edgehead69 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Bret Hart vs Roddy Piper Wrestlemania VIII Kurt Angle vs Brock Lesnar (summerslam 2003) Batista vs HHH (WM 21) to name a few..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USC Wuz Robbed! 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Bret Hart vs Roddy Piper Wrestlemania VIII Kurt Angle vs Brock Lesnar (summerslam 2003) Batista vs HHH (WM 21) to name a few..... Oh okay.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Open the Muggy Gate 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 You put Batista vs. HHH on your list of awesome and don't include Cena vs. Michaels? You must be HYPED... for the critcal beatdown. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lil' Bitch 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 XIII sucked. The only matches I enjoyed were the double main events and Benoit / MVP. MITB was okay, but I felt they could have done more considering there were 8 people included this time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 I liked MitB. Action-wise you may not have the best match, but there was a ton of stuff going on. You've got the Jeff/Matt/Edge ladder spot. Before that you had the Hardys attempting to repeat the same spot that injured Joey Mercury. You had Booker choosing the briefcase or Sharmel. Finlay almost sobbing post-match. I think storywise it's the strongest of the three. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest shoryuken007 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 XIII sucked. The only matches I enjoyed were the double main events and Benoit / MVP. Ha ha, what? Yeah, I'm not sure which match from XIII I liked better, Austin/Hart or Cena/Michaels. just teasing, guy But, in all seriousness, how good did you think those matches were? If they lived up to the expectations of WrestleMania in your opinion, it's hard to say it "sucked," unless you HATED all five other matches. You're shooting close to 50%, and sadly that's pretty good in this day and age. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
King Cucaracha 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 You put Batista vs. HHH on your list of awesome and don't include Cena vs. Michaels? You must be HYPED... for the critcal beatdown. And Angle/Lesnar was no great shakes either. Cena vs. Michaels is so over-rated though. Seems like people are rating it on length, like when Angle vs. Jannetty was everybody's MOTY simply because it was better than it had any right to be. Cena/Michaels isn't even the best free TV MOTY. Edge vs. Orton one/two weeks afterwards was a lot more entertaining. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jingus 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 like when Angle vs. Jannetty was everybody's MOTY simply because it was better than it had any right to be. Oh yeah, that pissed me off. And I was a massive blind Angle mark at the time. Him vs. Jannetty was a completely ordinary TV match, a few cool sequences, but really nothing special that a 1,000 other guys couldn't do. And yet people actually claim that it was better than the matches Angle had with Michaels?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Angle-plex 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Angle's matches with Michaels were pretty blah though, and this is coming from an Angle and HBK mark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 While I will say that the Vengeance 2005 match with Angle/HBK was overrated I do think the WM match was a classic. I was jaded going into the Vengeance match anyway though because it was blatant that Michaels was going over just because. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billdynamite 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Cena/Umaga was nothing. So many guys are searching for good things to say about Cena to rationalize them watching week after week. the truth is, the match wasn't anything out of the ordinary. Cena was in no danger of losing, so why would anyone care? We knew Cena would win, so where's the drama? the only time i get excited by a Cena match is the possibility of some light at the end of the tunnel and that he might lose. That's what you're supposed to feel for a heel champion, not the most pushed face in the company. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Superfly Snuka 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Angle's matches with Michaels were pretty blah though, and this is coming from an Angle and HBK mark. I respectfully disagree. Especially the Mania match; ten times better than the main event. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jingus 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Angle's matches with Michaels were pretty blah though, and this is coming from an Angle and HBK mark.I respectfully disagree. Especially the Mania match; ten times better than the main event. Same here. Although their first match was by far the best one they had, the rematches just couldn't live up. Hmmm... kinda like Angle's awesome first match and then disappointing rematches with Austin, Brock, and various others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Cena/Umaga was nothing. So many guys are searching for good things to say about Cena to rationalize them watching week after week. the truth is, the match wasn't anything out of the ordinary. Cena was in no danger of losing, so why would anyone care? We knew Cena would win, so where's the drama? If that were the case why would anyone ever buy a wrestling dvd? You know who wins already. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billdynamite 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Cena/Umaga was nothing. So many guys are searching for good things to say about Cena to rationalize them watching week after week. the truth is, the match wasn't anything out of the ordinary. Cena was in no danger of losing, so why would anyone care? We knew Cena would win, so where's the drama? If that were the case why would anyone ever buy a wrestling dvd? You know who wins already. I don't think we're all rushing to the shops to buy the DVD with Cena/Umaga on it. The thing with the Cena supporters on this board is they elevate anything Cena does. If he has a decent match, it's a great match. If he does a drop toe hold in a match he's fucking Dean Malenko. It's ridiculous looking at it from the outside. