One Match Program?

[Chazz 0]

Does anybody think a Decent to Good Main Event makes up for a Shitty Show, even If The first Hour and Forty Minutes were a Complete Bore? My Prime Example would be this past Monday's Raw with HHH/Flair. Thoughts?

Edited May 23, 2003 by chazz1998

[Guest Coffey]

Well, if you look at the flip side, does a bad main event make a decent show bad? I say yes because it leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth.

 

I mean, think of it this way. Can you remember the names of your 3rd and 4th grade teachers? Most people can...however, can you remember the order that you did your subjects in? Probably not. It's just like that for wrestling shows. Look at Wrestlemania 6. Everyone remember Hogan/Warrior...but how many people remember Tito/Barbarian? Unless, of course, you've watched it recently.

 

So, I say that the main event can easily make or break a show.

[Guest ManKinnd]

Royal Rumble 2003 was garbage until the classic Angle/Benoit, and I thought that saved it from not only going further down the shitter, but came up into a little light.

If it's an absolute classic, yes, if not, then there needs to at least be a ** match or two to keep viewers from losing their minds.

[Guest tank_abbott]

I can recite almost every WWF PPV line up from 1985-1995 match for match... jus' saying

[Guest RedJed]

I think if there is even one well above average match on a 2 hour WWE show these days, it works for me. Case in point tonights Smackdown with that opening match. So yeah it makes or breaks an overall worthwhile of a show to me. Most everything in WWE right now is pointless filler, but if I see a good match occasionally, that is the only thing that will keep me from not completely shutting the product out.

[Guest The Tino Standard]

When you are talking about a 1-hr show like Heat or something, then yeah, one match can easily make the show worth watching. When you get to a 2 or 3 hr. show, then you better start backing it up with at least SOMETHING else that is worthwhile.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

The second one is easy. There are plenty of great shows with horrid main events (Wrestlemania VIII, Wrestlemania X, anything WCW did in 1996, etc.)

 

It is true the other way as well, although it is less common. WWF 1997 was filled with these, where Bret/Shawn would have fantastic matches with everybody, but a terrible undercard (probably the worst total roster since the start of the Hulkamania) tanked practically every show. Canadian Stampede somehow avoids it, but practically every other show that year is awful despite some all-time classics occuring on them (Badd Blood, for instance).

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Two Words:

 

MIND GAMES

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Two Words:

 

MIND GAMES

It was two hours and that match made up over 1/4 of the show by itself. That shouldn't really count.

[Guest Fook_Hing_Ho]

Wrestlemania 13

 

Austin/Bret is the only match people remember, except for smarks of course who can't escape the horrid memories of Taker/Sid.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Why shouldn't it count?

 

The dude used RAW as an example...with commercial breaks that's less than 2 hours by far.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Why shouldn't it count?

 

The dude used RAW as an example...with commercial breaks that's less than 2 hours by far.

The RAW match wasn't nearly as long either. Picking Mind Games is like picking a Royal Rumble match. Of course it can make a show if it makes up that large a percentage of it.

 

It is an exception. The vast majority of the time, one match does not make a show.

Edited May 23, 2003 by Kahran Ramsus

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

IT's still one match. I think mine is the perfect example.

 

You pay for the show...sit through a whole lot of shit...and then get to one of the greatest matches in the history of the company.

[Guest Austin3164life]

Austin/Bret at WM XIII made that HORRID show worth remebering because of that match. Austin/Bret also was the only bright spot on the "Revenge of the Taker" ppv a month later, which was here in Rochester (I was there live). Not as great as their previous match, but it was still a ***3/4-**** at least.

[Guest bravesfan]

A few recent examples...

 

Over The Edge 1998

Wrestlemania XIII

King of the Ring 1997

Badd Blood 1997 (despite what people may say, the flag match was REALLY boring.)

 

EDIT:

 

Austin/Bret also was the only bright spot on the "Revenge of the Taker" ppv a month later, which was here in Rochester (I was there live). Not as great as their previous match, but it was still a ***3/4-**** at least.

 

You didn't think Taker/Foley was all that cracked up to be?

 

I thought it was ***1/4, maybe ***1/2. A sweet brawl, with a crazy bump by Foley into the announce table.

Edited May 23, 2003 by bravesfan

[Gert T 0]

A few recent examples...

 

Over The Edge 1998

Wrestlemania XIII

King of the Ring 1997

Badd Blood 1997 (despite what people may say, the flag match was REALLY boring.)

I didn't realize anybody referred to that flag match as anything else besides boring. I remember I tried to watch it like 3 times trying to like it.

[Guest Rob Edwards]

I'm going to agree with Over The Edge 98, an absolutley HORRID undercard pulled from the mire by Austin and Foley

[Guest Your Olympic Hero]

KOTR 95 had so many horrible matches, but thank god the main event of Diesel & Bam Bam vs. Sid & Tatanka brought it out of the shitter. Watching this match shows you why Nash is still main eventing to this day.

[Guest cabbageboy]

Heh. I disagree on WM 13 though. Sure Bret/Austin was bad ass but I also enjoy the crazy 6 man tag with the LOD vs. the Nation.

 

Over the Edge 98 had some silly stuff on it that I liked besides the main event: Lawler tormenting the Crusher, Mero tricking Sable and pinning her, etc.

[Guest The Tino Standard]

The second one is easy. There are plenty of great shows with horrid main events (Wrestlemania VIII, Wrestlemania X, anything WCW did in 1996, etc.)

If you are going by the Hogan-Sid match at the end of WM8 as the main event of that show, then yeah, no arguments here. But on the other hand, they did bill the show as having a "double main event" and the Savage-Flair championship match midway through the show is one of my favorites of all time.

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

If you count Mind Games you might as well count Rumble 1990. A good Rumble makes a horrid undercard. Same thing.

 

Badd Blood & Over the Edge are probably the best two examples. Although Summerslam 1997 fits too. Is getting to Austin/Owen & Bret/Taker worth sitting through some terrible crap on the undercard.

 

Seems all of 1997 is like that.

[Guest Galactic Gigolo]

I went to a CZW show in February that was absolutely shit until I left, which was just before the main event. Pretty much, I sat there bored out of mind and smoked a pack of cigarettes to pass the time. The main event, people on the CZWFans board, was **** (though they're fanboys, so you can't trust them), and I got slammed to all hell for saying that the show was a piece of shit.

 

"You idiot, the main event was great!"

 

To me, you could put one of the Flair/Steamboat ***** classics on a card full of * and below matches, and the card is going to amount to "below my expectations." I suffer for two and a half hours, and a superb main event does not make up for that two and a half hours.

[Guest Kid Kablam]

I can recite almost every WWF PPV line up from 1985-1995 match for match... jus' saying

Yeah, definitely time for Wapner. Definitely- Definitely time for Wapner.