Biggest/Most memorable mistakes in matches' outcomes.

[BestWrestlingOpinions]

Over the years, we always complain about how a match should have ended differently, with the winner be someone else, with the heel not using coward/underhanded tactics and such.
But, what match outcome do you think was the biggest mistake? To me, I have two recent examples:
-Cena beating Lesnar clean. Lesnar came back after so long and was there to prove his dominance. He kept destroying Cena in their match, but Cena made one come back, hit 2 moves and beat Lesnar clean, thus making Lesnar not being the monster he claimed to be.
-HHH beating Punk. Punk was super hot at that time. HHH had no business facing Punk at all, but he faced him anyway and he beat him (even though it was through controversy). Punk should have gone over and continue his hot streak by doing even more great things. Personally, I think that this whole Punk thing could have continued until WM28, where he would have won the belt and face Taker that year, Streak against Title. It would definitely be unpredictable.


What are your thoughts?

 

[Zycho32]

In all fairness, I can really only cite Cena/Lesnar at Extreme Rules as a match where I felt the outcome was wrong. Mostly for the reasons you described; Cena winning, even by the skin of his teeth, took some bluster out of Brock before HHH finished it off entirely. I personally would have gone with a Double Count-Out after the hail mary chain shot, with Cena unable to capitalize due to the abuse he suffered (this was one time WWE higher ups should've outright told him to go down on his face and be carted out to sell the impact of Brock's return).

As for everything else, it all ranges from the ultimately inconsequential (Extreme Rules in '10 needed Batista to destroy Cena in order to make the feud less lopsided, but that's nitpicking) to unneccesary. HHH/Punk wasn't so much the right outcome as it was about the outcome being totally swallowed up by the outside story of conspiracy. If Punk won it wouldn't have elevated him any further because honestly, he wasn't getting the Belt before Survivor Series.

 

[Aquaman6686]

The biggest ones I can think of in recent memory:

1 - Randy Orton beating Christian in every one of their matches in 2011. Christian was poised to be THE top babyface in the company, but Vince couldn't stand anyone taking the spotlight off Cena and Orton, so they turned Christian heel and jobbed him out. Aside from Christian's DQ victory at Money in the Bank, Randy Orton not only won every match, he completely BURIED Christian. The Orton/Christian feud destroyed Christian's main event career just as it was getting started.

2 - John Cena winning the Triple Threat Match for the World Heavyweight Championship at WrestleMania 25. With Triple H retaining the WWE Championship and Rey Mysterio winning the Intercontinental Championship, the fans already had two "feel-good" moments of babyfaces triumphing over heels in championship matches that night. There was NO logical reason to have Edge drop the title that night, none whatsoever.

 

[Kris Benwa]

I think if Cena would have taken time off I would agree but he didnt and Cena was coming off a huge loss he needed momentum IMO especially because he wouldn't really be back in the title picture until October or whatever. I could see Lesnar winning if they'd rematch but Lesnar took time off, destroyed Triple H and all them and people forgot the loss ever happened. I agree with you about Trips beating punk clean.

Triple H has always been one of my favorites and i always try to defend him but sometimes he makes it really hard. I can counter quite a few anti Triple H arguments but him beating Punk has no excuse and what I wanna talk about is him beating Booker T. Booker T should have wom the belt at 19 even if he woulf have dropped it at the next PPV. Triple H amd King on commentary are just slandering the guy calling him everything but you know. Booker T was hot on RAW he was the ultimare undergo the story was there BOOKER T SHOULD HAVE BEAT TRIPLE H. There's no wrestling logical why Booker T didnt go over. Thats something I cant and wont defend.

 

[Kris Benwa]

The biggest ones I can think of in recent memory:

1 - Randy Orton beating Christian in every one of their matches in 2011. Christian was poised to be THE top babyface in the company, but Vince couldn't stand anyone taking the spotlight off Cena and Orton, so they turned Christian heel and jobbed him out. Aside from Christian's DQ victory at Money in the Bank, Randy Orton not only won every match, he completely BURIED Christian. The Orton/Christian feud destroyed Christian's main event career just as it was getting started.

2 - John Cena winning the Triple Threat Match for the World Heavyweight Championship at WrestleMania 25. With Triple H retaining the WWE Championship and Rey Mysterio winning the Intercontinental Championship, the fans already had two "feel-good" moments of babyfaces triumphing over heels in championship matches that night. There was NO logical reason to have Edge drop the title that night, none whatsoever.

