gWIL Posted November 4, 2003 Report Posted November 4, 2003 Think about, they have been pushing Batistia quite a bit, and would be more fresh.
Guest Anglesault Posted November 4, 2003 Report Posted November 4, 2003 It would fresh, but it would also be Dave Batista in the ME of a major PPV in a match that looks to be one of the worst on an already unspeakably bad show.
gWIL Posted November 4, 2003 Author Report Posted November 4, 2003 I think it would be better then HHH Goldberg again, not that it would be good, just less boring
DCMaximo Posted November 4, 2003 Report Posted November 4, 2003 The annoying thing is, a shitty as that match would be, it would make for an interesting angle (would Goldberg be able to overcome the odds, can Triple H trust Batista, would Batista be fed up of working for HHH?) and it could be used as a launchpad for Triple H's face turn. Luckily though, it wont happen, because that would be the most mindnumbingly bad main event (if it was ME) in Survivor Series history
Guest Anglesault Posted November 4, 2003 Report Posted November 4, 2003 I think it would be better then HHH Goldberg again, How, exactly? Three ways tend to be worse than regular matches, and you are adding a guy that brings NOTHING to the table.
NYU Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 I think it would be better then HHH Goldberg again, How, exactly? Three ways tend to be worse than regular matches, and you are adding a guy that brings NOTHING to the table. Well, you're forgetting the eternally impressive Sit-Out Powerbomb. Not to mention.......
Guest Choken One Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Here is what annoys me here... Clearly HHH/Goldberg is not even the main event or even the #4 match on the card. Why couldn't they save the HHH title change for Armageddon and put Goldberg/Batistia for the title at Survivor Series Instead? It's been all GB/Batistia rather then GB/HHH these past few weeks anyways. You give Goldberg and the title more cred when Goldberg comes back from his injury to keep his title and beat the monster Batistia. Doesn't HHH realize that he only looks better when he wins it back at Armageddon?
gWIL Posted November 5, 2003 Author Report Posted November 5, 2003 I think it would be better then HHH Goldberg again, How, exactly? Three ways tend to be worse than regular matches, and you are adding a guy that brings NOTHING to the table. Batistia may suck but Triple H vs Goldberg was boring as hell at Unforgiven and as DCMaximo said the angle would be half way interesting, and as I said before it would make the match good, but it would be less dull and boring, its not like it will be the main event, Vince vs Taker is the most likely to be the last match on the card.
Damaramu Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Hmm....on one hand...Batista sucks in the ring. On the other hand he automatically made himself the coolest man alive on RAW 2 weeks ago when he did the "L" on his forehead.
ryankeast Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 [Here is what annoys me here... Clearly HHH/Goldberg is not even the main event or even the #4 match on the card.] What do you think will main event??? Austin V Bishoff's Team or the Smackdown 5 v 5????
haVoc Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 It could be Vince/Taker. BTW, this board has been dead all day.
Murmuring Beast Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 I can honestly say that Batista is the worst wrestler in the company. Seriously, put Henry in there before him.
Guest Megatron Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 I can honestly say that Batista is the worst wrestler in the company. Seriously, put Henry in there before him. I hate you too. Seriously, anybody that would put Mizark ahead of ANYBODY deserves to be hates.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Why would they even consider that? It would just take away from Trips title win and he's the only guy in the company with any credibility left. Besides Trips is just going to win the belt and then disappear to do his movie. So we're going to be without a champion on tv for at least a month and probably no title match for the next Raw PPV.
SamoaRowe Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 At this point, I seriously think the Undertaker/Vince match should be the main event. All the other matches just don't work, except maybe the Raw 5 on 5. However, do we really want to see Mark Henry in a PPV main event?
Murmuring Beast Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 For comedy value, yes, Henry should be in there. Batista would cause RIOTS after about the tenth blow spot. EDIT: that could be funny actually.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Vince/Taker will be the ME and most advertised match b/c Vince's matches this year always are.
