WWE's Big 4 PPVs, KOTR

CastorTroy

At what point did WWF go from just having the 4 PPVs a year(Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series) to having 1 a month? Especially since I, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, still consider the other PPVs to not be important enough for anything major to happen at.

jaykhunter

CastorTroy wrote: »

At what point did WWF go from just having the 4 PPVs a year(Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series) to having 1 a month?

In the early 90s, WWF flirted with adding more than 4 PPVs a few times (This Tuesday in Texas in 1991; UK PPVs like Rampage, Battle Royale at the Albert Hall) but they went full-pelt with In Your House PPVs starting in May 1995. (1995 had 10 PPVs); and 1996 was the first year with 12 PPVs (well, technically 13 as they had to re-do the Beware of Dog PPV 2 days later as a thunderstorm knocked out the power, ending the PPV). These were 'B'-PPVs which were offered at a lower price ($30 I believe) and although initially not great, fans came accustomed to it and it was a highly profitable venture.

tvercetti

CastorTroy wrote: »

At what point did WWF go from just having the 4 PPVs a year(Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series) to having 1 a month? Especially since I, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, still consider the other PPVs to not be important enough for anything major to happen at.

Was King of the Ring not a major one too back in the day?

jaykhunter

tvercetti wrote: »

Was King of the Ring not a major one too back in the day?

Yes but it never really drew as well as the other 4. But I'd consider it a big PPV since it wasn't an "In Your House" and cost the same as the big 4.

CastorTroy

tvercetti wrote: »

Was King of the Ring not a major one too back in the day?

It started much later than the other 4, if I remember correctly. Though they may have had a tournament on the weeklies where Macho King got the title

rovert

Never really drew as JayK said, tvercetti.

As with demonstrated with Cyber Sunday/Taboo Tuesday people simply won't drop down the money in big numbers for a match card that isn't stated in full in plain black and white.

jaykhunter

That's right. Since i do OSW review i'm hotter on this old stuff!

PPV (starting date in brackets)
WrestleMania (85)
Survivor Series (87)
Royal Rumble (88 - first televised showing, although it was done the previous year on a house show in October, won by One Man Gang)
SummerSlam (88)
KOTR (93 - although it was an annual house show staple since 1985, won by Don Muraco, and wasn't done at all in 1990 or 1992.)

Stereomaniac

Some years were better than others. In particular, 1993, 1994 and 1998, were events that, if i remember correctly, people were interested in watching, and there was a pretty good buildup.

Omackeral

tvercetti wrote: »

Was King of the Ring not a major one too back in the day?

I read somewhere that WrestleMania, Summerslam, Royal Rumble and Survivor series were called the Big 4. When King of The Ring is included, they become the Classic 5, or something to that effect.

How are the Big 4 PPV's ranked in order of importance in your opinons?

I'd have Mania at the top obviously. Toss up between Summerslam and the Rumble for 2nd place perhaps? Survivor Series bringing up the rear.

CastorTroy

Owen won the first KotR PPV, I think and started going by The King of Hearts.

I'll check wiki and if I'm wrong I'll update

Yep, I was wrong. Bret won first then Owen

CastorTroy

Omackeral wrote: »

I read somewhere that WrestleMania, Summerslam, Royal Rumble and Survivor series were called the Big 4. When King of The Ring is included, they become the Classic 5, or something to that effect.

How are the Big 4 PPV's ranked in order of importance in your opinons?

I'd have Mania at the top obviously. Toss up between Summerslam and the Rumble for 2nd place perhaps? Survivor Series bringing up the rear.

Mania, Rumble(since it starts the Road to Wrestlemania and the Rumble's an event I enjoy), Summerslam then Survivor series, but only just. Summerslam usually seems like a bigger event than it is.

Omackeral

I think when King Of The Ring gave the winner a title shot guaranteed, it was a very good idea. Great way to build a star or re-ignite an old one. Worked for Brock Lesnar anyhow.

Kinda like a Money in the Bank idea.

Edit: I see Brock was the only official guaranteed shot at Summerslam as a result of winning the tournament. I know King Mabel got a shot against Diesel at Summerslam 1995, but the less said about that the better!

Stereomaniac

I'd've liked to have seen Mabel get a title run back then. I thought that anyone would've been better than Kevin Nash at that time. But yeah, it would be nice if they brought back King Of The Ring and actually had it as part of the buildup to SummerSlam. They could actually have the entire year laid out with long storylines planned. You would have two major events to build towards, at WrestleMania & SummerSlam, and 2 major setup pay per views.

jaykhunter

I think Mabel would've gotten the belt had he not injured both Nash and Taker in subsequent matches! Horrible on the mic but this was the worst period in wrestling history!!

A Primal Nut

CastorTroy wrote: »

At what point did WWF go from just having the 4 PPVs a year(Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series) to having 1 a month? Especially since I, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, still consider the other PPVs to not be important enough for anything major to happen at.

I've enjoyed the buildup to previous PPVs such as Extreme Rules and Money In the Bank more than Summerslam.

WrestleMania is always special and the Royal Rumble match is great (it's always the second highest-bought PPV every year) so those are the big two. Survivor Series and Summerslam are like any other PPV for me, although they are more likely to feature big stars like Brock Lesnar or the Rock.

Stereomaniac

No I always think that the original big 4 are still better than the other ones. SummerSlam has a good main event that we wouldn't have seen on any other card since WrestleMania. I think that the Royal Rumble matches are good to watch but they're so predictable as well.

A Primal Nut

Stereomaniac wrote: »

No I always think that the original big 4 are still better than the other ones. SummerSlam has a good main event that we wouldn't have seen on any other card since WrestleMania.

Would you argue that Lesnar-HHH is bigger than Lesnar-Cena at Extreme Rules, especially bearing in mind that Lesnar-Cena was no dq and was Lesnar's first match back.

Admittedly, the Summerslam main event has had a longer buildup, but I definitely had more interest in Extreme Rules, especially with fights between Cena-Lesnar, blood and all - I thought it was great.

Charisteas

The 1995 KOTR is still a guilty pleasure for me as it was one of the VHS tapes I owned as a kid. I remember Jerry Lawler's unwashed foot being frigging hilarious!!

Watched it again recently, and as much as I loved Mabel's manager cutting a seemingly ad-libbed promo whilst chewing gum, another highlight is when some pre-internet smarks start an ECW chant and the clueless Vince McMahon is like "Listen to these fans!!"

Omackeral

Charisteas wrote: »

The 1995 KOTR is still a guilty pleasure for me as it was one of the VHS tapes I owned as a kid. I remember Jerry Lawler's unwashed foot being frigging hilarious!!

Watched it again recently, and as much as I loved Mabel's manager cutting a seemingly ad-libbed promo whilst chewing gum, another highlight is when some pre-internet smarks start an ECW chant and the clueless Vince McMahon is like "Listen to these fans!!"

Is it true that good old Jerry has a foot fetish? Or is that just an internet rumour?