When WWE revealed in 2009 that they were going to debut a Pay-Per-View event simply entitled 'Hell In A Cell', many fans were dead set against the idea. Historically, big cage matches were designed to be the culmination of a red-hot feud, often also being portrayed as the ideal battleground for warriors to settle their differences without outside interference. Steel Cage and Hell In A Cell matches aren't the only kind of stipulation matches that have suffered from wrestling's ever-changing face. Take WWE's most recent PPV offering as one example - Dolph Ziggler and Sheamus had previously wrestled at Extreme Rules in what was billed as a 'Kiss Me Arse' bout, but then met in a straight singles effort at Payback. Talk about confusing, isn't that the wrong way round? Surely the feud should have built slowly towards the big stipulation bout, instead of having it come very early in the rivalry? Vince Russo's logic in WCW of having pretty much every Pay-Per-View match have some stipulation attached to it was mind-numbing too, and exactly what WWE should have learned from! Stipulations should be way more important that they are now. What other traditional nuances do you think WWE ignore nowadays? Do you miss any of the ones listed here? Let us know down in the comments section below!
Lifelong wrestling, video game, music and sports obsessive who has been writing about his passions since childhood. Jamie started writing for WhatCulture in 2013, and has contributed thousands of articles and YouTube videos since then. He cut his teeth penning published pieces for top UK and European wrestling read Fighting Spirit Magazine (FSM), and also has extensive experience working within the wrestling biz as a manager and commentator for promotions like ICW on WWE Network and WCPW/Defiant since 2010. Further, Jamie also hosted the old Ministry Of Slam podcast, and has interviewed everyone from Steve Austin and Shawn Michaels to Bret Hart and Trish Stratus.
