Welcome to another edition of Triple Threat from Smark Out Moment, where three of us get together to discuss three questions based on one big topic going down in the week of professional wrestling.
This week, Dallas Allsopp, Greg Coleman and Robert DeFelice review WWE Hell in a Cell 2021.
Hell in a Cell 2021 was admittedly a mixed bag of a pay-per-view, but does it signal the end of the themed pay-per-view? Were any of the Hell in a Cell matches deserving of the stipulation? And did the lack of secondary championship matches hurt the standing of the show or titles?
Question 1: Which match did you find most entertaining? Which match disappointed you?
ALLSOPP: Cesaro vs Seth Rollins was a tonne of fun for me. Both men are stellar workers, and although they left quite a bit in the tank, they both impressed and entertained me. Alexa Bliss vs Shayna Baszler, however, was the drizzling shits. Everything about it was poor and insulting, with both women deserving much better.
COLEMAN: The most entertaining match was Cesaro vs Seth Rollins. These are two of the best wrestlers in the world, and they put on a really good match. The most disappointing match was Bianca Belair vs Bayley. It was a little too braid focused for me. I get it, Belair's long braid can be an asset and a liability to her, but I don’t need to see five braid spots in a match, especially when you’re inside of Hell in a Cell.
DeFELICE: The most disappointing match of the evening in my opinion was easily Alexa Bliss vs Shayna Baszler. At this point, you're expecting a madhouse of gimmicks and you kind of don't even get any of that. Very disappointing, boring, and harmful to the perception of Baszler in the eyes of the audience.
The most fun match in my opinion was Bayley vs Bianca Belair. Look, at this point, Hell in a Cell is not what it used to be. This match was made within 48 hours of the event and it was mostly built around what kind of spots they can redo with these women, but the women also delivered a high-quality match by current Hell in a Cell standards, and it's another major milestone for the breakout year of Bianca Belair, so it served all of its purposes and was easily the most fun from a bell-to-bell perspective, in my opinion.
Question 2: Did the lack of matches for the secondary championships hurt the value of those titles? Was this evidence of television being prioritised over pay-per-view events?
COLEMAN: I think the WWE United States and WWE Intercontinental Championships have been devalued over time, so this was just another link in the chain of their devaluation. I actually don’t think this is evidence of television being made a priority over pay-per-view events. I think this is just evidence of poor long term booking and intermediate to long term direction. This whole show was booked as if WWE woke up one morning, looked at the calendar and said 'God damn, we have a pay-per-view in a week, we better book something for it'.
DeFELICE: Secondary titles, especially the WWEIntercontinental Championship, regularly experience ebbs and flows when it comes to their levels of importance. I do think that those championships hurt, but I also think we're entering an era where the majority of the audience won't think so, and that's all that matters. I long for the days of a proper ranking system. Not necessarily a literal one such as the one in AEW, but there used to be an established pecking order, and I feel like it's a free-for-all now.
ALLSOPP: I want to say yes, but it's clear they are being better utilised for television ratings. Take Apollo Crews as an example. He is representing the WWE Intercontinental Championship well on SmackDown, thereby giving fans a reason to tune in. No one will buy a pay-per-view event on the basis of a secondary title, but television will certainly benefit instead. The value is still there, but in a slightly different area.
Question 3: Did either Hell in a Cell match justify the use of the stipulation? Should WWE abandon using gimmicks as named pay-per-views?
DeFELICE: Neither of the Hell in a Cell matches that were performed over the last week were matches that needed to be contested inside of the cell. This year more than ever, probably because of the change in schedule, you really feel the lack of importance for these matches that come hand-in-hand with gimmick pay-per-views. I have been a believer that they should abandon gimmick pay-per-views since they started, and I don't see anything changing anytime soon. However, I hope they never do what they did this year again. Everything was so disjointed, and even if the matches were good, they just tarnish the legacy of the cell.
ALLSOPP: Not in the style of the old school matches. Hell in a Cell should only ever be used as a feud ender, for only the most violent and heated of rivalries. Using it as a scheduled bump in the road is pathetic, and I long for the day that theme pay-per-views are all but a distant memory.
COLEMAN: The physicality of the Bobby Lashley vs Drew McIntyre match as well as the length of the feud justified the use of the Hell in a Cell stipulation. Roman Reigns and Rey Mysterio, not so much. WWE should absolutely do away with themed pay-per-views! If you need names for pay-per-view shows, how about using old WCW and ECW pay-per-views and bringing back older WWF pay-per-view names? Instead of forcing Hell in a Cell and TLC matches, do a Starrcade or Heatwave.
Those are our thoughts on the issue, but where do you stand?
Let us know your answers to these questions in the comments below!
Subscribe to Smark Out Moment on YouTube, iTunes, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and more!
0 comments: