Best PPV Of The Year

[Con T.]

For the record, guys.... Here's a good portion of the Wrestlemania Card you are voting was better than Extreme Rules

[YOUTUBE]bOt_AXdfmjU[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]SBpU8aiBE2Y[/YOUTUBE]



And that's merely the tip of the iceberg. Team Teddy and Team Johnny? The endless concerts? The Flo Rida segment?

Look, I'm not saying Wrestlemania was bad, I'm just saying it was chock full of filler. You cut one hour from that show, and it is so much better.

So.... Essentially, Extreme Rules

 

[OWEN-ing It All]

How the FUCK is extreme rules not taking this???? THREE moty canidates!!

My thoughts exactly. Top to bottom that was an incredible card.

Wrestlemania was good, but wayyyy overrated.

 

[Nate DaMac]

I don't get why Mania's taking this. It's not even due to my personal preference, but by smark standards, Extreme Rules should be running away with this. Triple H, Undertaker, and Shawn Michaels were just three old guys hogging the spotlight, Cena and Rock were just 2 roided up buffoons, Bryan got beat in 18 seconds.

You know, things you people bitch about to this day.

How is the IWC voting for this PPV over the PPV that had Brock Lesnar's return match, Daniel Bryan and Sheamus putting on a MOTY candidate, and Punk/Jericho in a Street Fight?

 

[UltimateHitman]

Since this is a spam friendly zone, I'm going to chime in on the whole popular = good thing.

Jersey Shore, Honey Boo Boo, all those stupid ass towing shows, Hardcore Pawn, ignorant people doing ignorant shit, all shit shows and not worth the film they're recorded on, yet all "popular" viewing.

Now tell me again popular = quality.

To coin a phrase, no chance in hell.

 

[The Brain]

I completely understand people voting for Extreme Rules over WrestleMania. It was a great show. What I don’t understand is why people supporting Extreme Rules point out all the filler at mania but ignore the filler on Extreme Rules. Both events had Randy Orton vs. Kane and Big Show vs. Cody Rhodes. Neither was anything special. Extreme Rules had Brodus Clay vs. Dolph Ziggler, Ryback vs. two unknown jobbers, and Layla vs. Nikki Bella. You can pick apart certain matches on any show. The matches that mania was built around delivered big. Both events were a three match show. Again, I understand voting Extreme Rules over mania but it shouldn’t be the landslide people are suggesting.

 

[avi01]

Extreme Rules for me too. Wrestlemania was about 3 matches...Rock/Cena, Taker/HHH and Punk/Y2J..other than that , forgettable stuff. 3 match in a 4 hours PPV sure tells you the show was not consistently good.
Extreme Rules was mostly great from top to bottom imo. Non of the matches reached the standard of Taker/HHH but I`d say Cena/Lesnar was actually better than Cena/Rock. Punk and Jericho had an as good if not better match than wrestlemania. Also Sheamus and Bryan stole the show in an excellent 3 out of 2 falls. Only the Ryback as well as Brodus clay match were actually poor. Orton vs. Kane was decent.

 

[hardmick33]

I can't believe that the poll initially did not have Extreme Rules as an option. Sounds to me like the person who gave the choices is a TNA guy, otherwise why were there 3 options for them and only 2 for WWE? Unreal.

I went with Extreme Rules. There were 3 MOTY candidates and the ones that were not at that level were still very very good. Rhodes and Show was short, but interesting and I thought the Orton/Kane match was very solid. Quality stuff.

 

[Rayne]

I don't get why Mania's taking this. It's not even due to my personal preference, but by smark standards, Extreme Rules should be running away with this. Triple H, Undertaker, and Shawn Michaels were just three old guys hogging the spotlight, Cena and Rock were just 2 roided up buffoons, Bryan got beat in 18 seconds.

You know, things you people bitch about to this day.

How is the IWC voting for this PPV over the PPV that had Brock Lesnar's return match, Daniel Bryan and Sheamus putting on a MOTY candidate, and Punk/Jericho in a Street Fight?

