2 MITB Matches

Just reading online about MITB PPV and it looks like they are going to have 2 MITB matches what it doesnt say is if its one for Raw and one for Smackdown which i think it will be or does anyone no if they are going to put 2 random MITB matches ?

I reckon it will be 1 Raw, 1 SD.

I hate how they do this shit now. Having the same gimmick match more than once on the same card is fucking overkill and cheap booking. It was bad enough when it was just the Elimination Chambers that they did this with, but now with their 'concept PPVs' it's happening with just about every match type every couple of months.

2 MITBs? Fantastic way to kill a gimmick.

Totally agree with Grecian and gunman. The WWE are killing pay-per-views. What was wrong with Backlash, Judgement Day, No Mercy, Unforgiven, Vengeance and Survivor Series etc etc. MiTB is a WM exclusive. It's all about the money for Vince and not the fans.

Its not really a new thing what Vince is doing, he used to do it all the time under the 'In Your House' banner, you'd have IYH - Revenge of the Taker or IYH - Final Four or IYH - Badd Blood then IYH - D-Generation X

Vince would use whatever was the topic of the day for his next PPV only it would have In Your House in front of it, maybe over time people become attached to the PPV names, I certainly have, Backlash, No Way Out and Armageddon where perfect in my opinion

2 MITB matches is crap like. They seem to have done it with my favourite gimmick matches, the Elimination Chamber, Hell In a Cell and now MITB. Its really stupid in my opinion and put WWE writers into a hole when they have to book things around these stupid gimmick ppvs instead of having the gimmick match as the blow off every few ppvs like the used to have.
E.g. One guy challenges another for title, challengers gets beaten, works his way up to be number one contender again have rematch challenger wins or loses either way this can get dragged out further still where if he wins the former champ gets a rematch or if he loses then new contender comes in and former contender waits till maybe next ppv then fued has gimmick match blow off at the next ppv. Easy stuff huh? Now WWE has to do a gimmick match at nearly every ppv because with these gimmick ppvs promising Extreme Rules, Hell in a cell matches, Elimination chamber etc so fueds never seem to get proper longevity which really annoys me. Now to get rid of one of the best gimmick matches they have in MITB on Mania, why? Because it takes away too much from the other Mania matches or takes upto much time, hmm heres an idea get rid of the terrible divas matches which no gives two shits about and the patriotic bullshit which makes everyone who isnt wearing a stetson balk?

Why not just keep it, Royal Rumble, No Way Out, Mania, Backlash, Night of Champions, Summerslam, Unforgiven, No Mercy, Survivor Series, Armeggdon?

So yer rant over, sorry about that haha

Saint Jimmy wrote:

2 MITB matches is crap like. They seem to have done it with my favourite gimmick matches, the Elimination Chamber, Hell In a Cell and now MITB. Its really stupid in my opinion and put WWE writers into a hole when they have to book things around these stupid gimmick ppvs instead of having the gimmick match as the blow off every few ppvs like the used to have.
E.g. One guy challenges another for title, challengers gets beaten, works his way up to be number one contender again have rematch challenger wins or loses either way this can get dragged out further still where if he wins the former champ gets a rematch or if he loses then new contender comes in and former contender waits till maybe next ppv then fued has gimmick match blow off at the next ppv. Easy stuff huh? Now WWE has to do a gimmick match at nearly every ppv because with these gimmick ppvs promising Extreme Rules, Hell in a cell matches, Elimination chamber etc so fueds never seem to get proper longevity which really annoys me. Now to get rid of one of the best gimmick matches they have in MITB on Mania, why? Because it takes away too much from the other Mania matches or takes upto much time, hmm heres an idea get rid of the terrible divas matches which no gives two shits about and the patriotic bullshit which makes everyone who isnt wearing a stetson balk?

Why not just keep it, Royal Rumble, No Way Out, Mania, Backlash, Night of Champions, Summerslam, Unforgiven, No Mercy, Survivor Series, Armeggdon?

So yer rant over, sorry about that haha

I pretty much agree with everything you've said there but I don't actually think taking MITB away from Mania (assuming that's what they do) is necessarily a bad thing. Mania doesn't need a Money in the Bank match, it did perfectly well for many years without one. The time that was used for MITB can just be used for one or two extra matches; maybe for the US or IC Titles which rarely get a look in at Wrestlemania.

