View Poll Results: Better Survivor Series match format

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • 5 vs 5

    12 80.00%
  • 4 vs 4

    3 20.00%
Results 1 to 26 of 26
  1. #1
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,210

    Better Survivor Series match format

    As that time of year is rapidly approaching, I thought I'd get a sense of which is the more popular format for the traditional Survivor Series match. And no, before you ask - the 10-a side for the tag teams isn't an option on the poll....

    So yeah, 5 on 5 or 4 on 4? The original incarnation where 'teams of five strive to survive', or the slimmed down version that took over in '89 and dominated the 1990s events?

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  2. #2
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    779
    They need to stop the elimination matches all together. It has run its course.

  3. #3
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,210
    Not the question that was asked - at least let the topic get started before you stray from it!

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  4. #4
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    779
    Fair enough, so I would say the 4 v 4 format. Makes more matches, and less of a cluster f&*k. 10 man tag matches are just way too convoluted.

    However, if there is a need for one, then do it. For instance, if the New Day and the Bar, with Big Show are still feuding, then add 2 other tag teams for a five on five match, not just add one more random person to each team.

  5. #5
    Puerto Rican dude living in Japan Degenerate's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Osaka, Japan
    Posts
    336
    There's a lot of good things for 4 vs. 4 matches, some which Powder already mentioned above. But I think the long-time WWE viewer in me likes the 5 on 5 matches more.

    I think they create a little more intrigue by having more people per team, especially going down the stretch of a match when a few eliminations happen. It can create more possibilities between the teams since people who normally wouldn't face each other would have a chance in these. Granted, it depends on how it's all booked because they can turn into convoluted messes, but that risk would be there regardless of how many people are in the match in my opinion.

  6. #6
    Lamb of LOP anonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    186 miles from Sheepster
    Posts
    318
    5 vs 5. And it’s not run it’s course. A good survivor series match can have so many things that can change the course of WWE programming. It can be used to generate new feuds between both opponents and partners; through who eliminates who, and any conflicts that arise. It can give someone a mega push if they put in an Ironman performance of outlasting everyone else, particularly if they take out multiple opposition singlehandedly. It can create incredible drama if the stakes are high- whatever those stakes may be. One of my favourite stakes was when the winning team ran Raw for a month, instantly pushing them and spotlighting the losing heel team more.

    And then there’s the match itself. It is one of the few utterly unpredictable matches in the WWE frequently and I love that. For me, a good Survivor Series match can be as compelling and dramatic as a strong Rumble Match, with much higher quality wrestling. You can have the 10 best stars in the company against each other once a year and create twists, turns and a total climax which very few matches can. Because of the amount of people it can last an hour without getting dull, or people getting tired and often, the workhorses can put on a clinic.

    As usual, the biggest issue in recent buildups is the writing ahead of the event and a lack of effort put into the matches. Actually the writing of the before, during and after has been dreadful. But done right, I think it can be incredible.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    678
    5 on 5. Adding one more member can be all the difference in a good survivor series match if its done well. Only really like 4 on 4 if its a stable that makes sense... but hardly any 4 man stables nowadays.

    The problem i have with the match is its happened so often, with random pairing that its watered down the match. Also, when they do have a epic survivor Series match planned.. lately its gone on way too long.

  8. #8
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,815
    5 on 5 all the way down the line, all the best ones have had that format. 4 vs. 4 is usually a sign that they had a weak roster at the time or simply phoned it in. Some of those are still good, mind you, but a fully stacked 5 on 5 is just the best when done well.

  9. #9
    LOP's part time glass ceiling DynamiteBillington's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    TrowVegas
    Posts
    306
    I'm not concerned either way, just make it have a reason that isn't the Raw v Smackdown they resort to far too often.

  10. #10
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,815
    I liked the '05 version of that because they put a lot of cool stuff behind it, but yeah generally I do find that to be a lazy format.

  11. #11
    LOP's part time glass ceiling DynamiteBillington's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    TrowVegas
    Posts
    306
    Yeah, I mean if Raw and Smackdown are genuinely feuding, then go for it. I don't think that's ever been the case though. Once at the start of the brand split was acceptable, but now it's just a cop out.

    Survivor Series is a prime example of why they need to bring managers back. The feuds can be between the manager's stables, then the match is contended by the guys from each stable as picked by the manager.

    I also like the idea of a few SS matches, with the survivors from each going on to a final elimination match to determine the overall survivor. That guy then goes on to be the No. 1 contender for the title. IIRC (you guys can probably name the year etc!) they nearly did this one year and had the final survivors match, but I don't think it went anywhere afterwards

  12. #12
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,210
    I actually think that the best version of WWE (or at least the best version to involve a roster split) would run a RAW vs Smackdown survivor series match every year and it'd be independent of feuding for the most part, and would be used primarily to further things (or maybe even delay things) that were happening on both shows. It's the kind of match that built into an annual tradition with the result having some meaning basically writes itself and means you can focus more attention on other areas of the show. Though I do agree, that's more theoretical; the way they've been done in practice is not good for the most part.

