WWE Survivor Series: Traditional Survivor Series Matches Going Away? Fine by Me

Over the past five years, much has been made about the devaluing of not only traditional eight or 10-man Survivor Series matches but the entire WWE Survivor Series pay-per-view. WWE chairman Vince McMahon very nearly axed the entire pay-per-view in 2010 stating: 

"We (WWE) think Survivor Series is obsolete. It worked many, many years ago but it's outlasted its usage. It's one of the PPVs we will be looking at in terms of rebranding. We will no longer have that title any more."

Thankfully, McMahon reconsidered and the name remained a part of the WWE pay-per-view cycle.

The name recognition of one of the big four pay-per-views (WrestleMania, Royal Rumble, Summerslam and Survivor Series) is simply too valuable to throw away on the premise of an outdated concept. 

Simply put, if the outdated concept of the traditional Survivor Series matches (eight or 10-man) are put out to pasture. I will not be shedding any tears.

Before you jump on me, you should know I'm an admitted "old school" WWE fan. Read my other articles and that becomes painfully obvious. The one thing I never really found myself fond of with the 80s and 90s WWE was the Survivor Series. It just never clicked with me. There were pros and cons definitely, but overall I merely sat through those matches while anticipating the bigger, singles matches on the card. 

If they are done away with, I will not be sad. 

The traditional Survivor Series matches began with the first WWE Survivor Series pay-per-view on Thanksgiving Day (November 26) 1987 which saw Team Andre (Andre the Giant, One Man Gang, King Kong Bundy, Butch Reed and Rick Rude) defeat Team Hogan (Hulk Hogan, Paul Orndorff, Don Muraco, Ken Patera and Bam Bam Bigelow).

As Gorilla Monsoon proclaimed at least 70 times during the event, it was a happening. Afterall, take yourself back to 1987; this was a mere seven months after the legendary WrestleMania III matchup between Hogan and Andre. More so, this was the first time the two combatants were in the same ring together since that faithful day in Pontiac, Michigan. There was a lot going into this match. 

Throughout the late 80s and into the 1990s, Survivor Series and the traditional Survivor Series matches were indeed a happening. 1990 saw the introduction of the "Sole Survivor" concept where all winners would face each other in the main event. 

In 1991, we saw the first crack in the Survivor Series mold as the most important match on the card was not a traditional Survivor Series match, but rather the "Gravest Challenge," a battle between then-champion Hogan and The Undertaker. It would not be long before singles matches would routinely have more importance on the pay-per-view than a traditional 8 or 10-man tag. 

Even then, the Survivor Series matches still had some amount of star power and intrigue going into the mid 2000s.

The WCW/ECW Invasion was ended at Survivor Series 2001 and 2003 saw arguably the best eight-man tag as Team Bischoff (Chris Jericho, Christian, Randy Orton, Scott Steiner and Mark Henry) vs. Team Austin (Shawn Michaels, Rob Van Dam, Booker T., Bubba Ray Dudley and D-Von Dudley).

Fast forward to 2011 and thus far, the only announced traditional Survivor Series match Team Barrett (Wade Barrett, Cody Rhodes, Jack Swagger, Christian and Hunico) vs. Team Orton (Randy Orton, Sheamus, Mason Ryan, Kofi Kingston and Sin Cara). Try to contain your excitement in that one. 

I don't want to harp too much on the depth of the current WWE roster, there's numerous articles out there that can do a better job of it. However, looking at the difference between where the Survivor Series matches were to where we are at now...it may be best to put them out of their misery. 

The focus of the 2011 Survivor Series is very clearly not on a traditional eight-man tag (and rightfully so) and it has not been the main event at Survivor Series since 2006. 

It is not only an issue of roster depth and lack of interest in these matches we routinely see on Raw or any number of the 12 WWE pay-per-views of the year. In my opinion, I never thought the 10-man tag matches were very good. 

Do not get me wrong, they served their purpose and it was a great concept pay-per-view during its inception. Not only can you bring multiple feuds and rivalries together, you could also build towards future matchups. Hogan was counted out during the Survivor Series 1987 main event and this mostly led to a signed rematch at Saturday's Night Main Event, which in turn led to the WrestleMania IV tournament. 

What the eight or 10-man, traditional Survivor Series match also did was introduce debuting superstars in a very easy to consume format. The Rock (Rocky Maivia) and The Undertaker both saw debuts in these matches and they were a great way to feature up-and-coming superstars. 

Still though, I will not miss them if they are done away with completely. 

Match quality was always an issue with me. While most lasted upwards of 10-20 minutes, they weren't particularly great in-ring matches. Team Austin vs. Team Bischoff in 2003 withstanding, a majority were not memorable in the least. 

One thing that always irked me as well was the seemingly random finishes.

We as an audience, even in 1987, had been trained to think of finishers as leading to a finish. Hogan hit a leg drop, here comes the pinfall. Yet in 10-man Survivor Series matches pinfalls occurred from any number of moves. Routinely someone would hit a bodyslam or suplex and get the 1-2-3. 

I'm not saying that's a bad thing; in fact I wish more matches ended this way today, but on pay-per-views at that time wrestlers rarely ever lost a match on only a non-finisher.

Yet we were led to believe, somehow, during an eight or 10-man tag team match wrestlers were more prone to losing from a non-finisher. It was always silly to me. 

Obviously, there were numerous feuds going on throughout the match but it almost seemed like too many. The announcers routinely overlooked feuds or tried to mention every aspect of every feud. Wrestlers seemed to rush moves and never really found a flow in the match.

While the matches were given between 10-20 minutes, you are still talking about a number of wrestlers that have to get in there and get time to pull their moves off. Everyone seemed to be off their usual flow.

It was nice to see something different, a different type of match outside of the usual single or tag match but the wrestlers themselves never seemed to find a way to match it feel like a good match. Even with the biggest stars, it still did not have the big match feel a standard one-on-one did. It was largely a transitional pay-per-view.  

With the amount of television matches and the 12 pay-per-views a year, there really is no need for the traditional Survivor Series match anymore. If done right with a deep roster and numerous intriguing storylines, they could be valuable. However, as most of us can admit, that is not the current state of the WWE. 

By forcing these matches to occur and throwing together makeshift teams with little to no intrigue, the WWE is devaluing the history of an otherwise historic match type. I am not going to argue the historical significance of some of these matches, especially Team Alliance and Team WWE's historic 2001 showdown for control of the WWE. Still though, the matches were not very good in the first place.

Why force something in 2011 that was not even very good in 1988?