are you saying you would rather not watch the epic encounter of Chavo vs. Hornswoggle in a TLC match, where the loser has to stick a chair up his ass while wearing a bear costume? COME ON!!!

Vince Russo

If Hornswoggle wrestles on PPV, I quit.

I think I just found my 'breaking point'.

Maybe it's there way of using those matches annually, like Hell in a Cell main event matches being used one PPV a year. Instead of having 3-4 Hell in a Cell or TLC matches a year, they can make it mean something one night a year. That is just my opinion.

WM 23 Infront of 80,000 people
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/...nedymidget.jpg

WM 24 Infront of 60,000
http://www.talkwrestlingonline.com/i...s/wm25cc04.jpg

Dont think they wont do it.

Thing is, though, it ruins the surprise and makes it obvious it's coming up. For example, we know for a fact that Punk/Taker is going to the Cell in October. I'd rather it be a natural progression to the Cell instead of "We have one PPV to make it to the Cell, quick, rush".

I didn't even like the concept of No Way Out being the Chamber PPV. But that was more because it's between the Rumble and Mania. Otherwise it would have been "OK".

But they just had a TLC match at Summerslam and that PPV is in December. So no.

As for Hornswoggle, he was supporting Finlay in that match. That's fine. He was just a 'humorous' spot in a MiTB match. If he's booked for a one-on-one actual match...that's different.

<font color=goldenrod>If they are just going to make every goddamn PPV a gimmick PPV they may as well make the Survivor Series elimination matches the main focus of Survivor Series like back in the day, instead of just doing one.

Oh wait, that's actually a GOOD idea...not gonna happen.</font>

Ms. Kitty's tits.

Holla. There's another good one.

Ok ok I'm gonna try and make the best of a bad situation, this is how I would run it:

'TLC' isn't an all-gimmick PPV, but mostly a theme that will run through the PPV. At the start of the PPV the World Champion must face the WWE Champion. The winner pretty much get's a free pass whilst the loser will have to go on to defend his title later that night in a four/six-man TLC match.

The four/six contenders can be from any brand, and will be determined either by the standard tournament, OR maybe if they had individual matches at the TLC PPV and win they get a slot in the match. IE: If John Morrion were to beat Dolph Ziggler for the Intercontinental title, he would then move on to the TLC match later that night, potentially giving him a chance to win the IC and World/WWE title in one night.

Sounds messy, but just trying to think of a decent concept rather than 'all the matches will be TLC'.

Also the ECW Champ will just have his own match because it'd be lame to even think that people would want a TLC match for the ECW title to headline a PPV.

Just as there's an I Quit match at Breaking Point, I'm willing to bet there will be a regular ladder match at TLC.

I think either Vince or WWE is getting worried or paranoid for no real reason. At first they made fun of TNA for their gimmick ppvs and now they are doing them when they don't need to do it. Add that to recent reports of WWE signing ROH wrestlers once ROH went to Monday Nights and either Vince wants to kill off ROH/TNA as early as possible or he's worried about something else (maybe UFC/MMA, boxing, or something unrelated).

Well, 2007 did have the 4-team ladder match where Mercury broke his nose.

Am I the only one who's a bit interested in seeing how they can possibly do this for the Raw roster? Any Raw main event has to include one or more of Orton, Cena, Triple H, or HBK. Who's gonna be willing to do a TLC match?

Interested in the "I don't actually want to watch the match" kind of way, maybe.

triple h has had some brutal matches in the past and so as hkb and i don't think either of them are willing to do that anymore

i would like to see cena in a tlc match only because i might see him get legitimately injured

I just want to know how they figured putting their Raw main eventers in a TLC match was a good idea. Will Batista be back by then? If so that's another main eventer who can't do a TLC match.

I would rather it be a surpirse too instead on a card once a year which I agree they would completely rush. I wish they would tweak the elimination chamber into a War Games for Survivor Series.

And they're not even clever names. I mean, "Hell in a Cell" and "TLC"? What's next? "Tag Team"?

