Least deserving WM headliner ever? Who deserved to headline but never did?

[Dagger Dias]

The Miz deserved it the least. Lawrence Taylor sure didn't deserve it either, but Miz is by far the worst. Miz can't wrestle now and he was even worse in 2011. He never should have held the WWE Championship in the first place, let alone RETAIN at WRESTLEMANIA against CENA. Wrestlemania 27 is one of the worst Wrestlemania events in history and Miz headlining it is part of the reason for that. Many people wanted to see Cena VS Rock (which we did get, "twice in a lifetime") in 2011 but instead we got a horrible main event that headlined a horrible show where the WWE Champion was an afterthought in his own match despite retaining. As for the most deserving that never got to? CM Punk, but only if we are talking Wrestlemania 29 (or 30 had he stuck around this year). Just imagine if Punk had main evented 29 with Taker or been in a triple threat with Cena and The Rock....

 

[Aquaman6686]

The guy that should have had that spot was Wade Barrett. If that actually did happen I'm sure all the people saying Miz would say Barrett was least deserving, and they might be right, but given how big the Nexus angle was in 2010 I think Barrett should have gone into WM27 as champion instead of Miz.

Barrett as champion in 2010/2011 would have been a disastrous mistake. After the Nexus debuted, Barrett was shoved down fans' throats week in and week out, and constantly main eventing PPV after PPV, but the fact is he was a nobody. Nobody wanted to see Barrett as champion, and he wasn't taken seriously as a main event talent, because he WASN'T even remotely close to being a main event talent. Needing an army of guys to back him up and STILL losing made Barrett a joke. The Nexus prevented Barrett of having any chance of becoming a top star. Moving him to SmackDown salvaged his career and he's done well in everything he's done besides Nexus. He has the potential to be a main event star in the future, but in 2010/2011 it would have ruined the entire WrestleMania season.

 

[The Brain]

Barrett as champion in 2010/2011 would have been a disastrous mistake. After the Nexus debuted, Barrett was shoved down fans' throats week in and week out, and constantly main eventing PPV after PPV, but the fact is he was a nobody. Nobody wanted to see Barrett as champion, and he wasn't taken seriously as a main event talent, because he WASN'T even remotely close to being a main event talent. Needing an army of guys to back him up and STILL losing made Barrett a joke. The Nexus prevented Barrett of having any chance of becoming a top star. Moving him to SmackDown salvaged his career and he's done well in everything he's done besides Nexus. He has the potential to be a main event star in the future, but in 2010/2011 it would have ruined the entire WrestleMania season.

And despite all of that he was still a better choice than Miz. Miz in the main event ruined WM27 anyway. At least Barrett had plenty of momentum with the Nexus angle. You say he looked weak because he lost despite having an army of guys to back him up. Obviously he would have been booked much stronger if he were going to the mania main event. Barrett was done when Cena beat him at TLC but if Barrett won the title at Survivor Series he would have fit into the mania main event better than Miz did.

 

[Aquaman6686]

And despite all of that he was still a better choice than Miz. Miz in the main event ruined WM27 anyway. At least Barrett had plenty of momentum with the Nexus angle. You say he looked weak because he lost despite having an army of guys to back him up. Obviously he would have been booked much stronger if he were going to the mania main event. Barrett was done when Cena beat him at TLC but if Barrett won the title at Survivor Series he would have fit into the mania main event better than Miz did.

I disagree, Miz had been in WWE for almost 6 years at that point, had improved all aspects of his work dramatically, and earned that spot. Barrett was a nobody who had been in the company for five minutes. The Rock ruined the main event of WrestleMania 27, not The Miz. If The Miz had retained the title clean, I would have enjoyed the event much more thoroughly.

 

[The Brain]

I disagree, Miz had been in WWE for almost 6 years at that point, had improved all aspects of his work dramatically, and earned that spot. Barrett was a nobody who had been in the company for five minutes. The Rock ruined the main event of WrestleMania 27, not The Miz. If The Miz had retained the title clean, I would have enjoyed the event much more thoroughly.

Wade Barrett made a bigger impact in his first six months than Miz made in six years. Barrett looked strong from the start and would have been more believable than Miz as champion. It didn't matter that he was so new to the company. Ted Dibiase was in WWF for about six months when WM4 happened. Not only was he in the finals in the world title tournament many people think he should have won. He fit in that spot because he was booked strong from the beginning. I don't want to keep going on about this because the truth is neither one in the main event would have gotten me all that excited for WM27 but all things considered (mostly the Nexus angle that dominated the second half of 2010) I think Barrett was the better option.

And you really think Miz should have defeated Cena clean in the main event of WrestleMania? Really?

