Guest Trivia247 Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Why is it that there has to be a Max of Four Main events at each PPV event??? Whats the problem with just the LAST Match being the Main event. back in the day you always had the last Match as the main event. but I guess when people like HHH Austin or Hogan are not in the Last match, they demand to be a match Called...the Main Event. This practice of Multiple Main Events started somewhere around 1992 when you had Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Bret Hart, Ric Flair running around as Main eventers or Quasi Main Eventers in WWE today you got um well Hogan again, but HHH, Rock, Austin, Undertaker, And a few others who claim Main Event status. Are egos So Huge that they demand the Main event title without actually being in the Main event. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Johnson1620 Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Back in the day there wasn't a lame ass brand extention either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Imarkout4chrisdaniels Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Well, theoretically, Main Event adds a bit to a match in terms of importance. It's cheapened a little by there being more than one Main, but it makes it sound like the matches are so important that there HAS to be more than one Main Event. Maybe that is what they are after. I liked the Triple Main Event for......Fully Loaded?....a couple years back. Jericho, Benoit and Angle going up against Main Eventers to get a bit of rub and/or a test run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest eiker_ir Report post Posted March 11, 2003 well, now we will always have multiple main events, with the two brands, there has to be a main match for each one..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest notJames Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Are egos So Huge that they demand the Main event title without actually being in the Main event. You just answered your own question… … with a Lot more random Capitalization than is Necessary or Even waRRanted… Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted March 11, 2003 I liked the 'double main event' at WM - I was like, "WOW! 2!!! Main Events! That's like, DOUBLE, the normal amount". I was also like 10 at the time. Ego and Promotion are basically the reasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Back in the day there wasn't a lame ass brand extention either. Some would disagree that it's lame. I think that with the brand extension there is always going to be at least two Main Events now, or at least as long as the extension is in effect, which I'm fine with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted March 11, 2003 I disagree with 'the brand extention concept is the lame' - but I would agree with 'the way the WWE has done the brand extention' is lame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 11, 2003 It's been handled badly in some respects but overall I like how it's going. RAW needs a better direction and someone to put their foot down, but Smackdown! has had a good run overall, IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Yeah, I'd REALLY hate to see the split end because that means ALOT of talent loses spots since they will then use both shows to promote the "Big" names and it will be too cluttered and too WCW 2000 like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest oldschoolwrestling Report post Posted March 11, 2003 I liked the Triple Main Event for......Fully Loaded?....a couple years back. Jericho, Benoit and Angle going up against Main Eventers to get a bit of rub and/or a test run. Yet not one of the up and comers was allowed to win.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted March 11, 2003 I could've SWORN Jericho won his match with HHH...oh Well. Aside from Angle, Benoit and Jericho certaintly weren't devauled there at all. They came out looking good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Angle looked pretty weak against Taker. Jericho looked strong, Benoit looked pretty good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garth 0 Report post Posted March 11, 2003 They we're all good ME at Fully Loaded although Angle Taker wasn't as good as it could of been. And HHH vs Y2J was one of my fave match of 2000 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zetterberg is God 0 Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Speaking of PPV main events, WM XIX will be the 63rd straight time that The Rock, Steve Austin, Triple H, or Undertaker have worked the main event. Last time those guys weren't in a main event was in 1997 at the D-X PPV (Micheals vs Shamrock) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted March 11, 2003 And Jericho was buried immediately after his match with Hunter (Fully Loaded). Benoit was buried 2 or 3 months down the road after his match with Hunter (No Mercy). Angle was buried 2 months down the road after his match with Hunter.(Unforgiven/Summerslam) - Yes, Angle did get the belt after the feud however I would contend that Angle not getting the best of Hunter and getting Stephanie along with the subsequent Hunter face then heel turn made kurt look like a chump. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Imarkout4chrisdaniels Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Hmmmmm............. The way I remembered those matches were: Triple H just barely beat Jericho in the Last Man STanding match making Jericho look very good in the process Benoit "beating" Rock only to have the match restarted and Rock win clean in a minute or so AND, I could have sworn that Angle won his match against Taker because his brother Eric switched places with him So, how did I distort history in my mind, and what was the outcome of Taker/Angle? No contest? Countout? DQ? Or did Taker beat him clean even after the switch? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bricks Report post Posted March 12, 2003 AND, I could have sworn that Angle won his match against Taker because his brother Eric switched places with him So, how did I distort history in my mind, and what was the outcome of Taker/Angle? No contest? Countout? DQ? Or did Taker beat him clean even after the switch? You're thinking of Angle vs 'Taker at Survivor Series 2000 At Fully Loaded, 'Taker just beat Angle clean. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rob Edwards Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Fully Loaded was a squash plain and simple, Angle was allowed to get a bit of leg offence in and even then only after hitting it for 2 weeks with a comically oversized spanner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Imarkout4chrisdaniels Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Much obliged....... Yes, I was thinking of two very different matches. Funny that Benoit and Jericho looked very credible after that night, only to go nowhere. Angle was squashed and won the title not long afterward. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Fully Loaded was a squash plain and simple, Angle was allowed to get a bit of leg offence in and even then only after hitting it for 2 weeks with a comically oversized spanner Are you making fun of the cartoon wrench of DOOM~! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest subliminal_animal Report post Posted March 12, 2003 I believe racist people (the authority on racial slurs) usually spell it 'blackie.' Though, I do hear that some aren't the spelling bee champs that they claim to be. Harrumph! Angle was buried 2 months down the road after his match with Hunter.(Unforgiven/Summerslam) - Yes, Angle did get the belt after the feud however I would contend that Angle not getting the best of Hunter and getting Stephanie along with the subsequent Hunter face then heel turn made kurt look like a chump. You're putting it lightly. It was more like chump-ette! And not like the cool, sexy one who seduced Alvin ... about half as tough. Speaking of PPV main events, WM XIX will be the 63rd straight time that The Rock, Steve Austin, Triple H, or Undertaker have worked the main event. Last time those guys weren't in a main event was in 1997 at the D-X PPV (Micheals vs Shamrock) I think someone else posted this, and I responded with the same question, but I really don't care to search for it now. What qualifies as a main event? You mean the last match on the card, right? And that's the only thing that determines what the main event is? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest AndrewTS Report post Posted March 12, 2003 This won't be as much of a problem if they go with the single brand PPV idea. On the downside, the PPVs will be glorified regular TV shows. I think they probably should put the WWE Championship match as the the last match, and have the Raw Worthless Egofuck Kliqweight Championship Title defended earlier in the night. Unfortunately, probably Rock-Austin XXXIII will main event. =\ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