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Cena/Umaga was nothing. So many guys are searching for good things to say about Cena to rationalize them watching week after week. the truth is, the match wasn't anything out of the ordinary. Cena was in no danger of losing, so why would anyone care? We knew Cena would win, so where's the drama? If that were the case why would anyone ever buy a wrestling dvd? You know who wins already. I don't think we're all rushing to the shops to buy the DVD with Cena/Umaga on it. The thing with the Cena supporters on this board is they elevate anything Cena does. If he has a decent match, it's a great match. If he does a drop toe hold in a match he's fucking Dean Malenko. It's ridiculous looking at it from the outside. So is the opposite opinion. The truth is in the middle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UseTheSledgehammerUh 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 What a stupid-ass, retarded thread. This thread is like saying "How will the Spurs rebound from their NBA Title win?" Seriously, WM 23, regardless of what the thread starter's opinion of its quality was, was one of, if not THE, biggest financial successes in WWF/WWE history. How, in any way, would WWE need to "rebound" from it? I hate to be the latest in the soon-to-be-flamed and disgusted posters, but it's opinion threads like this, much less 100% factually inaccurate opinion threads like this, that really need to be thrown into "General Discussion" so they can be ignored after a couple posts and actual talk based on facts can occur. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edgehead69 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 You put Batista vs. HHH on your list of awesome and don't include Cena vs. Michaels? You must be HYPED... for the critcal beatdown. Cena vs MIchaels was just plain dumb... wow their tag champs... wow he's gonna superkick him... was really bland and went nowhere.. Angle's matches with Michaels were pretty blah though, and this is coming from an Angle and HBK mark. Well I have to disagree.... I mean 21 was a classic and vengeance was still good =, but the iron man sucked so much.... What a stupid-ass, retarded thread. This thread is like saying "How will the Spurs rebound from their NBA Title win?" Seriously, WM 23, regardless of what the thread starter's opinion of its quality was, was one of, if not THE, biggest financial successes in WWF/WWE history. How, in any way, would WWE need to "rebound" from it? I hate to be the latest in the soon-to-be-flamed and disgusted posters, but it's opinion threads like this, much less 100% factually inaccurate opinion threads like this, that really need to be thrown into "General Discussion" so they can be ignored after a couple posts and actual talk based on facts can occur. If it is that damn retarded.... why did you post on it then??? Sure its a financial sucess but IN MY EYES was a critical failure... And the theme for this was that what can WWE do to make WM 24 Erase the memory of WM 23.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Open the Muggy Gate 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 You put Batista vs. HHH on your list of awesome and don't include Cena vs. Michaels? You must be HYPED... for the critcal beatdown. Cena vs MIchaels was just plain dumb... wow their tag champs... wow he's gonna superkick him... was really bland and went nowhere.. Okay then edgehead, how would YOU have booked it? IMO, sometimes simplicity works best, and in this case, the storyline was simple, and it worked out really well to set up a match that actually wasn't supposed to be the Wrestlemania main event to begin with (HHH vs. Cena was gonna be that). It couldn't have been booked better in my eyes. How would you have booked it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hunter's Torn Quad 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Cena vs MIchaels was just plain dumb... wow their tag champs... wow he's gonna superkick him... was really bland and went nowhere.. If it was so bland, why did fans go ever more nuts each time Shawn and Cena teased hitting each other with their finishers? And why did the fans explode when Shawn finally did hit Cena with the superkick? They sure got excited over something 'bland'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edgehead69 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Cena vs MIchaels was just plain dumb... wow their tag champs... wow he's gonna superkick him... was really bland and went nowhere.. If it was so bland, why did fans go ever more nuts each time Shawn and Cena teased hitting each other with their finishers? And why did the fans explode when Shawn finally did hit Cena with the superkick? They sure got excited over something 'bland'. Because it was tried and trued.... they couldnt do something that was fresh and new? Yeah it got a pop.... but c'mon..... it was really stale and predictable... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hunter's Torn Quad 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Cena vs MIchaels was just plain dumb... wow their tag champs... wow he's gonna superkick him... was really bland and went nowhere.. If it was so bland, why did fans go ever more nuts each time Shawn and Cena teased hitting each other with their finishers? And why did the fans explode when Shawn finally did hit Cena with the superkick? They sure got excited over something 'bland'. Because it was tried and trued.... they couldnt do something that was fresh and new? Yeah it got a pop.... but c'mon..... it was really stale and predictable... You're complaining about the fact that something worked like it was supposed to and had the crowd going crazy? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UseTheSledgehammerUh 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 "And the theme for this was that what can WWE do to make WM 24 Erase the memory of WM 23...." Hence my "retarded thread" comment. Aside from your e-fed booking of WM 23 which I'm sure would've been eons better, why would WWE want to erase the memory of a success? The only memory of WM 23 that will be erased was Chris Benoit's participation. Other than that, I don't get this thread. WM 23 suffered from a lack of action, but still easily felt like the most important wrestling show of the year. And it made a ton of money. You see, the wrestling business is about MAKING MONEY. Why would Vince derive from what worked so well and, as you put it, "erase that memory" and try for a new one? If WM 23 sucked as much as you claim, it wouldn't have made all it did. I think your expectations are a tad bit unreasonable and not indicitive of a true wrestling promoter. Study up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Open the Muggy Gate 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 Ain't broke.... don't fix it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UseTheSledgehammerUh 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 "Because it was tried and trued.... they couldnt do something that was fresh and new?" I don't recall John Cena and Shawn Michaels ever having a one-on-one match before WM 23. You also got Taker's streak versus a World Champion for the first time ever (that the streak has been mentioned). And a very over babyface champion at that. First time, kayfabe wise, some fans rooted against Taker since 2002. Plus a MITB opener that grabbed casual PPV watchers and made commercial no-names like CM Punk, Finlay, and the returning to Mania glory Matt and Jeff Hardy shine. Khali/Kane, while a shitty match, wasn't about workrate or star ratings. It was WWE saying "Look here, fans. You want the biggest freaks in wrestling? You want to see some crazy tall assholes fighting? You're only gonna see the biggest guys HERE in WWE." And it was a short match, who cares? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edgehead69 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2007 "Because it was tried and trued.... they couldnt do something that was fresh and new?" I don't recall John Cena and Shawn Michaels ever having a one-on-one match before WM 23. You also got Taker's streak versus a World Champion for the first time ever (that the streak has been mentioned). And a very over babyface champion at that. First time, kayfabe wise, some fans rooted against Taker since 2002. Plus a MITB opener that grabbed casual PPV watchers and made commercial no-names like CM Punk, Finlay, and the returning to Mania glory Matt and Jeff Hardy shine. Khali/Kane, while a shitty match, wasn't about workrate or star ratings. It was WWE saying "Look here, fans. You want the biggest freaks in wrestling? You want to see some crazy tall assholes fighting? You're only gonna see the biggest guys HERE in WWE." And it was a short match, who cares? Yeah your right but its the consumers satisfaction that mattered... i just wasnt satisfied... Oh yeah i beleive HBK and CEna had a match on a raw pre or post Taboo Tueday 2005. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Open the Muggy Gate 0 Report post Posted July 10, 2007 "Because it was tried and trued.... they couldnt do something that was fresh and new?" I don't recall John Cena and Shawn Michaels ever having a one-on-one match before WM 23. You also got Taker's streak versus a World Champion for the first time ever (that the streak has been mentioned). And a very over babyface champion at that. First time, kayfabe wise, some fans rooted against Taker since 2002. Plus a MITB opener that grabbed casual PPV watchers and made commercial no-names like CM Punk, Finlay, and the returning to Mania glory Matt and Jeff Hardy shine. Khali/Kane, while a shitty match, wasn't about workrate or star ratings. It was WWE saying "Look here, fans. You want the biggest freaks in wrestling? You want to see some crazy tall assholes fighting? You're only gonna see the biggest guys HERE in WWE." And it was a short match, who cares? Yeah your right but its the consumers satisfaction that mattered... i just wasnt satisfied... Oh yeah i beleive HBK and CEna had a match on a raw pre or post Taboo Tueday 2005. Maybe you weren't satisfied... but the majority was. It's all about reaching the majority. They got the majority. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest shoryuken007 Report post Posted July 10, 2007 I like edgehead. If everyone just agreed, there'd be no fun. Clearly, he'll never agree with anyone who loves Cena. Conflict abounds! Muggy said what I was going to, though. Cena/Michaels drew big pops and big cash (at least if you look at it in terms of WM23's buyrate; I don't have merch numbers in front of me). The matches were well regarded by the majority of the internet, as well as the casual fan (at least in my experience). It's hard to look at it objectively and say "this was a bad feud," mainly due to the overwhelming lack of evidence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest joshtothemaxx Report post Posted July 10, 2007 Cena/Umaga did wonders for Umaga. Before the feud, he was a waste of time. After, he was a credible upper-midcar/main event guy. I always considered it a 'filler feud' though. Umaga was never going to win the belt. An aside: Umaga eating the Intercontinental Belt is one of the coolest things EVER. Cena/HBK had me on the edge of my seat leading up to WM23. I was marking out like shit for that superkick. Admittedly, I was a little let down with the feud result, but damn that was good build. Since I "became a smark" during the DX/NWO/Austin era of pro wrestling, I miss stables like crazy. With the way Cena is built up, it almost seems like nobody (outside of HHH) is popular enough to beat him in the WWE's eyes. I'd mark out like woah if ANY believable stable would form just for the purpose of the top guy in the stable taking out Cena. I've been watching too many old NWO videos on youtube lately. Damnit. My wishlist for WM24 is as follows: CM Punk (or someone ROH-ish not here yet [like Colt Cabana]) gets put over big time in MitB or on the mid-card, Kennedy gets a big stage and comes through, Flair maybe winning a mid-card belt and then retiring to a great ovation which would set up a badass many person tournament for the belt down the road, etc. etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hawk 34 0 Report post Posted July 10, 2007 I think MitB ran its course this year. The three ideal ways to build off on winning the MitB contract has been done (The sneak cash-in, pre-announced cash in to make a big match in advance and the plan to wait a year to cash it in at WM). Granted, the latter didn't actually happen but they set the story up. The only other route is for someone to cash in on the same night. You can still have the spot-fest ladder match over the tag titles or a singles belt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
