Guest Report post Posted April 4, 2002 I think WM13 kind of bombed, or so it seems.. I mean, you had Undertaker vs. Sid as the main event. Wow. I also just rented WM1, and it doesnt seem like the big event it was made up to be. Though, I did enjoy the main event. I didn't really think I would, as tag main events arent usually that great. Also, it seems like WM2 kind of was a failure, at least according to the Insiders Story of Wrestlemania book. Here's a quote. "But the feeling coming of this evening - despite the fact that we reached more than 300,000 people through closed-circuit PPV - was that it was less than a great event. The sum total was terrific, buch each individual site was lacking. Wrestlemania 2 confirmed the company's belief in the integrity of the live event. I'm not talking about the integrity of the competition, but the intregity and the value of the product... the show. If you don't give fans something they really want to see when they're sitting a hundred feet from the ring, then why would anybody care at home? And Wrestlemania 2, divided into 3 sites, did not deliver in each of those sites a product that met the lofty standards established by the World Wrestling Federation. I thought that was a pretty interesting comment. And if you haven't read that Insiders Story of Wrestlemania book, I'd recomend getting it. Its great. I didnt really want it in the first place, then my dad got it for my for my birthday, and its awesome. The DVD that it comes with is a nice addition too. So what Wrestlemania's didn't meet your expectations? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 4, 2002 I would say Wrestlemania 7 since they had to move the location because they couldn't sell enough tickets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Wrestle Mania I was no where near a failure as it put Vince McMahon's WWF on the map for good. WM II was a success in a way with them pulling off a ardourus task of Simulcasting Three shows at once. A failure would be a show where it grew nothing and had a horrible show to boot, which eliminates WMVII from the list although they were forced to make up a completly ridiculous reasoning of moving from L.A Coliseum which they expect to hold over 110,000 people into the 16,000 seat L.A Sports Arena, it still gave a quality show with a **** classic and even performences. WMIX could be considered a flop with it's atrocious card but it may have very well been the least hyped mania of all times so thus they were not expecting a great result. WMXIII is another show that was plauged by ONE man's arrogance which caused the Roster to shake up and end up with a lackluster card that produced ONE memorable moment but that's not the most bombed failure in WWF Wrestle Mania that award belongs to WMXI. It had one of the weakest cards ever (only WM12 and WM9 were worse) yet had a huge hype package. It was an embarasment with Bam Bam Bigelow being the representive of all the negitive stereotypes Wrestling was known for (something WWF smartened up on with Shawn Micheals being a better showcase for WM14 with Tyson) and the show tanked...only one match provided anything worthwhile for the Wrestling Fans and they let the B list stars like Jenny McCarthy, John Turturo (sp?), Pamala Anderson and many NFL superstars like future wrestlers Steve Mongo McMicheal and one timer Reggie White run over the show and allowed the wrestlers to play second fiddle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RetroRob215 Report post Posted April 5, 2002 I would have to say WM IX because of the Hogan fiasco. The WWF must have thought Hogan would ONCE AGAIN carry the company, but that blew up in their face, and they had to hotshot the title back to Yokozuna. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mark4steamboat Report post Posted April 5, 2002 i think WM9 was a failure even without the hogan fiasco. there were no major fueds at the time and they had less then stellar athletes. vince was holding down some of the guys that could be maineventers(perfect, micheals, owen) and making them midcarders. it is the only wrestlemania(and ive seen them all) that i have fastforwarded through many matches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shaved Bear Report post Posted April 5, 2002 9 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Didn't Hogan Threaten to No-Show if Vince didn't put the title on him @ WM9? If that is true then I think Vince did what he had to by putting the title on Hogan. Hogan pulled the Ultimate Power Play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheDames7 Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Out of all of the WM's, I would also have to go with 11, for all of the reasons that Choken One stated, and for this one which I think is just as important. When you think back on WM11, it didn't further any angles, start any new ones, nothing....it