    Quote Originally Posted by mizfan View Post
    5 on 5 all the way down the line, all the best ones have had that format. 4 vs. 4 is usually a sign that they had a weak roster at the time or simply phoned it in. Some of those are still good, mind you, but a fully stacked 5 on 5 is just the best when done well.
    That's quite funny because I look at all the ones I immediately think of as the best and they're all 4 vs 4, at least in the more traditional era. This could be my age again, or the difference between when we started watching perhaps, but I don't really remember too much of the first couple of Series 5 on 5's but from 1990 onwards I've got a lot of bouts that really stick in my memory. The 1990 one is possibly the best version of the format for me, with the survivors coming back for the ultimate survivor match at the end of the night - and I've got really strong memories of both the Million Dollar Team vs The Dream Team, and The Visionaries vs The Vipers.

    From then on it's 4 vs 4 for most of the rest of the decade (1994 is the exception I think) and though I don't remember the 1991 or 1992 matches with much fondness, there's again a lot that live long in my memory from 1993, 1995, 1996, and 1997.

    There obviously were no Series matches at 'Deadly Game' in 1998, and to be honest I don't remember 1999 all that well - I just remember that whole period in wrestling as being largely best forgotten to be honest. The back half of 1999 was rough all-round.

    There's the lone match at 2001 thats 5 vs 5 for the Alliance/WWF blow-off, and though there's nothing at 2002 I think you can maybe consider that the beginning of the return to 5 vs 5. And maybe since that time the better matches have been with teams of five. But before that, in the era that I really give a shit about, I'd say that all the best matches are generally speaking four on four.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  13. #13
    Member #25 SirSam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,071
    I agree with the 5 on 5 thing, particularly with what Nony said about how it can really progress story and character along.

    As for Raw v Smackdown well for me it depends, there have been some good and bad ones using that, for instance one of my favs is the 2016 one which was Raw v Smackdown but largely played off existing rivalries and stories to build the tension and arc of the match. 2005 did it well as well. On the other hand last year was not so great because the stories really didn't do anyone any favors except showing that the WWE still think that part timers are better than full time stars.



    @Sir_Samuel

  14. #14
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,210
    I also agree with the essence of that post and think it's true of a good series match regardless of the numbers involved. So yeah, for me that's a huge part of the appeal of those matches.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  15. #15
    Member #25 SirSam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,071
    What are some of those 4v4 matches you're talking about from the early 90s PT?



    @Sir_Samuel

  16. #16
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,815
    Pete, your opinion is getting destroyed in the poll!!

    Off the top of my head I would argue by FAR the two most popular elimination style matches in Survivor Series history are both 5 on 5, that being the Alliance/WWF in '01 and then Team Austin/Team Bischoff in '03. In '04 they went to 4 vs. 4 and it stunk, then in '05 they went back to a big 5 on 5 and it did well again. That stretch is pretty influential to my fandom so perhaps I'm putting too much stock on it.

    Also, I just watched the match with 4 "Doinks" from '93 and that was 4 vs. 4, so I may just have a bad taste in my mouth.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    455
    Shawn Michaels, Triple H, CM Punk, and The Hardy Boyz def. Edge, Randy Orton, Johnny Nitro, Gregory Helms, and Mike Knox (11/26/06, Philadelphia, PA)
    Survivors: the entire team
    One sided as it was, this match provided some decent crowd-pleasing action, as well as a number of comedy spots. Mike Knox being eliminated by Shawn Michaels in under a minute, and then Shawn asking his team, Who was he? is never not funny. I think hes on ECW. Oh, so were doing GOOD then? Too hilarious. Also of note was Punk outpopping the entire team during the pre-match DX intro, despite having only been in WWE for three months. Its stuff like that that drives Vince McMahon even more insane.

    .............

    Courtesy of some random site I just pulled up...


    ...............


    5 on 5 just because of this match, please. Only match I can remember where the entire team was sole survivor. Not the greatest of all time, but it still holds a special place in my heart. Especially because of those Punk chants.
    Last edited by meandi; 10-19-2018 at 09:15 PM.

  18. #18
    I like 5v5 the best as long as the build up is there. The Raw vs. smackdown survivor series match in 2005 was a perfect example of build up done right. 4v4 honestly shows a lack of depth in the roster.

  19. #19
    LOP's part time glass ceiling DynamiteBillington's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    TrowVegas
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by meandi View Post
    “sole survivor”.
    This always pisses me off at Survivor Series.

    Learn English you fuckwit commentators.

  20. #20
    Member #25 SirSam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,071
    Imagine if they had to do a match afterwards between any remainders to find 'the sole survivor'. Could be a really interesting psychology of not wanting to tire yourself out too much getting the win in the tag portion.

    Could be over booked as hell but would be a fun once off.



