This is a discussion on Too much to scramble? within the WWE Pay Per View forums, part of the Wrestling Forums category; ...
Welcome to Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forums
Hello and Welcome to WrestlingClique - Wrestling Forums!
We are the premier wrestling forum and your source for wrestling news and rumors, wrestling divas, wrestling gifs, sports discussion, e-feds, writing and more. Wrestling fans participate in active discussion on all the major wrestling leagues and events including WWE, ECW & TNA pay per view events, live wrestling streams, wrestling video games, collectibles, and other wrestling related products and services.
You're currently viewing our site as an unregistered guest which means you are limited to most discussions and features.
Take a few minutes to browse around, and if you like what you see, Register a free account to gain access to :
• Richer content, access forums that are not viewable by the public.
• Complete access to post topics, respond to polls, communicate privately (PM), take part contests, arcade, photo sharing, networking, groups.
• Create your personal profile and bio
• Meet and Chat Live with other members who share similar interests
Registration is simple and fast. Won't take you more than a minute and of course it's completely free.
So Join our Community today!
So we have 3 Scramble Matches set for Unforgiven, personally I think this is too much. Not only will the novelty have worn off by the 3rd match of the evening, but WWE have given away 2 possible headlining main events for future PPVs (let’s be honest, an ECW Scramble wouldn’t headline a PPV).
This situation reminds me of this past years No Way Out PPV. There were 2 Elimination Chamber matches, and neither seemed important because there were 2 of them in one night.
I have no doubt that the Scramble match could potentially turn out to be a good match, but only if they allowed a time limit of 30 – 60mins. But squashing 3 of these into one event is going a little over the top in my book. It won’t allow the wrestlers time to get involved in the match – and lets be honest, how many one on one title matches on PPV last less than 20mins? So for a multi person title match, in theory shouldn’t it last longer?
Do you think it’s too much, or would you like WWE to squeeze even more scrambles onto the PPV?
Let's do a US and IC Scramble and change Unforgiven to the Scramble PPV tbh.
But realistically, I don't see the point in having an ECW Scramble, especially one without John Morrison To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I was pretty sure they'd do one with ECW too though. Ah well, it could be a way to pad out this Hardy/Henry feud.
Definitely have no more on the PPV now though. And I just wish they'd gone for at least 30 minutes per match.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Peace Punk Sells...I'm Buying?!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I thought 2 was pushing it over the line. It pretty much killed any flare it could have and 3 is way overkill.
Now you have the top title on each show being defended in 60 minutes. Single matches have lasted longer than the scrambles and the wrestlers are all going to be overcrowding each other and not just the physical sense.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
So is ECW the 3rd one? What's the 3rd one? I am watching Raw now (yeah, not finished).
But overall I agree with Phantom, this scramble stuff is pretty much crap on a stick. Personally I think one Scramble match is too much, but thats just me.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Survivor Series Vbookies: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Become a To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. for Live Survivor Series coverage and much more.
So we have 3 Scramble Matches set for Unforgiven, personally I think this is too much. Not only will the novelty have worn off by the 3rd match of the evening, but WWE have given away 2 possible headlining main events for future PPVs (let’s be honest, an ECW Scramble wouldn’t headline a PPV).
This situation reminds me of this past years No Way Out PPV. There were 2 Elimination Chamber matches, and neither seemed important because there were 2 of them in one night.
I have no doubt that the Scramble match could potentially turn out to be a good match, but only if they allowed a time limit of 30 – 60mins. But squashing 3 of these into one event is going a little over the top in my book. It won’t allow the wrestlers time to get involved in the match – and lets be honest, how many one on one title matches on PPV last less than 20mins? So for a multi person title match, in theory shouldn’t it last longer?
Do you think it’s too much, or would you like WWE to squeeze even more scrambles onto the PPV?
Your absolutely right. I specifically wrote about one of these things in one of my post.I wrote that just like they plan on doing with this scrample championship match they've done the same at Survivor Series.
Let me explain myself;You see Survivor Series matches usually last 20 to 30 minutes,but theirs more wrestlers 8 or 10.And you start seeing these guys get eliminated 5,10 minutes in to the match.Like if there rushing things. So may times you see two guys one on one going at it for over 20 minutes,including hardcore matches and yet each opponent fails to pin the other.
But than you have these type of matches and a wrestler gets two finishers from his opponent and it's over,he loses.Plus the only purpose this match has, is for one wrestler to be able to lose the belt just to gain it back at the end.
Why should any wrestler celebrate winning the title if the match isn't over? Should wrestler's feel satisfied for just being champions for a minute or two.Even though they won't necesarry have to pin the World Championship.
This is more like a fatal four way match.I guess the WWE has lost many guys that should have been World Champions in fatal four elimination matches,because instead of just eliminating an opponent they would have had a World Title reign to their record. A punch of crap, i say.
I hate this concept, and as a result I will actually not watch this Pay-Per-View, the first one I am going to miss all year. It's okay when you have a heel GM trying to "stack the odds" against the champion who is a face, but this just doesn't make sense.
The McMahon kids came on to announce this new stipulation, but really where is the payoff? Why do it? The McMahons didn't have any hatred towards the current champions, nor where they even involved in any current storylines. I understand this time of year is probably a low-point because with Summerslam over, there is a period of time where nothing big usually happens in WWE-land until Royal Rumble (or Survivor Series). And even though they are trying to shake things up and keep people interested, this will not do the job.
Linear Mode
