TPWW Forums
wrestling forum>RIP: Survivor Series
Lock Jaw 03:01 PM 02-11-2010
Summerfest
Joesgonnakillyou 03:02 PM 02-11-2010
I'm actually a little upset by this. I love traditional survivor series matches. This is a real shame 
Xero 03:03 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by TL:
Those 'big 3' can never be allowed to go, mind you i can see him getting rid of summerslam just for the sake of change.
Yeah, out of those three, SummerSlam is the most in danger. It's pretty much the only PPV left without a gimmick.Those 'big 3' can never be allowed to go, mind you i can see him getting rid of summerslam just for the sake of change.
Though with them trying to make it similar to Mania with Axxess and all the city pushes, I think it's pretty safe to be honest.
Let's just hope he doesn't get it in his head that battle royals are "outplayed".
I COULD see him changing the Rumble's name, though. What's so royal about it anymore anyway? You can't even say King announcing because he's barely a king anymore.
The Jayman 03:07 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by Xero:
I COULD see him changing the Rumble's name, though. What's so royal about it anymore anyway? You can't even say King announcing because he's barely a king anymore.
"The Rumble" or "WWE Rumble" would be alright. I call it the rumble anyways.I COULD see him changing the Rumble's name, though. What's so royal about it anymore anyway? You can't even say King announcing because he's barely a king anymore.
Cool King 03:11 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by Xero:
I COULD see him changing the Rumble's name, though. What's so royal about it anymore anyway? You can't even say King announcing because he's barely a king anymore.
I was thinking about that just before this years Royal Rumble and the best I could come up with was that the reason the Rumble is "Royal" is because of the "prestige" of the Royal Rumble match, as it's every superstars ticket to WrestleMania, which is "The Big One" in the WWE Callender. I COULD see him changing the Rumble's name, though. What's so royal about it anymore anyway? You can't even say King announcing because he's barely a king anymore.
Or some crap like that anyway.
Londoner 03:12 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by Cool King:
I was thinking about that just before this years Royal Rumble and the best I could come up with was that the reason the Rumble is "Royal" is because of the "prestige" of the Royal Rumble match, as it's every superstars ticket to WrestleMania, which is "The Big One" in the WWE Callender.
Or some crap like that anyway.
Sounds a good enough reason to me.I was thinking about that just before this years Royal Rumble and the best I could come up with was that the reason the Rumble is "Royal" is because of the "prestige" of the Royal Rumble match, as it's every superstars ticket to WrestleMania, which is "The Big One" in the WWE Callender.
Or some crap like that anyway.
The Franchise 03:15 PM 02-11-2010
I think SummerSlam will be safe. Survivor Series has always been really close to Royal Rumble which is fairly close to Mania. I dunno I also thought SummerSlam was always the "second biggest PPV" because other than the Rumble match itself, SSlam has always had bigger matches and more hype than the Rumble. Survivor Series was definitely last out of the 4.
ALSO, I miss the Green SummerSlam logo.
ALSO, I miss the Green SummerSlam logo.
Londoner 03:17 PM 02-11-2010
Nah, Rumble's always been 2nd biggest for me, the meaning of the Rumble is enough for it to be 2nd.
Ermaximus 03:17 PM 02-11-2010
Give it a few years and they'll just start calling it "The Rumble."
The Franchise 03:18 PM 02-11-2010
The Rumble would be fine IMO
addy2hotty 03:19 PM 02-11-2010
Survivor Series was the first PPV I ever saw.
At least we still got a few traditional matches and the build ups on Raw are generally really good, like a year ago when we had all the teams out near the ring at the same time.
Now it's being replaced by 'generic PPV no.9'. Wonderful
At least we still got a few traditional matches and the build ups on Raw are generally really good, like a year ago when we had all the teams out near the ring at the same time.
Now it's being replaced by 'generic PPV no.9'. Wonderful
Londoner 03:19 PM 02-11-2010
I've just said it twice and totally forgot about the Royal bit while doing so, d'oh.
redoneja 03:24 PM 02-11-2010
Dunno, Survivor Series really kinda lost it's appeal after the 1991 show, in my opinion.
1992 didn't have any of the traditional matches, just a Tag Team Elimination match.
The 1993-1997 Survivor Series were pretty lackluster in terms of "Traditional Survivor Series matches." The only really interesting matchup happened in the 1995 Survivor Series ("Wildcard" matchup- faces and heels mixed together into teams).
Of course 1998 had the WWF title tournament, so no traditional Survivor Series matchups there.
From 1999-2002, the only traditional Survivor Series matchups consisted of midcard talent and weren't pushed as important in relation to the main events of those shows. The only exception to this is the 2001 Survivor Series main event which was Team WWF v Team Alliance.
From 2003-2009 there have been about 2 Traditional Survivor Series matchups per year consisting of a mixing of main event and midcard talent.
So, while there have been, on average, more "big" traditional Survivor Series matchups in the last 6 years than in the 10 previous, they don't really mean as much, in my opinion (unless some sort of stipulation is added). That's because, since the advent of Raw and Smackdown and the fact that there is a PPV every month, the guys in the Survivor Series matchups wrestle each other all the time. It's not as "special" to see the main event guys team up to fight each other, like it used to be through the '91 event.
1992 didn't have any of the traditional matches, just a Tag Team Elimination match.
The 1993-1997 Survivor Series were pretty lackluster in terms of "Traditional Survivor Series matches." The only really interesting matchup happened in the 1995 Survivor Series ("Wildcard" matchup- faces and heels mixed together into teams).
Of course 1998 had the WWF title tournament, so no traditional Survivor Series matchups there.
From 1999-2002, the only traditional Survivor Series matchups consisted of midcard talent and weren't pushed as important in relation to the main events of those shows. The only exception to this is the 2001 Survivor Series main event which was Team WWF v Team Alliance.
From 2003-2009 there have been about 2 Traditional Survivor Series matchups per year consisting of a mixing of main event and midcard talent.
So, while there have been, on average, more "big" traditional Survivor Series matchups in the last 6 years than in the 10 previous, they don't really mean as much, in my opinion (unless some sort of stipulation is added). That's because, since the advent of Raw and Smackdown and the fact that there is a PPV every month, the guys in the Survivor Series matchups wrestle each other all the time. It's not as "special" to see the main event guys team up to fight each other, like it used to be through the '91 event.
Cool King 03:25 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by Ermaximus:
Give it a few years and they'll just start calling it "The Rumble."
Yeah, just like they did with The Great American Bash. Give it a few years and they'll just start calling it "The Rumble."
Though the reason for that name change was different to what the reason would be if The Royal Rumble got changed to "The Rumble".
redoneja 03:29 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by redoneja:
Dunno, Survivor Series really kinda lost it's appeal after the 1991 show, in my opinion.
1992 didn't have any of the traditional matches, just a Tag Team Elimination match.
The 1993-1997 Survivor Series were pretty lackluster in terms of "Traditional Survivor Series matches." The only really interesting matchup happened in the 1995 Survivor Series ("Wildcard" matchup- faces and heels mixed together into teams).
Of course 1998 had the WWF title tournament, so no traditional Survivor Series matchups there.
From 1999-2002, the only traditional Survivor Series matchups consisted of midcard talent and weren't pushed as important in relation to the main events of those shows. The only exception to this is the 2001 Survivor Series main event which was Team WWF v Team Alliance.
From 2003-2009 there have been about 2 Traditional Survivor Series matchups per year consisting of a mixing of main event and midcard talent.
So, while there have been, on average, more "big" traditional Survivor Series matchups in the last 6 years than in the 10 previous, they don't really mean as much, in my opinion (unless some sort of stipulation is added). That's because, since the advent of Raw and Smackdown and the fact that there is a PPV every month, the guys in the Survivor Series matchups wrestle each other all the time. It's not as "special" to see the main event guys team up to fight each other, like it used to be through the '91 event.
Dunno, Survivor Series really kinda lost it's appeal after the 1991 show, in my opinion.
1992 didn't have any of the traditional matches, just a Tag Team Elimination match.
The 1993-1997 Survivor Series were pretty lackluster in terms of "Traditional Survivor Series matches." The only really interesting matchup happened in the 1995 Survivor Series ("Wildcard" matchup- faces and heels mixed together into teams).
Of course 1998 had the WWF title tournament, so no traditional Survivor Series matchups there.
From 1999-2002, the only traditional Survivor Series matchups consisted of midcard talent and weren't pushed as important in relation to the main events of those shows. The only exception to this is the 2001 Survivor Series main event which was Team WWF v Team Alliance.
From 2003-2009 there have been about 2 Traditional Survivor Series matchups per year consisting of a mixing of main event and midcard talent.
So, while there have been, on average, more "big" traditional Survivor Series matchups in the last 6 years than in the 10 previous, they don't really mean as much, in my opinion (unless some sort of stipulation is added). That's because, since the advent of Raw and Smackdown and the fact that there is a PPV every month, the guys in the Survivor Series matchups wrestle each other all the time. It's not as "special" to see the main event guys team up to fight each other, like it used to be through the '91 event.
That's not to say that I haven't enjoyed a Survivor Series since 1991 though. It's just not as special as it once was, and that's really because WWF kinda abandoned the concept being the "main focus" of that PPV in the mid 90's and by the time they got behind it again (early 2000s) the nature of the business had changed to where it just wasn't the same.
Londoner 03:31 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by redoneja:
That's not to say that I haven't enjoyed a Survivor Series since 1991 though. It's just not as special as it once was, and that's really because WWF kinda abandoned the concept being the "main focus" of that PPV in the mid 90's and by the time they got behind it again (early 2000s) the nature of the business had changed to where it just wasn't the same.
Got to agree, personally never been a fan of the traditional SS matches but respected that it was part of the history, and enjoyed some of the SS ppv's overall.That's not to say that I haven't enjoyed a Survivor Series since 1991 though. It's just not as special as it once was, and that's really because WWF kinda abandoned the concept being the "main focus" of that PPV in the mid 90's and by the time they got behind it again (early 2000s) the nature of the business had changed to where it just wasn't the same.
fanatic7707 03:33 PM 02-11-2010
Battle Bowl sounds weird. You'd think they should do a Battle Brawl and make it a 6 or 8 man tag between the top 3 or 4 faces and the top 3 or 4 heels for both brands, or have it as the top 3 or 4 superstars from each brand face off against each other
Storer50 04:15 PM 02-11-2010
What the fuck, Battle Bowl? They want to bring back the concept of the worst WCW ppv of all time?
Nicky Fives 04:58 PM 02-11-2010
BULLSHIT!
VSG 05:18 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by Diesel Mac:
I doubt they will get rid of the Rumble as it is the best PPV behind Mania.
You know what they need? The LETHAL LOTTERY.
Care to elucidate on that? I don't recall that PPV.I doubt they will get rid of the Rumble as it is the best PPV behind Mania.
You know what they need? The LETHAL LOTTERY.
The Franchise 05:23 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by :
Battlebowl was a one-time professional wrestling pay-per-view produced by World Championship Wrestling. It was made up of tag team matches in which the partners were randomly drawn in a "Lethal Lottery" and a team had to work together to advance to the Battlebowl Battle Royal. Previous versions of Battlebowl had taken place at Starrcade 1991 and Starrcade 1992. It took place on November 20, 1993 from the Pensacola Civic Center in Pensacola, Florida. The last Battlebowl was held at Slamboree 1996 under the name of Lord of the Ring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattlebowlBattlebowl was a one-time professional wrestling pay-per-view produced by World Championship Wrestling. It was made up of tag team matches in which the partners were randomly drawn in a "Lethal Lottery" and a team had to work together to advance to the Battlebowl Battle Royal. Previous versions of Battlebowl had taken place at Starrcade 1991 and Starrcade 1992. It took place on November 20, 1993 from the Pensacola Civic Center in Pensacola, Florida. The last Battlebowl was held at Slamboree 1996 under the name of Lord of the Ring.