    @Sir_Samuel

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by DynamiteBillington View Post
    This always pisses me off at Survivor Series.

    Learn English you fuckwit commentators.
    Whats wrong with it?

  22. #22
    LOP's part time glass ceiling DynamiteBillington's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    TrowVegas
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by meandi View Post
    What’s wrong with it?
    They say it when there's more than one survivor, rendering the 'sole' part of it totally incorrect.

  23. #23
    Author of 101 WWE Matches To See Before You Die Samuel 'Plan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    338
    Late to the party, but it has to be 5 on 5 for me. There's just something about reducing it down by one guy either side that makes it feel a little less epic? I dunno. It may just be that I'm a little old fashioned too of course. As was indicated before, a lot of the most popular Series matches over the years have been in that 5 / 5 format, and certainly my favourites are as well - namely Team Austin / Team Bischoff and the MNR / SDL Men's match from 2016. But the Authority one people tend to love, the first MNR / SDL one from 2005 likewise. Though I think that 2004 main event is criminally undervalued generally.

    Although I did want to take a second here and just agree with Prime! Bring back the Ultimate Survivor format. The entire 1990 show is outstanding stuff with a properly infectious sense of energy, and by the time you get to that climactic match it feels like you've been on an epic journey. The Series is all about cause and effect, about immediate consequence, and I don't think any iteration of the pay-per-view has captured that better than 1990 because of its larger scale eliminator format.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by DynamiteBillington View Post
    They say it when there's more than one survivor, rendering the 'sole' part of it totally incorrect.
    Do they, though? The only time I can specifically recall the announcers saying that was when Orton won it for his team. Please feel free to correct if Im wrong. (Im old, and my memory isnt quite as sharp as it once was.)

  25. #25
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,210
    Quote Originally Posted by mizfan View Post
    Pete, your opinion is getting destroyed in the poll!!
    Ha, to be honest I expected it to. There are a few reasons why I thought 5 on 5 would take it. What I do think, though, is that although we think of that as the 'traditional' version, the real history looks more like they did 5 vs 5, quickly slimmed it down and then preferred it and stuck with it, and it was only when you reach 2001 that the nostalgia kick comes in and effectively the matches since then have saved the reputation of the 5 vs 5 match. For the first fifteen years or so, the format was four on four.

    I'll agree that since 1997 though the best matches have probably been five on five. I still like more of the older ones, but that's what they've done better since then.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirSam View Post
    What are some of those 4v4 matches you're talking about from the early 90s PT?
    Off the top of my head I think you can take anything from the 1990 show but the two matches I mentioned are probably the standouts for me. But yeah, watch the whole damn thing (Gooker aside).

    I personally think it's a touch overrated but the opener from 1991 is often touted, though I believe that's largely because you get Flair, Piper, Bret, Bulldog, and DiBiase all in one match, so it's pretty damn stacked. But yeah, I don't really go for that one.

    Skip to 1993 and you've got the Harts vs Michaels and his (read Jerry Lawler's) Knights, which isn't a 'classic' by any stretch but it's really memorable because of the story that they weave into it - and I think the fact that it kicks off the Bret/Owen angle leads people to miss some of the nuances that exist in the moment. Underappreciated nowadays.

    In 1995 the Wildcard match is an interesting concept and one I'm surprised they haven't repeated, and I really remember the Darkside vs The Royals - though you've got to be into old Undertaker for that one to work now I think. History may have worked against it. But this show also has the first women's survivor series match since the very first one, so you can get yourself some Aja Kong. Along with Bret and Diesel for the title it's a pretty decent show, actually.

    1996 has a couple of crackers. The opening match with Bulldog/Owen/New Rockers vs Godwinns/Furnas and LaFon is one I've gone back to a lot, and though people get hung up on the early Rock character not being great I've always felt the debut match itself deserved a lot of credit. Especially if you can watch some of the build up for it so you've got all the dimensions in the Jake/Lawler feud, and the Mero/HHH feud, going into it. When you add those two matches to the great Bret/Austin match, and the memorable title match between Shawn and Sid... it's actually another really great little show, in my opinion. Just a shame no fucker was watching WWF at this point.

    1997 the one that always stands out for me is the Team Canada vs Team USA match, and though I remember it less well there's also the Nation of Domination vs Shamrock, Ahmed and LoD match which was probably the bigger deal - higher up on the card, given longer, and featuring the people who'd make the bigger impact in 1998.

    Certainly enough to be going on with, there.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  26. #26
    LOP's part time glass ceiling DynamiteBillington's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    TrowVegas
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by meandi View Post
    Do they, though? The only time I can specifically recall the announcers saying that was when Orton won it for his team. Please feel free to correct if Im wrong. (Im old, and my memory isnt quite as sharp as it once was.)
    So did you see SS where they clearly named Strowman, Lashley & McIntyre "Sole Survivors"?

    Not understanding English is a thing for commentators.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •