Whats the point of Hell in a Cell if its just gonna be a regular match inside the cell?

W

White_Adam

New member
Cell use to have a meaning where 2 opponents used to hated each other to death very heated rivalry it was use to be deadly and sinful now they talk about like its a game fun thing to be in a cell.

Why would they even have that ppv if its not gonna have sadistic violence and blood? Pathetic they r disgracing the name hell in a cell.
 
First of all, I got to say,

Back during the time I started watching wrestling around 2004, Hell in a Cell was a once in a year, match which only had one match a year inside the Cell (approx. 2 per year) now there acting like that Hell in a Cell can be a Pay per view where nobody superstars like John Cena, enters i mean Cena isn't even great at Hell in a Cell matches, they should stop with the Gimmick Pay per views, if WWE Still had the normal pay per views like say next would be No Mercy so, I think it would have been perfect to book only 1 Hell in a Cell match, not 3 on 1 night. And not to mention no blood, where Hell in a Cell is a match where heaps of Blood is spilt.

Nowadays they act like Hell in a Cell is, all fun and games for some reason, back then it was considered a deadly, sinful match.

Who agrees that WWE don't know what they are doing with having a Hell in a Cell pay per view.

And that know Hell in a Cell has become a 'PG Match' ?
These are the Hell in a cell Matches that I have seen throughout my life.

* Triple H vs. Kevin Nash: Bad Blood 2003
* Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels: Bad Bloood 2004
* Batista vs. Triple H: Vengeance 2005
* The Undertaker vs. Randy Orton: Armageddon 2005
* DX vs. The McMahons and The Big Show: Unforgiven 2006
* Batista defeated. The Undertaker: Survivor Series 2007
* Edge vs. The Undertaker: Summerslam 2008

those were all great, but last years and this years Hell in a Cell PPV's just take it too far and for what?
And the short time limits, back then Hell in a Cell matches took like 40 minutes approx.

Now they have like 10 minutes, or 18 minutes cell matches.
 
It never made sense to rename the PPVs like this anyway. I hate the PPV names derived out of match types like Elimination chamber or TLC or Hell in a Cell. Firstly, all matches at EC are not EC matches, all matches at TLC are not TLC matches, similarly all matches at HIAC are not HIAC matches and also all matches at NOC were not championship matches.

Secondly, HIAC used to be once in a year. That is why it was special. And the most brutal and personal rivalries of the year made to it, like Taker/ Orton in 2005, Taker/ Batista in 2007, Taker/ Edge in 2008. And the HIAC matches could happen at any PPV depending on when the rivalry has reached such a stage (became very personal and intensified) and when it has to be culminated. Now, HIAC doesn't seem to have the same significance anymore if there have to be multiple matches at HIAC regardless of what stage the rivalry is in.
 
I agree 110% with you. I don't like the idea of this PPV or the idea of the Elimination Chamber. It's making two great match types overrated when they are supposed to be saved for the worst of rivalries.

I understand Undertaker vs. Kane in Hell in a Cell... but not Orton vs. Sheamus or Cena vs. Barrett at all.
 
I agree 110% with you. I don't like the idea of this PPV or the idea of the Elimination Chamber. It's making two great match types overrated when they are supposed to be saved for the worst of rivalries.

I understand Undertaker vs. Kane in Hell in a Cell... but not Orton vs. Sheamus or Cena vs. Barrett at all.
 
I agree 110% with you. I don't like the idea of this PPV or the idea of the Elimination Chamber. It's making two great match types overrated when they are supposed to be saved for the worst of rivalries.

I understand Undertaker vs. Kane in Hell in a Cell... but not Orton vs. Sheamus or Cena vs. Barrett at all.
 
Back
Top