Yeah. The only gimmick ppvs so far have been Extreme Rules and Money in the Bank, and of course Royal Rumble. But does Hell in a Cell and TLC really need ppvs named after them when they fulfill no special condition (i.e. Royal Rumble guarantees WM main event, MITB guarantees title shot anytime anywhere)?
Money In The Bank and Royal Rumble aren't gimmick PPV's.
A gimmick PPV is more like TLC and Hell In The Cell where matches are stipulated randomly based on the theme.
The Rumble and MITB involve big specialty matches but their not random.
My point is that the Rumble and MITB have pizazz and prestige.
Honestly, I really wish they'd do away with gimmick ppv's. Hell in a Cell matches have been really devalued since they started having two or three matches a year. Same goes for TLC, and does anyone remember how lame "Fatal Four" was?
Fatal Four wasn't THAT bad but it was rather pointless to have its own PPV. Hell in a Cell matches aren't as brutal as they once were but they are still pretty good. TLC wasn't a bad PPV either.
Originally Posted by John Cena rapping on Paul Heyman
You see I don't need your approval Paul. I'm gonna take my respect. I'll bounce you quicker than an ECW check.