Guest Choken One Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Not ONE McMahon has ever headlined a PPV outside of St. Valentine's Day Massacere. Not counting matches where they were a factor (ref/Enforcer/manager). So It's not like McMahons head line the ppvs... Likely Austin Vs Bischoff will be the Main event since Raw hasn't headlined a Co-PPV since Backlash. The order will likely go Los Guerreros Vs Bashams (I'm feeling a Hot crowd Opener with the RR 94 finish) Lita Vs Molly Shane McMahon Vs Kane Smackdown Five on Five Vince Vs Undertaker Triple H Vs Goldberg Austin Vs Bischoff teams
Guest Choken One Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Let me clarify that Headline=Main Event Main Event=Final Match. Since alot of people have different opinons on what Main event means.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Fair enough. I meant that the McMahon match usually gets 90% of the hype going into the PPV.
Jack_Bauer Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 It's more a case of things being promoted is if it WAS the main event when it isn't.
Guest Choken One Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 But McMahon has always been " professional" enough to put his wrestlers on last.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 So what? When your hyping yourself over your whole roster and when your going to put yourself over a guy who's made 98% of the WWF roster look like bitches what does that say? So after this match then a 50 yr. old man can technically beat the entire WWF mid-card and almost all of the upper-card. And when it's obvious that hyping yourself isn't helping the buyrates, how professional is it to hype yourself even more as a result. Mania did terrible numbers and it was centered almost completely on Vince. Same with Vengance and No Mercy.
The Mandarin Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 It's more a case of things being promoted is if it WAS the main event when it isn't. Yep. Vince/Hogan did get more advertising space than Angle/Brock and Rock/Austin, that's for sure. But the triple threat DID get more air time than Gowen/McMahon at Vengeance. And Shane vs. Bischoff was just a side attraction at Summerslam, while Shane vs. Kane did get a lot more hype for Unforgiven. And Steph/Vince was basically the primal focus of the buildup towards No Mercy, although I think it should have gone to Angle/Cena. But none of the McMahon's have actually appeared in the main event. I wish they'd treat the main event like the actual MAIN EVENT more often. Those crazy McMahons.
The Mandarin Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Mania did terrible numbers Woah, woah, woah. Maybe it was pretty crappy compared to the numbers they had been pulling in the past few years, but it was certainly not "terrible". "Terrible" is WrestleMania IX or XI. Even WrestleMania II didn't do great numbers, yet it's still considered a part of the success of the Hulkamania sensation in the mid-80's.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 I call losing 300,000 buys from the year before doing terrible numbers.
NYU Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 (edited) But McMahon has always been " professional" enough to put his wrestlers on last. He actually WON the Royal Rumble in 1999. Vince/Austin at St. Valentine's Day Massacre Vince & Shane/Austin - Ladder Match - King of the Ring 99? THE ULTIMATE McMahon EgoFuck: Rock/Taker/Kane vs. Vince/Shane/Triple H - King of the Ring 2000? Vince/Triple H - Armageddon 1999 -Vince McMahon is not above putting himself in the Main Event of a Pay Per View. Sure, these were top angles that he was taking part in, but it's still ridiculous that the owner of the company, a 50-something year old through all these matches, is also given the Main Event spot in these Pay Per Views. I'm 90% sure Vince/Taker will be the Main Event of Survivor Series. Logically, think about it. If Vince buries Taker in the middle of the PPV, then what? We're going to spend 20 minutes watching them dig up Taker again only to see *GASP* he has disappeared? Or are we going to carry on with the next match, as if nothing is going wrong? They need to put that match last, so the aftermath won't have to be dealt with on live PPV, but seen on Smackdown instead. It's sad, but true. Edited November 6, 2003 by OlympicHeroRVD
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted November 6, 2003 Report Posted November 6, 2003 Didn't Raw main event Summerslam of this year?
NYU Posted November 6, 2003 Report Posted November 6, 2003 Yep. EDIT: Nevermind. Saw what you were replying to.
LivingLegendGaryColeman Posted November 7, 2003 Report Posted November 7, 2003 Likely Austin Vs Bischoff will be the Main event since Raw hasn't headlined a Co-PPV since Backlash. RAW headlined SummerSlam with the Elimination Chamber.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now