I agree with your first one thats definitely one of the reasons I hate Orton. However Cena should have gone over at 25 and so should Orton. Because they didn't have the match be more of a Brawl I feel Orton should have gone over. The ref bump should have happened and then Legacy should came out have Vince and Shane come out to even the odds have that lead to an RKO and the victory for Orton. Have them rematch on Backlash give them the LMS match all the interference happens again then Orton wins. Have Triple H either get jumped by Legacy the following night to get the DX reuniom going or give him some time off. Orton talking shit Batista returns and that goes their feud. I don't see why Triple H went over at WM i think he could have possibly won a rematch down the line because dont see why he had to at WM

 

[Softcore Holly]

Great start, looks like a fun topic. While not the biggest mistake 1 outcome I've never liked was:

-HHH beating Orton at WM25. I always thought Orton should've won that one. Before that match was quite possibly Orton's most entertaining run in the WWE, with him having some really amazing promos and along with being a outright great heel. He took out the Mcmahon family with punts to the head for crying out loud! OK Steph got the mid rope DDT but HHH was handcuffed to the ring and had to watch. That was some pretty crazy stuff right there, and Orton had a lot of momentum heading into WM.

And all that came to a screeching halt once he lost to HHH, (Didn't help that the match itself wasn't great) it was like watching a fire ball get blasted with like a thousand fire trucks. And what was once a red-hot Orton eventually turning into a boring face, and he stayed that way for far too long. Obviously the outcome of that match didn't affect Orton's long term career, but if there was ever a time for him to be champ it would've been there.

There's probably a lot more, but that's one that usually comes to my mind the fastest.

 

[Robert Roode Fan]

Great start, looks like a fun topic. While not the biggest mistake 1 outcome I've never liked was:

-HHH beating Orton at WM25. I always thought Orton should've won that one. Before that match was quite possibly Orton's most entertaining run in the WWE, with him having some really amazing promos and along with being a outright great heel. He took out the Mcmahon family with punts to the head for crying out loud! OK Steph got the mid rope DDT but HHH was handcuffed to the ring and had to watch. That was some pretty crazy stuff right there, and Orton had a lot of momentum heading into WM.

And all that came to a screeching halt once he lost to HHH, (Didn't help that the match itself wasn't great) it was like watching a fire ball get blasted with like a thousand fire trucks. And what was once a red-hot Orton eventually turning into a boring face, and he stayed that way for far too long. Obviously the outcome of that match didn't affect Orton's long term career, but if there was ever a time for him to be champ it would've been there.

There's probably a lot more, but that's one that usually comes to my mind the fastest.

You nailed, no reason the game should have won, why not make the triple threat or undertaker and michals the main event and have orton win the title earlier in the night.

 

[roipdh123]

Abo****ley there is one that I will never forget is Jack Swagger winning the Money In The Bank at WrestleMania XXVI were you had Christian & Shelton Benjamin & Kane & Matt Hardy & Kofi Kingston & Dolph Ziggler as potential winners in this match.

 

[BestWrestlingOpinions]

I think if Cena would have taken time off I would agree but he didnt and Cena was coming off a huge loss he needed momentum IMO especially because he wouldn't really be back in the title picture until October or whatever. I could see Lesnar winning if they'd rematch but Lesnar took time off, destroyed Triple H and all them and people forgot the loss ever happened.

They eventually played the card where Cena tried to exorcise his demons because he lost to the Rock, and lost other matches, leading up to Rock vs Cena II. If he had lost to Lesnar, then this card could have been played even better. And trust me, people remember that Lesnar dominated that much but they also remember that he lost. After all, Cena is the top guy, everyone knows that. He can lose clean to Heath Slater with one arm tied behind his back and with a blindfold on and it still wouldn't hurt him one bit, so much so losing to Lesnar.

 

[JJV]

There are so many.

Edge should have retained the championship at Wrestlemania 25.

They could have had then Intercontinental champion Drew McIntyre or Christian win MITB instead of Swagger winning at Wrestlemania 26.

Triple H should have won the WWE championship at Elimination Chamber 2010; not Cena. Triple H vs Sheamus should have been the championship match. Sheamus was getting better but they had Cena win the championship and they had an underwhelming main event between Cena and Batista. It would have been much better if Triple H won the chamber, and defended it against Sheamus at Wrestlemania. Sheamus could have finally regained the championship at Extreme Rules the way he did. That would have made him a dominant heel than giving him cheap victories over Cena. Cena w/m Bret Hart vs Batista w/m Vince should have been the other match. There was no point in having Bret vs Vince; that match was awful.

