Wrestlemania booking

[Guest edotherocket]

Is Triple H responsible for making Wrestlemania, the biggest PPV in the WWE calendar, a lot more exciting, unpredictable and therefore better product?

 

At Wrestlemania 2000, Triple H became the first heel to successfully defend the heavyweight title against a face in the main event. As time passed, it has since been regarded as one of his many political powerplays but it did still open the door to the possibility that heels can win the main event at Mania.

 

Secondly, in the build up to last year's Wrestlemania, Triple H absolutely buried Chris Jericho to the point that people started second guessing whether he would win or not simply because of the unwritten rule in a feud that if one person dominates then, come PPV time, he would surely get his come uppance. The usual face underdog element was completely reversed. Triple H was a bigger wrestler physically, ignored Jericho mentally and was more concerned with Stephanie. Winning the title seemed such a formality that it had people guessing there would be a swerve. Maybe Jericho would win and then lose at Backlash? Surely things wouldn't be THIS predictable?

 

Come Wrestlemania XIX, these two factors, which were pioneered by Triple H has made for two title matches where the outcomes are in doubt.

 

Firstly:

 

Triple vs. Booker T

 

Here we have a poor drawing heel champion who has more or less held the title for 7 months facing a face who is over with the crowd, in a great underdog role (partly because he almost never wins) at a PPV where 99% of the time, the face will overcome the odds and win. And yet, Triple H's political strength is such that the outcome of this match is very difficult to predict.

 

Is Triple H's political power > Wrestlemania tradition, being a weak draw as champion, facing an over underdog face?

 

I honestly don't know.

 

Brock Lesnar vs. Kurt Angle

 

Now on the Smackdown side, the Brock/Angle feud has followed a similar pattern. Brock seemed all but certain to be the champion at WM. Yet he has destroyed Angle with such ease on such a consistent basis that I have seen plenty of people post here suggesting that, despite all evidence pointing to Lesnar winning at Mania, Angle would win because surely WWE wouldn't be stupid enough to go with such a predictable outcome? As with last year, the same elements are there. We have a larger, stronger face dominate in the lead up to Mania, not really being concerned with the actual opponent and more on their non-wrestling associate (in this case, Heyman) since beating the champion is considered a formality. It seems so obvious that some people actually begin to doubt the outcome.

 

Of course, since Angle's injury has changed all that but going back to the original point of the post, have these two trends started by Triple H, improved the Wrestlemania formula by removing the level of certainty that there used to be in the outcome of the main event?

[Guest Kid Kablam]

Well that would be true if the mystery had continued. After people saw HHH's pattern, the mystery was gone.