Armageddon was one of my favourite ppv names ffs.

they don't do 'tag teams' remember?

Exactly. Why not change the name to Armageddon: TLC, and then the next year have Armageddon: Hell in a Cell? Switch it up every year to keep it fresh and unpredictable.

Now that I could live with.

I'd like to see a "Singles match" pay per view

"Iron Man" PPV... only 3 matches the entire show, and the first match has to start during the Free for All.

a 'wrestling match' ppv

... next on pay per view wwe presents 'wrestling match'

That's what I'd rather they do. Unforgiven: Breaking Point could have been cool, but BP really isn't a bad PPV name. Especially considering how they are talking up where wrestlers "breaking points" are. Unforgiven was just sort of there.

If they wanted to change the name of Armageddon, I would have much rather they bring Starrcade back. I might actually order a PPV because it is called such. If they do Elimination Matches at Survivor Series, they could lead that directly into a War Games match at Starrcade. I would actually be interested to see, say, Legacy & Big Show vs. D-Generation X, John Cena & MVP in a War Games match.

On the RAW side this year, with the event being in San Antonio, Shawn Michaels seems like he would be a good fit for the TLC Match. Randy Orton and John Cena have also been in TLC Matches in the past. I could definitely see a Four-Way between Orton, Cena, HBK and Triple H.

When was Orton in a TLC match?

Yeah, don't rememebr orton in a TLC.

He wasn't, one of the few mistakes of Noid, I think he's probably thinking of the MITB match Orton was in.

I want Khali vs Mark Henry in a TLC.

Hornswoggle would be interesting as well.

Yeah, I was half-asleep when I wrote that. I just meant general Ladder Matches. I mean, TLC isn't much different, if at all.

I really don't see any point to these gimmick PPVs, we already have Extreme Rules but Vince is just buring the Cell, TLC, and submission matches by having a PPV dedicated to the.

TNA, sadly only has 2 PPV IIRC that have a gimmick match(s) attached to them. Lockdown and Destination X. Although TNA does have 2 to 3 gimmick matches per PPV anyway.

But WWEs PPV schedule pretty much has a gimmick to every one....

Royal Rumble- Obvious
No Way Out- Elimination Chamber
Wrestlemania- MITB and the Rumble Winner's Title Match
Backlash- Rematches from WM (not technically a gimmick match)
Judgment Day- None
Extreme Rules- All gimmick matches
The Bash- None
Night of Champions- All title matches
Summerslam- None (usually big name returns but no actual gimmick matches)
Breaking Point- Submission matches (Tap-out, I Quit, Ultimate)
Hell In a Cell- Obvious
Bragging Rights- Interactive PPV
Survivor Series- Obvious
Armageddon/TLC- Well fuck this if this TLC event happens.

So out of 14 PPV, 10 of them (not counting Backlash or SS since there are no technical gimmick matches) have a gimmick attached to them.

I know that list has been posted alot but it bears repeating.

And despite all these gimmick matches, i bet we don't see any blood!! If no one bleeds in hell in the cell, you may aswell not have the match at all, same with the EC.

A few years from now there'll probably a Viagra On a Pole PPV.

I think the "Bragging Rights" name suits it just fine.

Might as well call the PPV: TLC: Tables. Latters. Chairs. OMG PWNAGEZEZ!!!!

Wonder if we'll get a ppv called 'CENA WINS'

Also, is this another new era vince wants to create? the gimmick-ppv match era?

They have all been in some brutal matches.

Extreme Rules should be the only "every match has a gimmick" PPV

WWE.com list this as November's PPV now...meaning they got rid of Survivor Series apparently, wtf?

They fixed it.

I partially agree with this.

I'd rather WWE just have kind of an unspoken rule though that each gimmick match only take place once a year with no exact, set time.

I miss just having brand-specific PPVs :(

I miss spending about $30 -$40 on a ppv and it was actually worth it

What are you talking about? The last two PPVs, Night of Champions and Summerslam, have been well worth it; the latter probably one of the best in years.

I guess it's easy to criticise...