And of all the gimmicks that are being given their own PPVS, MITB is probably one of the ones that works best as a PPV, assuming that it's booked well. Of course,if this news is true, then it's looks like its not going to be booked well which is a real shame.

As for why they're doing the gimmick PPVs and not sticking to the old formula: well, sad as it may seem, the gimmicks are apparantly selling better than the regular PPVs like Backlash and No Mercy did. So obviously WWE are going to stick with what seems to make the most money. If fans really didn't like what they see then they won't buy.

Whilst I agree with pretty much everything said about the MITB ppv I do also recall that everyone was up in arms about Survivor Series being dropped as a PPV when that in itself was basically a gimmick PPV of several matches involving wrestlers forming teams to go up against one another.
Everything that people have beef with the current format has already been done in Survivor Series (even to the fact that the PPV was named to represent the style of match).
And I know it only has the one 'gimmick' style match involved within it but Royal Rumble anyone?

But Royal Rumble and Survivor Series were origionals and not part of over kill. Also were not seing Battle Royals at other PPV's for main events, and not seing elimination tag team matches, survivor series main events usually also didnt revolve around the tag match, there was still the title match.

I remember people saying there wasnt anything wrong with survivor series, WWE claimed it became stale, but they let it, if they actually had tag matches that were relevant and not just 5 people randomly put together on each team it would be fine.

MITB was losing a bit of its shine for me anyway, think they should have rested it for a few years. I agree that WrestleMania doesn't need MITB and unlike the likes of Hell In A Cell and TLC, I think MITB could work with its own PPV.

I don't like the idea of a KOTR style tournament on the night (it depends how it is booked and at least it would be better than the now mind numbing boring Beat The Clock challenges or 4 man "tournaments that take place on RAW or SD nowadays).

Macclads makes a good point but the problem I have is that at these new type of PPV's, there is always more than 1 of the same type of match (2 Hell In A Cell's, 2 Table/Chair matches which are practically the same thing) whereas the Royal Rumble and at least in the past, I believe that the Survivor Series tag match were one offs.

Also the Royal Rumble and the tag match means something, Royal Rumble gives 1 man the opportunity to compete for the world title at WrestleMania and the tag match settles things between 10 people (or perhaps just the captains).

Hell In A Cell was considered the premier way to end a feud, now 2 guys will compete in a Hell In A Cell before moving on to a Steel Cage match at the next PPV or w/e, when IMO, the Steel Cage is the next step down from the Cell.

I'm pretty sure originally every match at Survivor Series was a big tag match.

invincibleILeak wrote:

I'm pretty sure originally every match at Survivor Series was a big tag match.

You're right, originally that was the case. But it wasn't long before other matches started creeping in (1991 was the first time that happened I think) and nowadays I think the focus is more on the non-Survivor Series style matches.

I think personally people just get too attatched to things and dont like change case in point Survivor Series, that has been pritty poor the past couple of years, WWE's fault of course for not putting enough emphasis on the actual show or the gimmick of the whole thing.

Dont get me wrong Im not a fan of changing all of the ppvs around but I guess were just gonna have to wait and see if there any good or not.

I think people dont complain about Royal Rumble and Survivor Series being gimmick ppvs is because they were the only ones originally but with nearly every other ppv being a gimmick ppv then its just overkill

The difference is that the Royal Rumble match only happens once on that PPV, if they had a separate RAW and Smackdown one it would be overkill. I don't really see Survivor Series matches as a proper gimmick match either, it's just a multi person tag match which is why it's easier to accept multiple version of that match type on the same card.

Quote :

There could be a Money in the Bank ladder match at the upcoming Money in the Bank pay-per-view with all-NXT Rookies, likely from Season 2, with the winner getting a WWE contract.

So thats 3?

or they just have 1 other but is a mixed brand one

Agree with the basic points about the gimmick PPV's which really get on my tits (I was never one who loved Extreme Rules and Lockdown then got mad about the single gimmick PPVs) Two ladder matches on 1 PPV is a bit much especially with TLC following later on this year, looking in the brightside Two MITB matches means Two mid carders getting a title shot, hopefully anyway if a former World Champion wins one I will riot