Gerard 05:24 PM 02-11-2010
Fuckers.
I guess thats one less ppv where we don't have to hear "it only happens once a year" which is quite possibly the dumbest thing ive heard on wwe programming as every ppv only happens once a year. :foc:
I guess thats one less ppv where we don't have to hear "it only happens once a year" which is quite possibly the dumbest thing ive heard on wwe programming as every ppv only happens once a year. :foc:
Supreme Olajuwon 05:35 PM 02-11-2010
Survivor Series has kinda sucked for a while now. They can't pace the matches and people always end up getting pinned after a move that never ever wins a normal match.
Gerard 05:43 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by Supreme Olajuwon:
Survivor Series has kinda sucked for a while now. They can't pace the matches and people always end up getting pinned after a move that never ever wins a normal match.
And when they get pinned following a finisher nobody from their team comes into help them out of it, unlike a tag team match. Survivor Series has kinda sucked for a while now. They can't pace the matches and people always end up getting pinned after a move that never ever wins a normal match.
Rammsteinmad 06:07 PM 02-11-2010
WWE's PPV Calender 2011:
January: WWE Battle Royal
February: WWE Elimination Chamber
March: WWE Triple H Title Match
April: WWE Triple H Title Rematch
May: WWE Extreme Rules
June: WWE The Bash
July: WWE Night of Champions
August: WWE Summerfest
September: WWE Breaking Point
October: WWE Hell in a Cell
November: WWE Bragging Rights/Battlebowl
December: WWE TLC
Awesome.
January: WWE Battle Royal
February: WWE Elimination Chamber
March: WWE Triple H Title Match
April: WWE Triple H Title Rematch
May: WWE Extreme Rules
June: WWE The Bash
July: WWE Night of Champions
August: WWE Summerfest
September: WWE Breaking Point
October: WWE Hell in a Cell
November: WWE Bragging Rights/Battlebowl
December: WWE TLC
Awesome.
parkmania 06:11 PM 02-11-2010
I want to find out just how many people tell the WWE they'd actually pay money to have a PPV devoted to the draft.
addy2hotty 06:28 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by Rammsteinmad:
WWE's PPV Calender 2011:
January: WWE Cena Wins
February: WWE Cena Against The Odds
March: WWE Vintage Cena
April: WWE Cena's Revenge
May: WWE Cena Reloaded
June: WWE The Cena
July: WWE Night of Cena
August: WWE SummerCena
September: WWE Mass Cena
October: WWE Hell in a Cena
November: WWE Cena's Big Day Out
December: WWE Cena's Day Off, Still Wins
Awesome.
WWE's PPV Calender 2011:
January: WWE Cena Wins
February: WWE Cena Against The Odds
March: WWE Vintage Cena
April: WWE Cena's Revenge
May: WWE Cena Reloaded
June: WWE The Cena
July: WWE Night of Cena
August: WWE SummerCena
September: WWE Mass Cena
October: WWE Hell in a Cena
November: WWE Cena's Big Day Out
December: WWE Cena's Day Off, Still Wins
Awesome.
Xero 07:03 PM 02-11-2010
WWE Saturday Night of a Million Cenas
Cool King 07:06 PM 02-11-2010
That brings back bad memories.
The Franchise 07:12 PM 02-11-2010
poor mans
Mr. Nerfect 07:12 PM 02-11-2010
I absolutely HATE this move, and I am not someone who enjoyed the golden era of the Survivor Series. The way Vince McMahon explained this move really pissed me off, too. He said something like "consumers actually look at what they're buying these days." What the fuck is that meant to mean?
It just bothers me that the WWE wants their PPVs to be gimmicked, or whatever, and then they decide to cut one with so much history, and a ready-made gimmick attached to it. The WWE could very easily have 60 people on its roster at any given time. If you divide that into teams of 4 you have 15 teams right there. That's too many. Cut it down to about 12, and you can have another Divas match on the card, and there's seven Elimination Matches right there. Done. Why can't the WWE just do a PPV schedule like this:
January: Royal Rumble
February: No Way Out
March/April: WrestleMania
April: Backlash
May: War Games
June: King of the Ring
July: World War III
August: Summerslam
September: Vengeance
October: No Mercy
November: Survivor Series
December: Starrcade
The Royal Rumble is self-explanitory. PPVs named after the match, besides certain concepts like the Rumble, are stupid. Elimination Chamber is fucking bad. Go back to No Way Out, which was a fitting name for a PPV featuring the Elimination Chamber, anyway. WrestleMania should also never be touched.
Backlash is a name that I've never been keen on, but the PPV does alright for itself, doesn't it? Why change what isn't broke? War Games does not sound as bad as Elimination Chamber. Let them do that one. King of the Ring is a gimmicky concept that should definitely return. World War III is a concept I never saw, but even if they just bring back the name. You could use this PPV to work out a challenger for a World Title at Summerslam, which should stay the same.
Vengeance could be the name for the "Night of Champions" PPV. Even if they use "Night of Champions" as a tagline for the PPV. Vengeance carries some important history as the WWE Title and WCW Title were unified at the first PPV. Play up that eight PPV history, and let Vengeance put every title on the line. No Mercy could feature the brand wars, and include a lot of "Champion vs. Champion" matches. Or it could be all "specialty matches." And then to close the year you have Survivor Series and Starrcade, both which carry enough of a legacy to go forward without being touched.
It just bothers me that the WWE wants their PPVs to be gimmicked, or whatever, and then they decide to cut one with so much history, and a ready-made gimmick attached to it. The WWE could very easily have 60 people on its roster at any given time. If you divide that into teams of 4 you have 15 teams right there. That's too many. Cut it down to about 12, and you can have another Divas match on the card, and there's seven Elimination Matches right there. Done. Why can't the WWE just do a PPV schedule like this:
January: Royal Rumble
February: No Way Out
March/April: WrestleMania
April: Backlash
May: War Games
June: King of the Ring
July: World War III
August: Summerslam
September: Vengeance
October: No Mercy
November: Survivor Series
December: Starrcade
The Royal Rumble is self-explanitory. PPVs named after the match, besides certain concepts like the Rumble, are stupid. Elimination Chamber is fucking bad. Go back to No Way Out, which was a fitting name for a PPV featuring the Elimination Chamber, anyway. WrestleMania should also never be touched.
Backlash is a name that I've never been keen on, but the PPV does alright for itself, doesn't it? Why change what isn't broke? War Games does not sound as bad as Elimination Chamber. Let them do that one. King of the Ring is a gimmicky concept that should definitely return. World War III is a concept I never saw, but even if they just bring back the name. You could use this PPV to work out a challenger for a World Title at Summerslam, which should stay the same.
Vengeance could be the name for the "Night of Champions" PPV. Even if they use "Night of Champions" as a tagline for the PPV. Vengeance carries some important history as the WWE Title and WCW Title were unified at the first PPV. Play up that eight PPV history, and let Vengeance put every title on the line. No Mercy could feature the brand wars, and include a lot of "Champion vs. Champion" matches. Or it could be all "specialty matches." And then to close the year you have Survivor Series and Starrcade, both which carry enough of a legacy to go forward without being touched.
Afterlife 07:20 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by Cool King:
I was thinking about that just before this years Royal Rumble and the best I could come up with was that the reason the Rumble is "Royal" is because of the "prestige" of the Royal Rumble match, as it's every superstars ticket to WrestleMania, which is "The Big One" in the WWE Callender.
Or some crap like that anyway.
I was thinking about that just before this years Royal Rumble and the best I could come up with was that the reason the Rumble is "Royal" is because of the "prestige" of the Royal Rumble match, as it's every superstars ticket to WrestleMania, which is "The Big One" in the WWE Callender.