It's like a UFC card. The best cards that people talk about are anchored by a couple of absolutely killer main events, placed in Vegas or in a foreign stadium. It's the event, rather than the fights, that make the night for some people. A 'throwaway' card might have- and usually does- have much better quality fights on it, but the event isn't as big.

WrestleMania pretty much takes this walking every year under those terms, unless it's a rare case like WM27 where they just completely phone it in.

 

[SD619]

Quantity of viewers has never, and will never equal the same thing as quality of product.

But unfortunately, wrestling PPVs will be bought based on hype, not quality. Quality may affect the DVD sales slightly, but there is no way you can judge quality of a show before it airs other than the hype.

Consider this year's SummerSlam. I doubt that you can find many people that will call it better than last year's event. But it did much better (almost 20% more).

 

[Leakee]

I don't see why TNA Bound For Glory isn't in the poll, in my opinion it was better than Wrestlemania by far.

 

[Con T.]

I completely understand people voting for Extreme Rules over WrestleMania. It was a great show. What I don’t understand is why people supporting Extreme Rules point out all the filler at mania but ignore the filler on Extreme Rules. Both events had Randy Orton vs. Kane and Big Show vs. Cody Rhodes. Neither was anything special. Extreme Rules had Brodus Clay vs. Dolph Ziggler, Ryback vs. two unknown jobbers, and Layla vs. Nikki Bella. You can pick apart certain matches on any show. The matches that mania was built around delivered big. Both events were a three match show. Again, I understand voting Extreme Rules over mania but it shouldn’t be the landslide people are suggesting.

Except Wrestlemania had much, much more of it.


Don't forget, Wrestlemania was an hour more than Extreme Rules. And it was painfully obvious by Team Teddy VS Team Johnny that WWE had the horses for a three hour show, not a four hour one.


A little filler isn't bad, and the only things that were true filler at Extreme Rules was the Divas, Ryback, and that's pretty much it. Kane and Orton was so much better as a nodq than the mania match, and everything else stands on its own. We see Brodus/Ziggler as filler now, but at the time it was the ascension of a character we all legitimately liked.


And, like I said, Mania was an hour longer. An hour full of filler

 

[entertainer101]

Wrestlemania was a good one, but it definitely wasn't as good as Extreme Rules . And it most definitely was not as good as slammiversary. That was definitely the show of the year. Sadly, this WWE fan overrun forum won't know that.

 

[Buford]

I usually go Mania but Extreme Rules was better. All the rematches were better in Kane/Orton, Rhodes/Show, Punk/Y2J, Sheamus/Bryan, and Lesnar/Cena was better then Cena/Rock. Dolph even carried Brodus to a decent match, a new Divas champ as well, overall great card.

To TNA though, Slammiversary was great. That was their ppv of the year.

 

[Jaffa]

Really this was only a choice between Extreme Rules and Wrestlemania with respective mainevents of Lesnar vs Cena and Rock vs Cena these matches were both great and made both events the best of the year. It's a tough choice but I am going to go with Wrestlemania due to the fact that the WWE title match and Hell in a Cell match were also very good matches.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I remember sitting through Extreme Rules and wondering why I paid for Wrestemania when I could have watched it a month later, jacked up but without the boring bits. PPV of the year for WWE at least. It would beat TNA's Slammiversary too though.

 

[#MrScissorsKick]

MITB.

 

[JGlass]

I guess I can see why WrestleMania is beating Extreme Rules here. I mean, sure, Extreme Rules had three legitimate MOTY candidates, but WrestleMania had this...

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I guess I can see why WrestleMania is beating Extreme Rules here. I mean, sure, Extreme Rules had three legitimate MOTY candidates, but WrestleMania had this...

Nice try but we all know you loved that segment. Stop trying to appeal to the IWC's giant sense of nobility in professional wrestling. It's too late plus no one in their right mind would dare vote differently than HonkyDong Man.

WM all the way.

 

[The Brain]

I guess I can see why WrestleMania is beating Extreme Rules here. I mean, sure, Extreme Rules had three legitimate MOTY candidates, but WrestleMania had this...

