Matt O’Brien writes and maintains the Wrestleview.com poll every two weeks.

Gimmick pay per views have been around for a long time. It used to be that they would come around every so often. That is not the case in today’s WWE landscape. Themed pay per views are a common practice nowadays. If you missed out on October’s Hell in a Cell, November’s Survivor Series is only a few weeks out, followed by TLC, Royal Rumble and Elimination Chamber. There is no arguing WWE’s commitment to offering its fans something different each month. But with so many themed pay per views, is it really something unique, or is it just throwing lipstick on a pig and calling it something different? If the novelty is lost, perhaps WWE is doing too many of these gimmick shows. In the most recent Wrestleview poll, readers were asked if they think WWE puts on too many themed pay views. The results of that poll are as follows:

Does WWE do too many gimmick Pay Per View events?

Yes 70.14% (1,853 votes)
Not enough 5.83% (154 votes)
Perfect amount 24.03% (635 votes)

Total votes cast: 2,642

Very few of the voters felt there were not enough gimmick shows. Night of Champions no longer has the theme it used to. Over the Limit and Vengeance are your basic shows. Summerslam’s only real theme is that it is a big show. If you cannot get enough of the gimmick shows, then WWE can certainly fill in the gaps. They can always add the Raw Roulette to a pay per view, or bring back King of the Ring, War Games or the Battle Bowl.

635 voters thought that the current number of gimmick pay per views is just right. While there are several throughout the calendar year, there are one or two standard shows scattered about to break things up. Aside from the number of pay per views, perhaps these fans feel the pay per views are balanced out. With the varied gimmick shows, there is something for everyone.

The majority of voters feel there are too many of the gimmick pay per views thrown out each year. Gimmick matches typically serve to garner greater interest in a match than it would with no stipulation. Other times, it serves as the only way for two men to have it out to a finish. The punishment should fit the crime, so match stipulation should fit the feud. For example, the first Hell in a Cell fit the Undertaker-Shawn Michaels match. The blindfold stipulation at WrestleMania VII fit the match between Jake Roberts and Rick Martel. Looking at today’s gimmick shows, did Hell in a Cell really fit Sheamus vs. Randy Orton? Did a TLC match really fit for CM Punk vs. Miz vs. Alberto Del Rio? Probably not. If WWE wishes to continue down this path, perhaps they would consider changing the themes and differentiating them more. The Money in the Bank ladder matches could easily take place at the TLC pay per view. Instead, fans are subjected to two ladder match themes shows each year. Rumors are that June’s No Way Out will have a cage theme. Is that necessary given that Hell in a Cell is just a few months later? Instead, WWE uses gimmick pay per views to garner interest where there normally wouldn’t be as much. One voter said it best in the comments section when they stated the gimmick pay per views are like today’s version of In Your House. They are filler pay per views to carry the audience until the next big show. However, for the majority of the voters, the gimmick shows have become overkill.

Thanks to all those who participated. Be sure to cast your vote now in the current Wrestleview poll asking which WWE superstar you are most excited to see Brock Lesnar face!

Matt O’Brien
Columnist, Wrestleview.com
mattman5436@yahoo.com