 

[Aquaman6686]

And you really think Miz should have defeated Cena clean in the main event of WrestleMania? Really?

Absolutely. One of WWE's biggest problems is that it's so rare to see a heel come out on top at WrestleMania. Two of the best endings to a WrestleMania title match were Randy Orton retaining the WWE Championship against John Cena and Triple H at WrestleMania 24, and Chris Jericho retaining against Edge at WrestleMania 26, because NOBODY expected them to win. More heels need to win main event matches at WrestleMania. The Miz beating John Cena clean at WrestleMania 27 would have been one of the most shocking endings to a WrestleMania and made the even so much better.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Bundy had a long, and fairly important, feud with Hogan leading into WM II, even injuring Hogan and sending him on a stretcher I believe on SNME. I don't have a problem with that one.

WWE gave a huge push to Mizz and it didn't work, they also abandoned it pretty quick and never really invested in his face turn. Still, Bam Bam Bigelow, a talented but career mid carder who was never a top tier guy for any length of time against a football player (LT)....that is the worst to me.

Flair vs Savage was promoted as the Main Event of WM 8 (special double main event with Hogan's retirement match). It's actual placement on the card has no bearing, WWE doesn't arrange match orders strictly in terms of importance. The Match Orders are designed like a singer does his set list for a concert, you try to open with something well known to the audience, segue into some lesser known songs, play some of your biggest hits towards the middle, go back to some lesser known material, then more big hits for the close. In terms of what storylines got the most air time pre WM Flair-Savage was clearly #1 and Hart-Piper was probably #2, just ahead of Hogan-Sid. WWE had to stretch out the matches people wanted to see around the filler or by the end of the show everyone would have been bored. Plus, considering it was Hogan's Retirement and he basically made WM it was hard to argue with him getting the last slot. Supposedly Flair was offered the last slot at WM 24 but turned it down saying it should go to someone who will still be wrestling full time after he's gone. WWE chose Taker-Edge only because it would have a fan fave friendly ending (unlike the Triple Threat Match where HHH & Cena both lost to mega heel Randy Orton).

I cant believe CM Punk, who seemingly had a year long feud with Cena, and year long run as World Champ, never main evented a WM. He is my vote. I love Flair (see my name lol) and if he had stayed in WWE after Vince told him he was moving in a different direction with the title scene I little doubt he would have made it back up (the WWE product was so underwhelming back then at some point he almost certainly would have been main eventing again, it was the same thing in WCW where he returned on a part time basis and by the end of the year was main eventing Starrcade) but he didn't and you cant re-write history. For his longevity and legacy and popularity yes, he should have gotten one, but when you factor in his actual time of tenures in the company it's tough. Punk on the other hand was pretty much #2 for 2-3 years straight behind Cena and had one of the longest runs anyone has had since end of the 80s, he was in "the right place at the right time" and never got one. That's a surprise.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Absolutely. One of WWE's biggest problems is that it's so rare to see a heel come out on top at WrestleMania. Two of the best endings to a WrestleMania title match were Randy Orton retaining the WWE Championship against John Cena and Triple H at WrestleMania 24, and Chris Jericho retaining against Edge at WrestleMania 26, because NOBODY expected them to win. More heels need to win main event matches at WrestleMania. The Miz beating John Cena clean at WrestleMania 27 would have been one of the most shocking endings to a WrestleMania and made the even so much better.

Nobody watches WM to see the bad guys win. You want to end the show on a happy note, send the fans happy. I'd be pretty P#@$$ off If I payed $50 and watched a bunch of heels trump heroes all night. You can take that on TV to help build character and drive storylines but the whole reason you watch the biggest show of the year is so you can see the heroes trump the bad guys in the endings of the biggest storylines.

You don't go to see Batman lose to The Joker do you ??

James Bond ended one movie with the villain getting away and killing his girl, it was one of the weakest box office performers in the series history. Fans expect to go home happy, bottom line.

 

[ExplicitMoxViolence]

I probably couldn't say who the least deserving was, but The Miz isn't it. The guy deserved it. He may not be the best wrestler to ever grace the ring, but he worked like a bitch to get there. His promos were spot on & towards the build up, everything worked. Granted he ended up being a pawn for Rock & Cena, but he still deserved to be there.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Someone like Bundy is a difficult one, there were FAR better guys around or just appearing on the scene but none of them were "ready to go" at Mania 2 with the short build time they had. Bam Bam was only just debuting in the business, Bubba Rogers and Yoko were yet to debut or were too green and Orndorff hadn't caught on as hoped.