Randy Orton should have gone over Triple H at 25 and Booker T should have gone over H at 19.

Brock should have defeated Cena! It was just a terrible choice to have Cena win that match.

Chris Jericho could have won at least one MITB! In 2008, it was alright to have Punk win the MITB, but it would have been much better if Jericho won it. He just returned in late 2007. He should have defeated JBL in a No DQ match at Royal Rumble instead of losing by DQ, and he should have won the MITB. Or at least he could have won the Intercontinental championship at Wrestlemania. There was no point in having him return at Armageddon, just so that he'd lose at Royal Rumble, No Way Out and Wrestlemania.

Chris Jericho should have won the 2012 Rumble, or at least the 2013 one and he could have gone after the World Heavyweight Championship at Wrestlemania 29.

CM Punk should have won the 2011 Rumble, not ADR. Orton vs Punk should have been the WWE Championship match at Wrestlemania 27. Christian vs Edge should have been the World Heavyweight Championship.

Chris Jericho should have gone over Ryback, Bourne and all the other younger talents that had no reason to beat him. Oh and jobbing to Fandango was the worst!

The Undertaker should have won at least one match in the Kane-Taker feud in 2010. Having Bearer return on Smackdown siding with Taker only to turn on him in just a week was a bullshit decision.

Shawn Michaels could have defeated John Cena at Wrestlemania 23. Rey Mysterio's triple threat match at 22 should have been the main event.

The Undertaker vs CM Punk was supposed to be the main event of 29. Streak vs Streak. Cena could have just challenged Rock to a rematch after losing every match the previous year. Cena should have lost to Brock, and then took time off before returning at No Way Out to defeat Big Show. Then winning MITB is alright, but after that he should have lost to Punk at Summerslam and NOC (instead of a draw finish). After losing the Royal Rumble as well (which Jericho won), Cena could have just challenged Rock to a match. Punk should have gone over Rock at the Rumble.

 

[Justin Satiable]

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet: Starrcade '97, Hogan vs Sting for the WCW Title.

They spent the entire year hyping up Sting vs the nWo in one of the greatest build-ups in history. All anybody wanted was for Sting to finally get his hands on Hogan. Just like how so many people want Daniel Bryan to win and overcome the odds at Wresltemania, Sting was supposed to overcome Hogan. Everything seemed to be going to plan...

And then Hogan hit the leg drop. Sting will kick out, surely? 1... 2... 3... Nope... He didn't. So Bret Hart gets on the microphone, makes some rushed comment about how "this isn't going to happen again" or something stupid like that and they restart the match. Apparently it was a fast count. It wasn't. It was a normal count. Sting went on to win the match but nobody cared because they'd just seen Hogan beat Sting right in front of them. What should have been a clean win for Sting turned into a shot at the WWF over the Montreal Screwjob. Honestly one of the worst match outcomes in history.

 

[JJ15776]

Armchair bookers are so cute. I hate to break it to you, but you disagreeing with a decision doesn't make it a "mistake" or mean they "should" have done what you wanted. That's just stupid.

Speaking of stupid, I am so sick of hearing about Triple H vs. CM Punk. First of all, did you even watch the match? That was about as far from a clean victory as you can get, so we can stop calling it that. Secondly, who cares? What, exactly, would have changed if Punk won? A few weeks later, Punk won the title and held it FOR A YEAR AND A HALF!!! If that doesn't tell you wins and losses are meaningless, I don't know what will.

But, really, the Cena vs. Lesnar argument is just as bad. The only valid point I saw in this thread is that they could've made it a double countout. That would've been fine. But again, what would Lesnar winning accomplish? Lesnar already got what he needed out of that match. He dominated it, he looked unbeatable, they established him as a monster just like they wanted to. Pinning Cena wouldn't have done anything for him. Instead, they found a way to make both look good at the same time. But you want Lesnar to win and gain nothing, while hurting Cena, why? It makes no sense. Oh right, it's because you people hate Cena, just like you hate Triple H. Now I get it. Funny how Triple H/CM Punk is the exact same as Rock/Cena I, literally every argument against the former can be used against the latter, the only difference is Rock won clean, yet everybody who complains about the former never even mentions the latter. Funny how that works.