And three MOTY candidates. And it was more of a spectacle which does matter. If it didn't why do most people care about mania infinitely more than any other ppv?

 

[Coco]

And three MOTY candidates.

Punk and Jericho worked a more exiting match in front of a less apathetic crowd in Chicago.

Cena and Lesnar was far better than Cena and Rock.

Some people may prefer Triple H and Undertaker to Bryan and Sheamus (I don't), but that still averages out to a better night of action at Extreme Rules.

And it was more of a spectacle which does matter. If it didn't why do most people care about mania infinitely more than any other ppv?

Because the WWE tells them to.

 

[JGlass]

And three MOTY candidates. And it was more of a spectacle which does matter. If it didn't why do most people care about mania infinitely more than any other ppv?

Maybe if you have absurdly low qualifications for MOTY. Rock vs. Cena had all the hype and none of the action. Punk vs. Jericho was okay, but it wasn't half as good as the Extreme Rules rematch. Neither of those matches have anything on any of the big 3 ER matches.

And being a spectacle doesn't matter if the show winds up being mostly crap.

 

[Coco]

I think the action in Rock-Cena was fine. It just wasn't as good as most of the other stuff this year. In a hard, obvious sort of way. As such, I don't know how it can be a MOTY candidate. It was just a good match.

 

[The Brain]

Punk and Jericho worked a more exiting match in front of a less apathetic crowd in Chicago.

Cena and Lesnar was far better than Cena and Rock.

Some people may prefer Triple H and Undertaker to Bryan and Sheamus (I don't), but that still averages out to a better night of action at Extreme Rules.

Both matches between Punk and Jericho were good. Totally different matches but both good. It's probably more fair to compare Punk vs. Jericho at mania to Sheamus vs. Bryan at Extreme Rules, and Punk vs. Jericho at Extreme Rules to HIAC just because of the style of matches. If we do that I prefer Extreme Rules for the former and mania for the latter.

Cena vs. Lesnar and Cena vs. Rock could be a coin toss. Both great matches. I give the edge to Cena/Rock because it was hyped for a year and did not disappoint (except the outcome but that's a story for a different thread).

I've said many times that I could see why people vote Extreme Rules. I won't try to change the minds of people that feel it was a better show. I just don't like that people pick apart minor things about mania to make it seem like Extreme Rules was better by a landslide and mania sucked in comparison. It's close. It's a common tactic though in any debate. Bash the opposing option to strengthen your own case (not you personally in this case, Coco).

Because the WWE tells them to.

Plus they put more effort into making that show stand out more than all the others and it usually works.

 

[The Brain]

Maybe if you have absurdly low qualifications for MOTY. Rock vs. Cena had all the hype and none of the action. Punk vs. Jericho was okay, but it wasn't half as good as the Extreme Rules rematch. Neither of those matches have anything on any of the big 3 ER matches.

And being a spectacle doesn't matter if the show winds up being mostly crap.

Sounds like your standards are too high. Rock vs. Cena was a great match. I don't see how you can say it had no action. What was wrong with it (besides Rock's always awful sharpshooter) and what were you expecting?

 

[Coco]

I just don't like that people pick apart minor things about mania to make it seem like Extreme Rules was better by a landslide and mania sucked in comparison. It's close. It's a common tactic though in any debate. Bash the opposing option to strengthen your own case (not you personally in this case, Coco).

Well keep in mind that I'm generally not wild about the WrestleMania brand all together. The reality is that most years, they fill time the extra time with celebrities and other fluff that I couldn't care less about. It's not as though the WWE doesn't have the talent to put on a great four-hour wrestling event. It's that it's not their priority. And as such, I end up not liking that I'm asked to pay extra for a four-hour event riddled with horse shit. There're good matches at Mania most years. But there's also more stuff I dislike at Mania than there tends to be on other PPVs.

Also, while the stadiums are visually-pleasing settings, the acoustics of large, sometimes open-air venues don't do the roar of the crowd justice. And that reflects poorly on the action in a genre where audience-response is of paramount importance.

Others may love Mania. But it's really not my thing. And to see people fall for the hype every year and think they'll be getting something they won't is infuriating.