had maybe 1 or 2 blow off matches that people really didn't care about. The only thing that is noteworthy other than the LT fiasco was the Owen Hart Tag Title win....because it was his first title. At least 9 had a world title change twice....granted it was horrible, but it stands out. 11 does nothing. Dames - LOVED WM X Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted April 5, 2002 wrestlemania x-8. nWo was put to death (even if vince doesn't know it), no one cared about the main event, and the biggest pop of the night went to hulk hogan. HULK FUCKING HOGAN. i rest my case Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest dreamer420 Report post Posted April 5, 2002 13 was horrible. Bad main event, Rocky Maivia, and a shitty undercard killed this Wrestlemania. Only Bret vs. Austin was the lone highlight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 5, 2002 I'm sticking to WM7. Just look at the Card. Only a very few good matches... WrestleMania VII: March 24, 1991 at the Sports Arena in Los Angeles, California: * Koko B. Ware over The Brooklyn Brawler. * The Rockers over Haku & The Barbarian. * Kerry Von Erich over Dino Bravo. * The British Bulldog over The Warlord. * The Nasty Boys over WWF Tag Team Champions The Hart Foundation for the titles. * Blindfold Match: Jake Roberts over Rick Martel. * The Undertaker over Jimmy Snuka. * Retirement Match: The Ultimate Warrior over Randy Savage. * Genichiro Tenryu & Kji Kitao over Demolition. * The Big Bossman over WWF IC Champion Mr. Perfect by DQ. * Earthquake over Greg Valentine. * The Legion of Doom over Power & Glory. * Virgil over Ted DiBiases by count-out. * The Mountie over Tito Santana. * Hulk Hogan over WWF Champion Sgt. Slaughter for the title. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest chirs3 Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Biggest failure? I dunno. Biggest dissapointment? Wrestlemania XIII and XV. XIII: Undertaker vs Sid. Enough said. XV: Was like an episode of Raw. Too much story, not nearly enough wrestling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Savage vs. Warrior was REALLY FUCKING GOOD THOUGH, and Rockers vs. FOF was good and made better with WHOMP ASS commentary by good ole Hacksaw (Who is INFINATELY better than Mikey Cole). WM 11 was gawd awful, not a single good match IMO. WM 15 sucked a whole heap of ass as well, with the only highlights being the Bart Gunn vs Butterbean match and the main event. So, in conclusion... WM 11... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest lowavenue Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Easily WM XI. No argument. WM IX was total shit, but it wasnt heavily hyped. WM XI was hyped beyond recognition with the American Footballers and the show is worse than WM IX. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 5, 2002 I did enjoy the Savage/Warrior match at WM7, and also kind of enjoyed the ME. The rest though.. Not very good. And WMXV, I think I like this one because it was my first Wrestlemania that I saw, as I just got into wrestling at the beginning of 99. I thought the ME was really good, once they got to the wrestling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest J*ingus Report post Posted April 5, 2002 In terms of business, 7 and 11 were easily the worst, the buyrates and tickets were nowhere near what was expected. In terms of art, I'd say 9. I can't recall a single match that I liked on that show, at least 11 and 13 had one or two. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dangerous A Report post Posted April 5, 2002 It's a close call between 13 and 9, but 13 at least had the Austin/Hart ***** classic. 9 had nothing of value whatsoever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RetroRob215 Report post Posted April 5, 2002 The card for VII wasn't that bad. Warrior-Savage is one of the best matches ever and even Hogan-Slaughter was better than it had any right to be. Some people like the Nasties-Harts match, but I don't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Man in Blak Report post Posted April 5, 2002 I'll vote on Wrestlemania XI - there wasn't a lot of storylines, the big "crossover" appeal with LT/Bigelow probably damaged the WWF more than it helped it, and the undercard was fairly pathetic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest claydude14 Report post Posted April 5, 2002 i absolutely hated wrestlemania XV. rock was less a believable champ to me at the time then jericho was a few months ago. i didn't give a flying frank about rock and his over push back then, and i certainly don't know. bossman-taker literally was hell in the cell. complete garbage. i've always thought the cactus/chainsaw charlie (OMG what a horrible gimmick and diagrace to funk, even if he came up w/ it) vs. the outlaws is very highly over-rated. all the other matches i saw the weekend before at a house show, wich was good for me then, but not so good for me when i got to watch the exact same matches and pay more for it a week later. I played the original mario party for most of the card. