Legend VS Young Star at Wrestlemania every year?

[mikde_]

So recently we had Cena vs Rock. Which was a match Reminiscent of hogan vs rock back in 2002 and of course the rumours of Punk vs Austin at mania are always circulating so I'm asking would it be a good idea if WWE decided to do a new guy vs a legend at every mania? Kind of like takers appearence to defend the streak, which is now a once a year deal also.

It could be for a number 1 contenders spot for a world title of his choosing at next years mania and be used to say that this is his moment to fully take over the WWE main event scene. People could speculate every year who the legend to return and put over the next star would be.

Would this work? Would people get behind it as a legitimate WM staple? Or would it be a failure?

Try come up with your ideas for a match too.

I'd go with kurt angle vs dolph Ziggler perhaps in about 2 years.

 

[Harddyboy77]

I like the young vs old concept, however I wouldn't want it to be for the title match at the next mania, because that would make the rumble winner not able to snooze his opponent, the legend would have to win sometimes too, so they would also get title matches? Other than that this would work

 

[ravssss]

I do want austin to come back ... but in real ... i dont think ne1 feuding him in current roster wud be like rock vs cena ... though i hate cena ... i have to agree he is the best what wwe can offer today

 

[suleman09]

I actually love this idea....hmmm ideas....

Legend vs Current
Wrestlemania 29: Stone Cold vs CM Punk (This would be nice on the mic)
Wrestlemania 30: Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar (For the 30th anniversary should be something BIG, if booked Lesnar well this would be epic)
Wrestlemania 31: Kurt Angle vs Dolph Ziggler (Technically would be nice)
Wrestlemania 32: HBK vs Dolph Ziggler

There should also be another "passing of the torch" type of match at Wrestlemania 38, like
Wrestlemania 18: Hulk Hogan vs The Rock
Wrestlemania 28: The Rock vs John Cena (even though Cena lost...)
Wrestlemania 38: John Cena vs ????

 

[Diet Soda]

It already occurs in one way or another. Usually these matches are the kind that only happen once, so it's only logical to showcase them at the biggest event of the year.

We've got the memorable ones like Rock/Cena, Hogan/Rock, Foley/Edge, and the Undertaker's matches with rising stars such as Orton, Edge, and Batista also act in the same way.

On the other hand, there are the less remembered matches such as Jericho vs. Piper, Steamboat and Snuka, from WM25, or matches that are remembered badly like Goldberg vs. Lesnar from WM20. So in essence, it's a bit of a double-edged sword.

Generally though, these old vs. new matches are mutually beneficial to the performers, and even if the younger superstar loses, they still get a massive rub from competing at such a level. Yet, I don't think it needs to be an annual staple; I would much rather see up and coming superstars perform within the boundaries of their ability when the stakes are as high as Wrestlemania.

For example, the aforementioned Jericho match, why the hell did it even happen? Jericho did not need to go over three old men (legends in their own right, though long past their best) to advance his career or improve on his credentials.

Similarly with some of the ideas being chucked around here. Do you really think that Ziggler vs. Angle will be an instant classic? Hell no, it'd be a 5 minute squash. Ziggler is nowhere near Angle's level, and if he ever does reach that level, Angle will have long since retired.

Moreover with the Punk vs. Austin debate: should not happen. If Austin were to return for one match, it should only be Cena. Think about it, marks only want Punk to face Austin because he's straight edge and alcohol is a large part of Austin's persona. The compatibility ends there. Outside of their dietary intakes, their gimmicks are far too similar for them to clash convincingly. Both are anti-authoritarian, both tread the line between reality and kayfabe, both break the fourth wall, both are regarded more for their famous promos than their actually wrestling ability.

The logical opponent would have to be Cena. Cena is the complete antithesis of the Texas Rattlesnake. The goody-two-shoes, rise above hate, Fruity Pebbles, make a wish and be a star Super Cena is a polar opposite of the take no crap, hell-raising, beer-swilling, bird-flipping, mudhole-stomping, bionic redneck.

 

[MattRhys20]

Wrestlemania 38: John Cena vs ????

ZACK RYDER!!! Who as been Zack's most famous fan (apart from The Rock at Survivor Series)? Who helped him with his feud against Kane? Who 'stole' his true love?

It all fits perfectly

 

[KevinLockard23]

I don't think they should do it annually every year because that'll make the idea seem watered down pretty fast (or they'll just run out of legends), but every once and awhile is good. Btw, Brock/Goldberg only failed because they were left unmotivated to put on a match with the crowd booing them so they just stalled for much of the match. Jericho vs Snuka/Steamboat/Piper also wasn't as big of a deal as Rock/Cena or Rock/Hogan because those three guys were way old, which is why they were all three put together instead of just one on one with Jericho.

Personally, I'd love to see Kurt Angle face Daniel Bryan more than Ziggler. Heyman talked about wanting to book this match in TNA a couple of years ago if he had taken control of the company (this was around the time Bryan got 'fired' from WWE and there were rumors circulating saying that he could go to TNA.)

 

[Lying Retarded Crybaby Troll Bitch]

It's a fine idea. However, not for the belt (kind of hurts the MITB or Rumble deals @ WM), & not something like Austin-Punk would be or Rock-Cena was (prefer a surprise appearance at the PPV).

 

[Ross421]

I'm all for it only if doesn't happen every year and if the young star is put over by the legend. The WWE can't keep living in the past with part-timers, they need to push their younger talent as much as they can and putting them over a legend would be really helpful.

I mean the biggest stars in the WWE are The Rock(Part-Timer), The Undertaker(Part-Timer, but he deserves to be with all he's put in for the company), Triple H(Part-Timer), Brock Lesnar(Definition of Part-Timer), John Cena, and CM Punk. Punk isn't even trusted enough to be in the main event for some reason.

The point is how long can the WWE last on part-timers? When they all retire or move on from wrestling, who are gonna be the stars? Yeah the IWC loves Ziggler, Rhodes, and Bryan, but they will never be close to the same level of popularity and star power any of those part timers were on during their prime. The WWE has to convince the average fan, that the product they should invest in has a progressive future that pays homage to the past, but still moves forward and push wrestlers like Dolph Ziggler to the moon and put them on the forefront of the brand. Instead, the WWE just tries to milk all they can out of the part-timers instead of allowing the younger talent to get over. The main event of one the biggest PPV's of the year will be Brock Lesnar vs. Triple H, and its likely neither of them will wrestle for a while after that.

So by the time the WWE won't be able to use the part-timers anymore, the talent that is young now, will get old and get to be to the age where they should put others over, and in fact, some could be injured before they reach their prime. I'm all for part-timers if used correctly, if they can make the younger talent look good, then they've done their job.

For the WWE to gain viewers, they need to show the fans that this is a progressive company, filled with optimism for the future with all of these great 30 and under superstars (not just stars, superstars, they must build them that way), not a company who grasps at straws trying to relive their glory days with past their prime wrestlers, while having the future superstars of this company wrestle for the WORLD championships in the mid-card.