PWTorch Roundtable Question - Should WWE make changes to their February PPV in-between the Rumble and WrestleMania? Or, should WWE keep the Elimination Chamber PPV the way it is?

Jon Mezzera, PWTorch Hits & Misses specialist

I have thought for years that having any PPV between the Royal Rumble and WrestleMania is a mistake. The hype is in full swing for Mania at that point, so it is hard to try to shift some focus on another event like The Elimination Chamber. They have done an okay job of hyping the two Chamber matches and a pretty good job (at least in terms of the amount of TV time devoted to it - as in quantity over quality) hyping Cena vs. Kane. But, other than those three matches and Beth Phoenix vs. Tamina, there isn't even any other match announced at this point. Four matches?

I was lucky enough to be at least year's Chamber and it was a great show. I was also lucky enough to be at No Way Out in February 2004 (when Eddie Guerrero beat Brock Lesnar for the WWE Title - a good show with that great moment). So, it's not like WWE is incapable of putting on good February PPVs. However, while I don't pay much attention to buyrates, I have to assume that after people pay for the Rumble and look ahead to buying Mania, it would take a great card with great build-up to buy another PPV in between, and that certainly isn't the case this year (nor most).

WWE should take this time to really focus on producing the best quality Raws and Smackdowns, not worrying about a PPV for a while, and start to focus exclusively on building to Mania, including building the undercard with meaningful mid-cards feuds and angles. Have each champion defend the title once on TV between the two shows and cut out the PPV all together. (Read Mezzera's Hits & Misses column on each week's Raw and Smackdown.)

Alex Roberts, PWTorch Review specialist

I don't think any of WWE's themed Pay-Per-Views get such an up-and-down response out of me as Elimination Chamber does. Every year, I roll my eyes at the nonsensical "statistics" WWE brings up about the Chamber match ("The champ only has a one in six chance of retaining!") and worry about the month of WrestleMania build-up lost directly after the Rumble. Yet, seemingly every year, too, the Elimination Chamber matches end up offering some of the most enjoyable WWE moments of the year. In the last two years - since the February PPV was officially named after the Chamber match - I don't think a single one of the four Chamber matches has failed to be exciting and newsworthy. Unlike other themed PPVs (I'm looking at October's Hell in a Cell event, which in three short years has turned one of WWE's most infamous match-types into an event with all the prestige of a house show cage match), the Chamber PPV has not allowed its namesake match to become watered down or commonplace.

I do wonder, though, what skipping one PPV and allowing a solid 2-3 months of feuds and storyline build-up could do to boost the importance and "big show" feel of WrestleMania. It's terrific that more knowledgeable fans have been anticipating what looks to be an eventual Punk-Jericho match at WM28, but it might be a little more terrific if this feud had been made official at the end of January and been allowed a whole extra month to develop. Likewise, I'd much rather have had the Cena-Kane feud wrapped up at the Royal Rumble to allow for a full focus on "The Biggest Match in WrestleMania History" with The Rock. If WWE can announce the match a year in advance, I think they can also allow a solid two months to build up the feud on TV.

So, yes, I think there'd be some very clear advantages to getting rid of Elimination Chamber and allowing for feuds to begin and develop uninterrupted from Royal Rumble up to The Show Of Shows. However, it's tough to tell if it would honestly be an improvement in the overall product. I predict that Sunday's show will end up being extremely entertaining and fulfilling in answering any lingering questions about WrestleMania's lineup. Put it this way: Elimination Chamber isn't even the first cage-themed WWE PPV I'd suggest getting rid of. (Still looking at you, Hell in a Cell...) (Read Roberts's regular DVD/Book/Movie reviews on PWTorch.com)

Jimmy Eaton, Retrospective of the Common Fan specialist

I actually brought this up on my Facebook page this week. Personally, I think it needs to be removed. Maybe have one Chamber match just for Smackdown to decide that title match so it means a little more. There are a number of ways WWE could go about it, but I feel it's a bit rushed and the extra build for WrestleMania could greatly benefit Mania. With more of a focus on the opposite brand of the Rumble winner, more focus would stay on the major titles. The problem this year has been that Cena-Rock has overshadowed the other titles. To help this out, I feel that the Rumble winner should take no more than a week to decide on his opponent, thus leading to this type of scenario, PPV or not.

For me, I consider February to be a down month for WWE because of how this PPV has been recently booked. It just feels like filler apart from the attraction of the Elimination Chamber matches themselves. If the Chamber were focused on in another way that still kept a title of sorts in the limelight, I think the February drop in interest wouldn't be as evident as it has been recently. For example, right now, I'm excited for Punk and Jericho, but, besides that and Taker-Triple H, I'm not interested and I am counting the days until April 1, where I will feel nostalgic no matter how the show ends up being booked.

I've enjoyed Chamber matches, but, just like with Hell in a Cell, it feels forced instead of the matches having real meaning. WWE still has to work to build new stars in the process, which has been their struggle for the last 5-6 years, and trying to have six guys really matter has become more challenging. As a fan, I look forward to seeing how this process changes and evolves, if it ever does. But, for me, get rid of the PPV and focus on the one big match that links the Rumble to WrestleMania. The same goes for later in the year - longer breaks between bigger shows like Summerslam, Survivor Series, etc. And, for kicks, bring back a REAL King of the Ring PPV. Hey, I can dream can't I? (Agree? Disagree? Follow @TheCommonFan to start the debate!)

Check back for Part 3 Sunday night before the Chamber PPV!

We suggest these recent related articles...

10/5 WWE Raw Hits & Misses: Natalya vs. Paige, Owens vs. Cara, Stephanie McMahon, Sasha Banks, Xavier Woods

COLLECTIBLES COLUMN: The History of Foam Hands in Pro Wrestling

9/28 WWE Raw Hits & Misses: Kane's Split Personality, Divas Revolution, Heyman & Big Show, Reigns vs. Wyatt