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest claydude14 Report post Posted April 5, 2002 funk/foley vs. outlaws was from 14... my bad. i still hate it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest nWoScorpion Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Usually a show sucks if I HAVE TO FF. That elimanates WM 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17. WM 1, was the beggining so i cant say that. 2 was GOD AWFUL, minus 3-4 entertaining matches. 4 was Eh, 9 is being mad eout to be hell but i kinda liked it, only GG/UT put me to sleep. 11 (shoots self), 12 no card just about with less then steller matches, 13 blew ass,14 sucked dick, 15 ate cellulite, 16 didnt feel like WM and 18 was ok. I guess I have to say 11 or 15. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Austin3164life Report post Posted April 5, 2002 "14 Sucked Dick" Hmm. IMO, Wrestlemania 14 is one of the best Wrestlemanias and delivered to the hype it had. I don't think there was one terrible match on the card..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebear Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Maybe it's just me... But WM 2K and WM 18 didn't seem like that big a deal for some reason... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest muzanisa Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Toga one + a McMahom in every corner. WM is overrated generally I prefer Royal rumble or the old style Survivour series. War Games was the best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mastermind Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Biggest failure? As someone said business wise it was WM 7 and 11 hands down with the expectations. WM 9, 11, and 13 artisitically were the worse. WM 2 I like for some odd reason. I like the tri-cast because it makes the event seem important. WM 7 I HATED WITH A PASSION back in the day. I don't know why I just did. An over the hill Slaughter against Hogan in a Gulf War angle? Back then it made me sick because of the obvious outcome and the obvious crap that the match would be. I admit though I liked some of the card when I watched it like FOF vs. Rockers, Harts/Nastys, Savage/Warrior. I think a big reason people hated 7 was the expectations of a Hogan/Warrior rematch and we got that crappy Slaughter nonsense. WM 11 actually HURT the wwf as someone said. The jokes in the media about LT "wrestling" did more damage. No one even cared about the "new generation" in the media. The show FLOPPED big time in trying to push the "beginning of the second decade of Wrestlemania". 13 was pretty bad as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 5, 2002 I think there have been a few bad Wrestlemania's. I would say the Wrestlemania VII was a failure because the WWF claimed it was going to sell 100,000 tickets (I think) and then when it couldn't moved the event to a much smaller arena and claimed there had been a bomb scare. I think that Wrestlemania XI was a faliure as it was complete crap! The WWF failed to hype any of the wrestlers and focused on the "D-List" celebrites instead. I would also say the Wrestlemania 13 was a faliure because it sucked as far as matches go (except for Bret Hart/Steve Austin) and it drew a PPV buy rate so lousy that it was beaten by WCW Uncensored. How bad is that when you think that Wrestlemania is the biggest card of the year for the WWF. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 5, 2002 GOD DAMN I HATE WM 11!!!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest dreamer420 Report post Posted April 5, 2002 just for fun i wanted to rank all the wrestlemania using the rating system * to *****. wrestlemania 1: **1/2 wrestlemania 2: **1/2 wrestlemania 3: *** wrestlemania 4: **** wrestlemania 5: ***1/2 wrestlemania 6: *** wrestlemania 7: ***1/2 wrestlemania 8: *** wrestlemania 9: ** wrestlemania 10: **** wrestlemania 11: **1/2 wrestlemania 12: *** wrestlemania 13: * wrestlemania 14: **** wrestlemania 15: *** wrestlemania 16: ***1/2 wrestlemania 17: **** wrestlemania 18: didn't see. satellite company fucked me over. i heard it was pretty good though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 5, 2002 No one's really mentioned WM4. do people really like that show? i found it kind of tedious. there were too many meaningless matches and hogan's presence at the end just defeated the purpose of putting savage over in the first place - he didn't hand the torch over, he refused to step away from the damn thing. i don't know what sort of business it did financially (probably good) but as a show, it's the one i find hardest to watch all the way through. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