There are so many.

I'm sure there are.

Edge should have retained the championship at Wrestlemania 25.

A meaningless Cena/Triple H loss. Shocking. Something tells me this is the beginning of a trend.

Triple H should have won the WWE championship at Elimination Chamber 2010; not Cena. Triple H vs Sheamus should have been the championship match. Sheamus was getting better but they had Cena win the championship and they had an underwhelming main event between Cena and Batista. It would have been much better if Triple H won the chamber, and defended it against Sheamus at Wrestlemania. Sheamus could have finally regained the championship at Extreme Rules the way he did. That would have made him a dominant heel than giving him cheap victories over Cena. Cena w/m Bret Hart vs Batista w/m Vince should have been the other match. There was no point in having Bret vs Vince; that match was awful.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Cena-Batista was 10x the match Triple H-Sheamus was and clearly more deserving of having the title. And why would you want to rid of Hart vs. McMahon? Obviously the match should've been shorter, but why get rid of it entirely? It's not about the quality of the match, it's about seeing Bret beat Vince's ass. That was great.

Randy Orton should have gone over Triple H at 25 and Booker T should have gone over H at 19.

Why the hell would Orton beat Triple H? That makes no sense. Orton had be terrorizing the McMahon family, and you want it to continue at WrestleMania? It's funny, because the exact same argument you would use for Booker T winning would also apply to Triple H beating Orton. It was the only result that made sense in the context of the storyline.

Brock should have defeated Cena! It was just a terrible choice to have Cena win that match.

See above for how stupid this is.

Chris Jericho could have won at least one MITB! In 2008, it was alright to have Punk win the MITB, but it would have been much better if Jericho won it. He just returned in late 2007. He should have defeated JBL in a No DQ match at Royal Rumble instead of losing by DQ, and he should have won the MITB. Or at least he could have won the Intercontinental championship at Wrestlemania. There was no point in having him return at Armageddon, just so that he'd lose at Royal Rumble, No Way Out and Wrestlemania.

Chris Jericho should have won the 2012 Rumble, or at least the 2013 one and he could have gone after the World Heavyweight Championship at Wrestlemania 29.

Chris Jericho should have gone over Ryback, Bourne and all the other younger talents that had no reason to beat him. Oh and jobbing to Fandango was the worst!

See a trend here? Jericho is a lot like HBK in that he's mostly used to make other people look better and get them more over, because he's so over that losses won't hurt him, much like people say about Cena, though they want Cena to lose for that reason and still complain about Jericho losing..funny. Almost as funny as how this is another example of the double standard regarding part timers. Part timers like Triple H that you don't like should lose, but part timers like Jericho that you do like should win. Got it.

CM Punk should have won the 2011 Rumble, not ADR. Orton vs Punk should have been the WWE Championship match at Wrestlemania 27. Christian vs Edge should have been the World Heavyweight Championship.

Not one part of this makes any sense. Miz-Cena was the WWE title match and, thus, the main event. That's where they started the Rock-Cena feud. Obviously that doesn't work if it's not for the title. And given that Edge was about to retire, and Christian was going to take his place in the title picture, why the hell would they have a match for the title? You want Christian to be a heel? Then him winning the title a few weeks later, after it was vacated by Edge's retirement, is ruined. Let me help you out. If you don't want ADR in the title match for whatever reason, have Christian win the Royal Rumble instead. Then you can do Christian vs. Edge for the title, both as faces, and have Edge announce beforehand that he's retiring after the match. That would've made for a cool moment. But, again, there's nothing you can do about Miz-Cena being for the title, despite your hatred for Cena.

The Undertaker should have won at least one match in the Kane-Taker feud in 2010. Having Bearer return on Smackdown siding with Taker only to turn on him in just a week was a bullshit decision.

Why? Undertaker was finishing up his career as a full time wrestler, and putting Kane over. There was no reason for him to win any of those matches.

Shawn Michaels could have defeated John Cena at Wrestlemania 23. Rey Mysterio's triple threat match at 22 should have been the main event.

You want Cena to lose??? You want to downgrade Cena vs. Triple H??? Mind=blown. HBK didn't want the title, that was clear. No reason for him to win. And suggesting they put Mystero's title match after John Cena vs. Triple H is just hilariously ridiculous on every level.

