Do you miss/did you enjoy single-brand PPVs?

[BurtSampson]

I was kinda out of wrestling in 2003/2004 when those were at their height of popularity, so I dunno how I would've felt about them at the time, but looking back, it seems like a silly idea honestly. Did it not force them to drag out feuds longer and stuff like that?

[Wolf Hurricane]

With a passion. For one, much more of the people on a brand had to be in programs so they could fill the card, not to mention that titles were defended more often. Two, when there were interbrand PPV's or matches, it was a big deal; nowadays, someone appears on the other brand and it's not even surprising. But one of the very underrated benefits of it was that there was, on average, nearly two months between every PPV (with the exception, of course, of PPV's before or after the big four). As a result, feuds could be allowed to simmer that much longer before a PPV, thus making them more anticipated.

[Bravo Echo November]

I really miss them, for all the reasons Wolf Hurricane said. True some of the cards were mediocre but the positives outweigh the negatives imo.

[KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!!]

I miss the Smackdown one's more than the Raw ones because Smackdown's roster was often thinner so you got more obscure talent. The fact that Simon Dean vs. Bobby Lashley was on PPVand had several reoccurring segments where Lashley forced Dean to eat hamburgers is awesome!

[Next Level was WRONG]

The first thing I think of when I think of Single-Brand PPVs? 15 minute Orlando Jordan matches. No, I do not miss them at all.

May 8, 2011 12:25:14 GMT -5 Wolf Hurricane said:

As a result, feuds could be allowed to simmer that much longer before a PPV, thus making them more anticipated.

Only, they never were that much more anticipated because the storylines still went on at the same pace as they do now, and were subsequently redundant when they arrived most of the time.

[Nikki Heyman]

Really enjoyed them because they had eliminated the problem they've had in recent years of the same main event players in 3-4 consecutive PPVs.

You had more storylines, more people out there, and more focus.

Plus, the brand that didn't have a PPV would have a "Free-per-view" show that following week, so you also got some good free tv out of it as well.

[Cyborg Franky]

I miss them a lot.

[PKO]

I do miss them, others have mentioned the positives. Getting rid of them effectively got rid of the midcard and tag team divisions; the fact that they had to scramble together matches for Extreme Rules is crazy. That shouldn't be happening.

[The Ichi]

Are you all forgetting how bad a lot of the Smackdown PPVs were? I still have Kenzo Suzuki vs. Billy Gunn related nightmares, people.

[James McCloud IS John Godot]

I miss them a lot. Yeah, some times the undercard could be a little weak but some of those single brand PPVs were some of the best product WWE has ever knocked out.

[Nikki Heyman]

May 8, 2011 12:59:15 GMT -5 The Ichi said:

Are you all forgetting how bad a lot of the Smackdown PPVs were? I still have Kenzo Suzuki vs. Billy Gunn related nightmares, people.

I'll take that over Great Khali main eventing three PPV's in a row

[woowoowoox]

So very much.

[Wolf Hurricane]

May 8, 2011 13:01:27 GMT -5 Nikki Heyman said:

May 8, 2011 12:59:15 GMT -5 The Ichi said:

Are you all forgetting how bad a lot of the Smackdown PPVs were? I still have Kenzo Suzuki vs. Billy Gunn related nightmares, people.

I'll take that over Great Khali main eventing three PPV's in a row

[Kangaroo_Punch]

Yeah, for the reasons mentioned before, I don't miss them too much. Yes, there are cons to always doing interpromotional PPVs, but I seem to remember a great deal of the brand-exclusive shows to be really plodding.

[jadison]

I think they would work much better now because WWE has better workers. We wouldn't be watching Heidenreich and Luther Reigns in PPV matches, we'd be watching Daniel Bryan and Tyson Kidd.

[Deleted]

The funny thing is that the majority of single brand PPV's did better numbers then multi-brand PPV's do nowadays.

[Lancers]

I think this thread proves that nostalgia forgets the things that sucked. Single brand PPVs were horrible. I'm talking get hit in the nuts with a medicine ball repeatedly horrible. They were basically an episode of RAW or Smackdown that you had to pay money to see. Most, if not all, of the matches had already been done before on those shows prior to the card, and there would always be a rematch the following episode of those shows after the PPV.

Smackdown, in particular, gave us Mordecai vs. Scotty 2 Hotty as one of the matches at a PPV. SCOTTY 2 HOTTY VS. MORDECAI!!!! You would have to pay ME money to watch that train wreck.

I don't know how anyone enjoyed those PPVs, but to each their own I suppose. When Kenzo Suzuki is facing Billy Gunn at a PPV, you know your rosters are thinner than Bret Michaels' hair.

[BurtSampson]

From looking at the cards in 2003 it looks like the main event scene for the entire year was basically HHH vs. a challenger on RAW, or the revolving door of Angle/Taker/Brock/Cena on Smackdown

[molson5]

I don't miss the quality of those shows, but I do miss the fact that a brand could sometimes go almost 2 months without a PPV.

[Nikki Heyman]

May 8, 2011 14:32:39 GMT -5 BurtSampson said:

From looking at the cards in 2003 it looks like the main event scene for the entire year was basically HHH vs. a challenger on RAW, or the revolving door of Angle/Taker/Brock/Cena on Smackdown

People will readily crap on the so-called "reign of Terror" that HHH was holding over on Raw. He was re-establishing the World heavyweight title against a myriad of opponents - some good (Kane, RVD, HBK) some not so much (Steiner, Nash).

The SD cards were stronger as we had most of the SD six (Edge was gone most of 03 because of his neck injury).

As for the "scotty 2 hotty v. Mordecai" argument - One match does not a PPV make.