After the "tag spectacle of WM1" they needed a solid singles main event, which Hogan was never going to lose in a million years. Partially to build to the Andre match (which I am sure had always been the plan if they got to a 3rd) as that would have needed a MASSIVE leap in logic to have happened at 2... It was also to get Hogan over as the "immortal" they were trying to market him as. Looking at the roster of that time, the only guy on it who fit the bill, who could have legit "injured" Hogan WAS Bundy. In hindsight, Bundy is one of the "worst" Main eventers but that's not to say he was the worst option at the time... inevitably however, he was going to stack up less well once 10 main events, much less 30 had been and gone regardless.

As for "not watching the to see the Villains win"... that's wrong... Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight... the best "hero" stories have dark interludes and "cliffhanger" events. While WWE was booking the cliffhangers to lead to Mania rather than end there, it's entirely valid to have Mania end on a shocker. WWE just didn't in those days cos they were employing the Keep It Simple Stupid principle... They had Hogan, so he went over... once they had heels powerful enough, they started to go over occasionally at Mania. It's not the norm, but it's also not rare now.

 

[Vintage]

Least deserving is Undertaker.

What does he do all year to main event the biggest show of the year? Absolutely nothing. This has nothing to do with tenure or status. Just about every year he closes the show and takes a much needed spot away from someone who busted their butt on the road all year long racking up injuries and not seeing their families for weeks at a time. You shouldn't be given main event after main event when you don't put in the time over the WM calendar year. He can't be the match before last because that'll kill the ME.. but why can't he go on at the halfway point

 

[The Brain]

Least deserving is Undertaker.

What does he do all year to main event the biggest show of the year? Absolutely nothing. This has nothing to do with tenure or status. Just about every year he closes the show and takes a much needed spot away from someone who busted their butt on the road all year long racking up injuries and not seeing their families for weeks at a time. You shouldn't be given main event after main event when you don't put in the time over the WM calendar year. He can't be the match before last because that'll kill the ME.. but why can't he go on at the halfway point

So you just like to make stuff up I see. Out of 22 mania appearances Taker closed the show three times. One of those three was way back in 1997 and the last one was in 2010 when he was still full time. Nice try.

 

[Vintage]

What am I making up exactly? His matches are billed as main event attractions. The show is over after Taker wrestles whether he goes on dead last or second to last. You know it, I know it and the fans in the Arena certainly will remind you. The match after his has absolutely no value with the exception of the happy ending rule, or Cena is booked.

 

[The Brain]

What am I making up exactly? His matches are billed as main event attractions. The show is over after Taker wrestles whether he goes on dead last or second to last. You know it, I know it and the fans in the Arena certainly will remind you. The match after his has absolutely no value with the exception of the happy ending rule, or Cena is booked.

Just about every year he closes the show

This is what you're making up. You say the show is over after Taker's match with the exception of the happy ending or Cena. In other words, the main event, meaning Taker is not in that spot. Do you think Undertaker EVER deserved to headline mania? If so then he should not be your answer. I don't think he should have closed WM26 for example but I was ok with him closing WM13 and thought maybe he should have closed WM23 (that one's a coin toss). But hey if you think Miz deserved to headline mania more than Taker ever did so be it.

 

[Aquaman6686]

Least deserving is Undertaker.

What does he do all year to main event the biggest show of the year? Absolutely nothing. This has nothing to do with tenure or status. Just about every year he closes the show and takes a much needed spot away from someone who busted their butt on the road all year long racking up injuries and not seeing their families for weeks at a time. You shouldn't be given main event after main event when you don't put in the time over the WM calendar year. He can't be the match before last because that'll kill the ME.. but why can't he go on at the halfway point

Pretty much everything you just said is false. Undertaker is one of the biggest legends in the business. When you have that kind of career, you can main event WrestleMania every year even if you do nothing else. Undertaker, Rock, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, those guys are automatically main event at any show. And somehow you don't have a problem with Brock Lesnar main eventing, who is treated the same way but never EARNED it?

And half of Undertaker's WrestleMania main events have been at the halfway point, or even before. He's been in a main event match at WrestleMania every year since WM20, and here's where he was on the card:

WM20: late in the card (3rd of 4 main events)
WM21: 3rd match (1st of 4 main events)
WM22: midcard (1st of 4 main events)
WM23: midcard (despite being the Royal Rumble winner; 1st of 3 main events)
WM24: final match
WM25: midcard (1st of 3 main events)
WM26: final match
WM27: midcard (2nd of 3 main events)
WM28: midcard (2nd of 4 main events)
WM29: upper midcard (2nd of 4 main events)
WM30: upper midcard (3rd of 4 main events)

Your entire argument is invalid.