Extreme Rules....simple...right?

When I first saw ECW, the rules were simple: score a pinfall or submission, but adhere to the fact that falls count anywhere in the building, and there were no count-outs or disqualifications. The ref could stop the match based on his discretion, if need be. That was the general gist of ECW's wrestling rules. Fast forward to now, and well, you'd get a much different story.

At the start of the 2006 return of ECW, something strange came about. The once-implied ECW rules first changed in name to "Extreme Rules", then they changed in content and stipulation. Instead of being something implied for every match, it was now stipulated. It was reduced to a silly gimmick match idea. And yet, even as such was done, the worst thing happened: its simplicity left with it. Here's what I mean, if you'll indulge me.

If these rules are to resemble, let alone be the rules of that which was found in the original ECW, then the rules are supposed to be the same as they were enforced. But, this isn't foreign to the WWE as they have had dozens, if not hundreds of matches under ECW rules. These matches were "Hardcore matches", usually fought for the Hardcore title. Every time this was done, I made it a point to remember exactly where these rules came from and what they stood for. I guess that's kind of why I sort of respected these matches, regardless of what they did, essentially, and that was stealing from ECW. However, when they did at times, in some ways, they gave a nod to ECW when they did. But, for this new set of rules, "Extreme Rules", they don't really do that. Instead of falls counting anywhere, it's just limited to the ring. Instead of going all out and utilizing different weapons, it's just mostly garbage cans, chairs, and maybe even tables. Instead of having it happen in every match, it's stipulated once in a blue moon. The "ECW" in an "Extreme Rules" match just does not seem to exist, or at least hold up. But, I guess I could have and should have expected that since this isn't the original ECW anyway. But, if you were planning to give a nod to your predecessors, it would be better to do it the right way, with everything intact.

The other complexity that I wanted to address was how "Extreme Rules" became an overly accessible gimmick to the other brands. Instead of just being limited to that of ECW, it became a part of the WWE continuum through its inclusion on an entire PPV event. The motive: have every match be within the confines of "Extreme Rules". This became the premise of the "One Night Stand" PPV, instead of it just being an ECW reunion show. In fact, "Extreme Rules" became the new title of the PPV to make it sound a little less crude. One would say that they might have just taken the idea of "Extreme Rules" and over-saturated it to the point where the effect is no longer the same as it was before. However, that's not what vexes me the most. What confuses me is the need to have "Extreme Rules" stipulated over every match, and, well, not have it mean anything over the course of a whole night. They go out of their way to talk about how every match is under these rules, and yet, the idea falls by the wayside because of the extra stipulations each match has. What really bothered me was what they did at this year's Extreme Rules PPV with the ECW match on the card. It was supposed to be a "Triple Threat" match for the ECW title, and yet, the general manager, Tiffany, goes out of the way to say this match was a "Hardcore match". Man, is she inept at her job (I'll talk more about this on 7/5, next week). First off, in a triple threat match, they have already made it a point to avoid DQs and count-outs, let alone not count them as of recent times. So, why go to the trouble of making it official? Second, any person who has followed the WWE enough knows that a Hardcore Match is an Extreme Rules match as they are exactly the same, or were supposed to be, until the rules have changed for today's audiences. My thing is this: why go to the trouble of adding another stipulation that is exactly the same as what was proposed for the whole night? Lastly, if say, you do make this a Hardcore match, why don't you go and make the match a little different by stipulation instead of just like an Extreme Rules match? In other words, what happened to falls counting anywhere, and wouldn't that have made the match much more unique?

It may sound like me, nitpicking, but I try not to allow bad logic to ruin my wrestling experience. However, this has been a trend that has been continuing more and more, lately, and it's getting harder and harder to watch. Extreme Rules should be more than just a stipulation, in my view. It shouldn't have to be told. It should just be implied, as is, and the wrestlers should have to make the decision to whether or not use weapons and such, based on their abilities. That's how the original ECW played out. Wrestlers didn't have to go out and use weapons all the time. Sometimes, they let their abilities do the work for them. If that's not possible, then at least, try to make these Extreme Rules matches more authentic to the history they represent.

It seems that now-a-days, the only thing extreme about Extreme Rules is how extremely confusing it can get when it is called upon, be it in one or more matches. There's no need to add to a match like this, or take away from it. Just do what comes natural, add the stipulations needed, do not go to the trouble of changing anything or adding anything, and let the wrestlers do their business. Simple, right? Sure is. The hard part is relaying these ideas to the creative teams in the WWE and not having it, well, extremely messed up.