Get rid of the stipulation PPVs

There are a lot of problems in WWE currently. It’s not a secret, WWE has been a bore to watch for a while now, most notably Raw. While there are many things that can be done to improve the programming now, I want to talk about one of my issues with WWE for over a decade that is still going on: Stipulation PPVs.

What are these? Simply put, the PPVs that are based on stipulations, like Hell in a Cell, TLC, Extreme Rules and Elimination Chamber. Since the late 2000s, these have been a fixture of the WWE calendar every year, and I don’t like it, not one bit.

The problem with those PPVs is that well, it sanitizes the idea of stipulations that should be feud-enders, the climax of weeks and weeks of storytelling, creating a bout that is too big for just a regular match, you need to bring the cage, you need to bring the ladders, you need to let loose the rules. However, with those PPVs, a story doesn’t have to be that deep to warrant a stipulation. They just do it because it’s (X) month. There’s not as much excitement when a Hell in a Cell match is announced now because we’re like “Yeah… the PPV was coming up… we knew that.”

The only times in the past 10 years where a Hell in a Cell announcement was exciting, was for HHH vs Taker and Shane vs Taker, and only the former felt like it was warranted to have this big stipulation.

To bring back some excitement about the idea of an Elimination Chamber, a TLC match or a Hell in a Cell, you need to make them rare, special occasions. Not one you can see coming because you read the calendar. If it’s rare, then people will look forward to it, as it would have been a long time since they saw a match like this. Less is more after all.

Some may ask “But what about the Royal Rumble and Survivor Series? Those are also Stipulation PPVs right?” Yes, but those were from the get-go. They were created and immediately had a show around it. It is part of their identity. This was not part of the identity of TLC, Elimination Chamber, Extreme Rules etc. Plus, those latter stipulations have the sense of danger and brutality that you don’t get with the Royal Rumble and Survivor Series. The expectations are not the same.

“What about Money in the Bank then?” This one is more interesting, but I think it warrants its own show because of what’s on the line. The Money in the Bank briefcase impacts long-term booking, it impacts the storylines for the rest of the year, and even afterwards. Whereas the Elimination Chamber PPV only affects the road to Wrestlemania and can easily be replaced by something else. Also, it was quickly established as an annual tradition, unlike the Elimination Chamber for example, which was absent in 2004 and 2007, and was never associated with a PPV until 2008.

I want to feel excited about watching those matches again, and for me, that goes through a phase where they are not present. As the old adage goes, “How can I miss you if you’re never away?”. This applies to those stipulations. They need to go for a while, so that once they are announced, and not in a show based around it, it feels fresh.

This probably will never happen, as WWE is always about “more is more”, and will give us 2-3 Hell in a Cell/Elimination Chamber in a single night, handicapping them as they now have to find a way to not only stand out from the previous ones, but also from the one that takes place that very same night. They are making their jobs harder for themselves, ignoring the beauty of simplicity.