The Undertaker vs CM Punk was supposed to be the main event of 29. Streak vs Streak. Cena could have just challenged Rock to a rematch after losing every match the previous year. Cena should have lost to Brock, and then took time off before returning at No Way Out to defeat Big Show. Then winning MITB is alright, but after that he should have lost to Punk at Summerslam and NOC (instead of a draw finish). After losing the Royal Rumble as well (which Jericho won), Cena could have just challenged Rock to a match. Punk should have gone over Rock at the Rumble.

Wow, this is...wow. Ok, why the hell would Undertaker vs. Punk be the main event? Undertaker wrestles once a year, they're not going give him the title. And, no, Punk isn't going to end the streak. And why the hell would Rock just randomly accept a challenge from Cena after already beating him? No part of that would've made any sense whatsoever. They needed Rock to win the title and Cena to win the Rumble for their rematch to be possible and for people to want to see it.

Booker T beating Triple H is a valid one, but that's about it. There are many other matches that could've gone either way but, again, to suggest it was a "mistake" that they did what they did is ridiculous.

EDIT: I'm amazed that nobody has mentioned WrestleMania 2000, when Triple H beat Foley, Show, and Rock to keep the title. Unlike most of the complaints about H's wins, this one would be another valid one. Rock should've won the title at Mania instead of the next month. I'm guessing most of the people who have posted so far are too young to remember that since most of the matches list have happened recently.

EDIT 2:

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet: Starrcade '97, Hogan vs Sting for the WCW Title.

They spent the entire year hyping up Sting vs the nWo in one of the greatest build-ups in history. All anybody wanted was for Sting to finally get his hands on Hogan. Just like how so many people want Daniel Bryan to win and overcome the odds at Wresltemania, Sting was supposed to overcome Hogan. Everything seemed to be going to plan...

And then Hogan hit the leg drop. Sting will kick out, surely? 1... 2... 3... Nope... He didn't. So Bret Hart gets on the microphone, makes some rushed comment about how "this isn't going to happen again" or something stupid like that and they restart the match. Apparently it was a fast count. It wasn't. It was a normal count. Sting went on to win the match but nobody cared because they'd just seen Hogan beat Sting right in front of them. What should have been a clean win for Sting turned into a shot at the WWF over the Montreal Screwjob. Honestly one of the worst match outcomes in history.

Hahaha, so true. I don't think anybody was even really considering WCW for some reason(again, likely because of the ages of those who have posted so far), but you could write a book with all the bad decisions they made. Unfortunately I didn't really follow WCW(I should say fortunately, but unfortunate for the purposes of this thread), so I wouldn't be able to list them off all of the top of my head, but I'm sure others could. The match you mentioned, the fingerpoke of doom, Goldberg's streak ending with a taser, Arquette winning the title, all atrocious decisions that were much worse than anything the WWE ever considered. Daniel Bryan not winning the title tomorrow would be the only thing that could compare to any of those, which is why it's so funny that we have some idiots suggesting he shouldn't or won't win.

 

[Justin Satiable]

But, really, the Cena vs. Lesnar argument is just as bad. The only valid point I saw in this thread is that they could've made it a double countout. That would've been fine. But again, what would Lesnar winning accomplish? Lesnar already got what he needed out of that match. He dominated it, he looked unbeatable, they established him as a monster just like they wanted to. Pinning Cena wouldn't have done anything for him. Instead, they found a way to make both look good at the same time. But you want Lesnar to win and gain nothing, while hurting Cena, why? It makes no sense. Oh right, it's because you people hate Cena, just like you hate Triple H.

I respectfully disagree with you here. In case you haven't been paying attention, Brock doesn't actually get a very big reaction. He's been booked poorly. When it comes down to it, the matches of his that people really remember are the ones in which he lost. No matter what WWE has done since, the simple fact of the matter is that Brock came back and the first thing he did was get beat. No matter how condescending your tone is it doesn't change that fact, and Brock is a nobody because of that. Losing to Cena set the tone for what's been a lacklustre run on the whole for Brock.

Yes, I know he beat Triple H twice, but he also lost to Triple H at WRESTLEMANIA. Again, that's the one that people will remember. Somebody isn't "unbeatable" if they keep getting beat!

