WWE Is Watering Down Appeal of Ladder Match with Overuse

By looking to tap into its thrilling nature time after time, WWE has scraped the shine off the ladder match and stripped it down to its steel bones.

The company has crammed ladder matches into its calendar to the point of excess. The concept stands fatigued. It's not nearly as special as it once was, a lessened spectacle.

Seeing a wrestler yank another off a ladder and slam him to the waiting canvas should be a more jaw-dropping moment than it has become.

The faded novelty of the ladder match is partly to blame for that. But more than anything, oversaturation is at fault. Ladder matches are no longer just the dramatic means to wrap up a blood feud. They are built-in components of two pay-per-views built around the gimmick bout.

When Shawn Michaels and Razor Ramon first brought the ladder-centered match to WrestleMania X some 21 years ago, every leap from the rungs had the crowd in awe. Each time either foe clocked the other with the steel weapon, the audience gasped.

Those two were breaking new ground, upping the level of violence, cranking up the excitement.

The ladder match was a white-hot new phenomenon soon after. WWE understood that, pitting Ramon and Michaels against each other in a rematch at SummerSlam. In the years to follow, the company leaned more and more on the concept.

At WrestleMania 2000, WWE set three teams loose on a battlefield lined with ladders.

The chaos, carnage and all the fun that brought with it changed everything. Fans wanted to see more of these car crashes. WWE obliged. Ladder matches became an institution, as the Money in the Bank PPV features at least one a year and the TLC event to close out the year offers one or more.

"Those early ladder matches were truly shocking," wrote Grantland's David Shoemaker. "There was a blatant disregard for safety that had rarely been seen in mainstream wrestling."

Today, that disregard is too commonplace. And so the shocking element that these bouts wield is not nearly what it was. How can it be? There is only so far these wrestlers can push the limits in these matches without endangering themselves to the point of insanity.

It certainly doesn't help that there is so little air in between ladder matches. There's no great anticipation until the next one. The calendar dictates that they arrive every few months.

This year alone, WWE will have put on six ladder matches by the time TLC is over:

• Daniel Bryan vs. Wade Barrett vs. Stardust vs. Luke Harper vs. Dolph Ziggler vs. R-Truth vs. Dean Ambrose: WrestleMania 31
• Seth Rollins vs. Dean Ambrose: Money in the Bank 2015
• Sheamus vs. Roman Reigns vs. Kane vs. Randy Orton vs. Dolph Ziggler vs. Neville vs. Kofi Kingston: Money in the Bank 2015 (Money in the Bank match)
• Finn Balor and Kevin Owens: NXT TakeOver: Brooklyn
• The New Day vs. The Usos vs. The Lucha Dragons: TLC 2015
• Roman Reigns vs. Sheamus: TLC 2015 (TLC match)

Going to the well that often is the equivalent of the NBA putting on four dunk contests a year. The act wouldn't be nearly as fresh the fourth time around.

It wasn't always like this. As seen on Online World of Wrestling, between 1993 to 1999, there were just six ladder matches total. WWE is going to hit that mark in a span of eight months.

WWE can spit out all the hyperbole it wants about how special a certain ladder match may be, but with it being such a worn-down concept, that will ring hollow. These clashes have become ordinary in spite of their danger. After a while, they all start to blend together, a mess of bent steel and deep bruises playing in fans' memories.

Beyond just the frequency of the matches, the lack of a real catalyst to book them hurts their dramatic power.

The company has taken to just throwing them together. The New Day's title match morphed into a ladder match without a clear reason, and as Will Pruett of ProWrestling.net noted, it was announced nonchalantly:

Ziggler vs. Harper at last year's TLC PPV was made into a ladder match not because the intensity of their feud demanded it but because it was December. The same reasoning is why Sheamus and Reigns' first PPV as main event opponents (not counting the cash-in at Survivor Series) will be of the TLC variety.

PWTorch's Greg Parks is among those unclear on why their showdown will head in this direction:

When a ladder match serves as the apex of animosity, the emphatic end to an ongoing story, it simply has more meaning.

The Dudley Boyz, The Hardy Boys and Edge and Christian had been battling for months before their triangle ladder match at WrestleMania 2000. Gangrel switching sides to join Matt and Jeff Hardy fueled the feud. This was a convergence of high-flyers and risk-takers who had been clashing time and time again.

It made perfect sense to up the stakes and risks.

The same goes for Chris Jericho and Michaels at No Mercy 2008, where their fight had grown so personal that it begged for an added element of savagery. Before that, Triple H met The Rock at SummerSlam 1998 in a ladder match that wrapped up their long battle for the Intercontinental Championship.

That arc is harder to pull off today. WWE has to have rivalries reach their high points by a certain time of year to link up with the gimmick PPVs.

Sheamus and Reigns have to act like they are mortal enemies despite just beginning their story three weeks ago. The narrative between The Usos, The Lucha Dragons and Big E has to be sped up.

With all the talent involved in both contests and the thrills they are bound to create, there's no doubt that each one will be fun to watch. But neither will feel grand or momentous.

The only way to get back to when ladder matches did feel that way is to alter the schedule. Get rid of the gimmick, match-centric PPVs. Rather than make Money in the Bank an annual event, bring it back every few years, when fans are hungry to see the concept again and WWE has a perfect fit for the next Mr. Money in the Bank in the wings.

As for TLC, why not make the event something more open-ended?

Call it Backlash. Call it SuperBrawl. Call it whatever. Just book matches that suit where stories currently sit.

Have two low-rung Superstars fight it out over a roster spot or set up the Royal Rumble PPV with a No. 1 contender bout. Only include ladder matches if the story screams for it.

Having the audience wait longer in between them will elevate their importance. Saving them for only the most bitter of enemies makes them less like circus-esque exhibitions and more like enthralling theater on a steel stage.