Your Criteria for what constitutes...

[Dangerous A 0]

So what makes a good pay per view in your eyes? What is your critieria?

 

Does it have to have a certain amount of good matches? Does a ppv containing a classic match become a good or great show even if all the rest of the matches were sub par or horrible. WM13 would be a very good example of this in that it had Bret-Austin I quit match, but just about everything else on the ppv sucked pretty badly.

 

If a show doesn't have great in ring action, but has memorable angle or storyline, does it then go from "eh" ppv to a good one? One Night Stand kind of comes to mind in this regard as well as Bash at the Beach 1996 sans Mysterio vs Psycosis opener.

 

If a show's main event doesn't deliver at all, but the undercard was very good, do you consider it a good ppv? WCW in the early nWo days as well as TNA come to mind here.

 

 

 

What makes a good pay per view to you?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

When the PPV is over, I have to feel like it was worth the time it took to watch. It doesn't have to have a slew of great matches or hot angles, but when the PPV ends, I have to walk away feeling like it was worth watching, for whatever reason.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Same thing. Generally speaking though, I prefer an entertaining card top to bottom. I don't mean supercards with main event level matches all over the place, but fun wrestling, usually with a great match or two as the big draws and decent filler and the proper booking. Good matches + Bad Booking usually isn't going to make me happy. I can live with a certain amount of interference, but the right guy has to go over. Any time you have endings like with Lesnar/Taker at Unforgiven 2002, it pisses me off, no matter how good the rest of the PPV is. DQs and No Contests in PPV main events are a big no-no. If you are going to put a DQ in a title match, then don't book it to go last, simple as that.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Any time you have endings like with Lesnar/Taker at Unforgiven 2002, it pisses me off, no matter how good the rest of the PPV is.  DQs and No Contests in PPV main events are a big no-no.  If you are going to put a DQ in a title match, then don't book it to go last, simple as that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That finish ruined the whole PPV for me. Unforgiven was doing ok in my book, but that finish was totally unacceptable, and killed the good vibe that PPV gave out.

[Placebo Effect 0]

Whatever it is, it's not just about the wrestling.

 

I loved a lot of the WCW-Russo PPVs. They were so spectacuarly goofy at times that the $10 or so I'd pay for copies was money well spent.

[Guest *KNK*]

There's been quite a few shows that didn't have a match sniffing *** and I considered it a good ppv that was worth my time. Great wrestling always is a plus but it's not an absolute requirement, but moreso, a preference.

 

There's shows that have two ****+ matches that are horrendous events as a whole.

 

WCW in 1997-1998 would usually have two or three matches on the under-card that hit ***+ or more and yet, at the end of the night, you felt like that money was wasted.

[Jericholic82 0]

Any time you have endings like with Lesnar/Taker at Unforgiven 2002, it pisses me off, no matter how good the rest of the PPV is.  DQs and No Contests in PPV main events are a big no-no.  If you are going to put a DQ in a title match, then don't book it to go last, simple as that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That finish ruined the whole PPV for me. Unforgiven was doing ok in my book, but that finish was totally unacceptable, and killed the good vibe that PPV gave out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup, more so for me cuz I paid 90 bucks for floor seats for that show. The match was pretty good (shocking me) until the non-finish

 

I usually like a PPV if it has one or more good moments or matches. A great main event can send me home happy so to speak. sometimes if an opener is good and the rest of the card sucks I dont remember it fondly. or say if a show goes on forever like WrestleMania 20, I lose interest (it was on for so long, that by the time we got to angle-eddie and hbk-benoit-hhh I wasnt into it as much as I would have thought.

 

 

if I am watching a show with friends and havign a good time, sometimes a sucky show can seem better. like for example Rumble 2003 and the steiner-hhh match, I was havign a blast laughing at it with my pals.

[Black Lushus 0]

I view it the same as a CD purchase...there needs to be at least 3 matches I'd go back and watch again and again, like there has to be 3 tracks I can listen to over and over again...

[TheInsane 0]

For me the main thing about wrestling that entertain me is the wrestling itself. So for me great matches are what makes a good PPV. However I do enjoy good booked and hot stuff such as Hogan vs Rock (the crowd did most of that one). However good matches is the main thing because that is what entertains me. A sad turnoff can be a good PPV card with a crappy main event. Somehow the whole card seems to drag it down then. Also the opening match should set a good pace. A bad match most easily slips out of my mind if its placed second to a great opener.

[Jericholic82 0]

I view it the same as a CD purchase...there needs to be at least 3 matches I'd go back and watch again and again, like there has to be 3 tracks I can listen to over and over again...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, thats a good way to look at it.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

My criteria for a good PPV:

 

-At least 2 good matches from a technical standpoint (not meaning they're good because it's technical wrestling, but they're good because the wrestling itself during them was good, the pacing was good, and there wasn't too many things blown during them).

-The flow of the show (it can't just be match-match-match for me, but it can't also follow the same formula that most TV shows do; it needs to FEEL like a PPV in its flow, and get across the FEEL of the company).

-The main event (if it's a shitty match that's expected to be good, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth after the show's over; likewise, if it's a shitty match that you KNEW was going to be shitty, it still leaves a bad taste in your mouth when the show's over; many WWF/WWE PPVs were pretty bad until the main event in 1998 and 1999, but the main event saved the show).

 

So, basically, if the PPV is enjoyable with good matches, good flow, and a good main event, I call it a good PPV.

[King Cucaracha 0]

If possible, it's nice to have a little bit of everything, rather than a PPV full of the same style of matches. Mania X7 had enough variation in it's line-up so as to keep things fresh. The Gimmick Battle Royal, for instance, served a purpose on the show because it was mindless, feel good nostalgia. Where-as the TLC Match serve a purpose by providing plenty of markout moments. It's not about liking one style of wrestling. Different styles help with the flow of the show.

 

Obviously, there needs to be a reason to watch. Some sort of intrigue going in, preferably in the main event to keep you attentive.

 

Ideally, there should be some sort of payoff too. That doesn't neccessarily mean something that makes you watch Raw the next day or order the next PPV (although if done correctly there's nothing wrong with that.) Just, as HTQ said, something that makes the purchase seem worthwhile.

 

Also, it helps if you get something on the show you wouldn't get on free TV. Otherwise, what's the point in watching?

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

My only massive gripe is finishes, because for me it's like 'well this match was really good but the ending killed it and didn't advance/end the feud' and that's what I take away from the show. If there's ever a time for clean finishes, it's PPV. Otherwise, I've really enjoyed ECW shows with nothing technically approaching a good match, it's more than that.

[Jericholic82 0]

If a main event is expected to suck, and it surprises everyone and is actually good or decent (Like say a recent example of HBK-Hogan from Summerslam-it was better than I had hoped) that sometimes can make a show better to me.