 

[FlairFan2003]

I NEVER had a problem with Cena over Lesnar. Lesnar works so few dates and even less matches that it's ludicrous to have him beat Cena, especially when he basically was going to do nothing for the next few months and barely touch a ring until his very brief fued with semi retired HHH. Cena had just put over Rock at WrestleMania and the hype surrounding his match vs Lesnar, the whole angle with people like Edge coming back to spur Cena back to his formidable self, it was a perfect build to help Cena's character get back on track after what was billed as a devastating loss to Rock, which WWE needed to build as a devastating loss otherwise there would be no reason to have a re match. If Lesnar was going to work even a part time schedule like Flair & HBK did where the basically disappeared for months at a time, then wrestled full time for a few months through multiple feuds, maybe Id feel differently, but Lesnar contributes so little to the product with his rarer than rare lone match after a brief feud appearances that in no way should he have gotten a win over Cena, unless they were letting Cena squash him at the next PPV.

Starrcade 97 was botched....with all that build Sting should have gone over clean. at the very least the "fast count" should have actually been a fast count, that way the whole Brett Hart "Not Again" angle would have made some sense.

SuperBrawl 99 should have let Flair go over Hogan...the audience was clearly ready for it, and it could have set up a four way feud with Flair & Goldberg on one side (though both wanting to be champ) with Hogan, Nash and the newly reformed, trimmed down, elite NWO on the other side, possibly with friction between Hogan, Nash, & Bischoff for Hogan losing the title so soon after the "Finger Poke" and subsequent re formation of the group. The NWO hadn't had to fight for the power in a long time, putting them back as the chasers would have been a refreshing change to keep the over all angle fresh, WCW audience would have finally gotten to see Flair get the upper hand on Hogan at least once, and the potential for a four way feud between Hogan-Nash-Flair-Goldberg would have been huge, especially considering WCW was waiting for Sting, Hart, & Luger to all return from injuries. As they returned things only would have gotten more insane. This would have been infinitely better than Hogan's face turn (which no one wanted to see) killing the NWO just as they were gaining traction alongside Flair's heel turn which was as un popular with fans at the time as Austin's heel turn a few years later when he sided with arch enemy Vince McMahon and started doing comedy skits and playing guitar, not too mention that Goldberg, the company's hottest star, was basically lost in the shuffle during this period, a total waste of his popularity and the potential mega feud with Nash and Hogan after ending his Streak and basically stealing the title from him.

 

[Aquaman6686]

And suggesting they put Mystero's title match after John Cena vs. Triple H is just hilariously ridiculous on every level.

With very rare exceptions like WrestleMania 26 with HBK retiring, the Royal Rumble winner's title shot should ALWAYS close out the show. The Triple Threat Match for the World Heavyweight Championship should have closed WrestleMania 22, and gone on ten minutes longer. However, Mysterio winning would have ended the night on a sour note. Rey was constantly booed the entire match, and although the title change got a nice pop, that was more for the fact that the World Championship changed hands, not because Mysterio won, and even then there were still quite a few boos mixed in to the cheers. The Triple Threat should have closed the show, and either Kurt Angle should have retained or Randy Orton should have won the title. Either would have gotten a better reaction.

 

[Kris Benwa]

I'm amazed that nobody has mentioned WrestleMania 2000, when Triple H beat Foley, Show, and Rock to keep the title. Unlike most of the complaints about H's wins, this one would be another valid one. Rock should've won the title at Mania instead of the next month. I'm guessing most of the people who have posted so far are too young to remember that since most of the matches list have happened recently.

I agree with this but I think people put recent examples because that's what the OP did. At least that's why I did.

Another match that had the wrong result in most people's opinion was British Bulldog vs HBK for European Championship in 97. British Bulldog should have gone over HBK at One Night Only in that European Championship match in England. Bulldog is one of my favorites but I really see no reason why he should have lost besides HBK doing what he did back then, politicking. Bulldog was in his home, had his family there, he always won whenever they were in England but HBK wouldn't put him over. For fuck's sake Shawn let him just roll you up for once dammit. It's sad.

 

[Slowdude]

Orton vs HHH at Mania 25 was booked wrong. First off it should of been no DQ. If not several ref bumps. Ted Jr, Cody, Vince, Shane and Stephanie should of all been out at ringside at some point. Depending on the winner either have Orton take out all the McMahons and eventually triumph over HHH like many were expecting. For HHH's win have the exact same scenario except have Batista return and take out Legacy allowing HHH to get his revenge. Orton vs HHH was a match that needed allot of interference from everyone involved in the feud in my opinion. A match where the McMahon's should of been involved.