Or some crap like that anyway.
Pretty sure it's just because it's a giant match. I also think it's related to WWE's inability to say "royale", thus having "battle royals" on occasion. But, yeah, I always just figured it was the biggest rumble around, so it was the Royal Rumble for alliteration's sake.
NeanderCarl 07:22 PM 02-11-2010
I thought it was fairly explicit that the 'Royal' element is subtracted entirely from the match's mother concept, the battle royal, which derived its name from the Roman gladiators. Nothing specifically 'regal' about it.
Xero 07:23 PM 02-11-2010
Originally Posted by NeanderCarl:
I thought it was fairly explicit that the 'Royal' element is subtracted entirely from the match's mother concept, the battle royal.
What's so Royal about a Battle Royal with Cheese?I thought it was fairly explicit that the 'Royal' element is subtracted entirely from the match's mother concept, the battle royal.
The Franchise 07:30 PM 02-11-2010
Royale Rumble
The Pope 07:55 PM 02-11-2010
They could have changed the concept of the PPV's name and just made Survivor Series into some kind of gauntlet.
Team Sheep 08:38 PM 02-11-2010
I've been thinking for a while that the Survivor Series should be scrapped. It's been the same old shit for years now, a couple of random elimination tag matches with nothing on the line. Who really cares? Sure I can respect that the show had history and whatever but it's certainly run its course. I didn't think they'd have the balls to do away with it though. Hopefully the King of the Ring can make a return to PPV and that will be our Big Four.
Loose Cannon 09:06 PM 02-11-2010
agree with Supreme and Redoneja. Survivor Series was one of my all-time fav PPV's back in the day. Survivor Series 1990 is my 2nd favorite PPV ever next to WM 6. I loved the concept. Redoneja hit it perfectly on the head. We see the big stars collide all the time now, so these 10 man tags don't mean anything anymore.
god, I hope they don't do Battle Bowl like WCW. For all you youngsters on here, WCW ran Battlebowls at a couple early 90's Starrcade events and had one PPV called Battlebowl. Basically, it started off with about eight tag matches. Partners were randomly drawn. All the wrestlers on winning teams advanced to a Final Battle Royal at the end and one guy won. It was always pretty terrible.
I guess it might work today though because theirs a lot of great workers and talent in WWE
god, I hope they don't do Battle Bowl like WCW. For all you youngsters on here, WCW ran Battlebowls at a couple early 90's Starrcade events and had one PPV called Battlebowl. Basically, it started off with about eight tag matches. Partners were randomly drawn. All the wrestlers on winning teams advanced to a Final Battle Royal at the end and one guy won. It was always pretty terrible.
I guess it might work today though because theirs a lot of great workers and talent in WWE
teamXtremist 09:11 PM 02-11-2010
they should of just stayed with the original concept too many changes and now one of my all time favorites ppv is dead
Mr. C 09:21 PM 02-11-2010
Disappointing. There’s mileage in the concept even without element in the program, if done properly of course. Have 5 elimination bouts and 2 title matches.
It’s close enough to WrestleMania that you can use it in many ways. Guys who’ve never faced off can start a feud based on an elimination. Teams can be formed. Teams can reunite. Teams can break up. Rilvaries from the past can be restarted. The possibilities are incredible.
The concept wasn’t why it didn’t draw. The buildup to the show where Hornswoggle was more important than anything else on RAW was why it didn’t draw.
They should rename the pay-per-view War Games so we don’t get a Street Fight Pay-Per-View.
1 2
3
It’s close enough to WrestleMania that you can use it in many ways. Guys who’ve never faced off can start a feud based on an elimination. Teams can be formed. Teams can reunite. Teams can break up. Rilvaries from the past can be restarted. The possibilities are incredible.
The concept wasn’t why it didn’t draw. The buildup to the show where Hornswoggle was more important than anything else on RAW was why it didn’t draw.
They should rename the pay-per-view War Games so we don’t get a Street Fight Pay-Per-View.