I don't get why a lot of you are saying 'so and so should have lost, so they could win at Backlash instead.'
Winning at the Grandest Stage of them all, the Showcase of the Immortals, the pinnacle of Sports Entertainment...........
..... or winning at the 1st PPV of the (WWE) year, the PPV that was often referred to as 'The WM repeat' PPV because so many of the matches were simple repeats of the WM before.
So i definitely don't agree that Benoit should have won in Edmonton instead of Mania 20, hometown win or not. Winning at the 20th anniversary of WM, at MSG, at the biggest PPV of the year, would still outweigh the hometown win imo.
Other choices made by others:
TLC II? Well, i guess that E+C won them all because no one saw any real future in the Hardys or the Dudleys as singles wrestlers, whereas both Edge and Christian had very succesful singles runs before either of the other two teams even split up.
Note that the Dudleys and Hardys didn't just lose to Edge and Christian every time, but any other team that was ever thrown in a TLC match as well i.e. Benoit/Jericho, and later Kane on his own (ok, technically only Bubba Ray and Jeff were in that particular match and not The Dudleys or The Hardyz, but personally, i still count it).
Now someone will argue 'blah blah blah, Jeff rules, blah blah blah, Matt will get a title run eventually, blah blah blah' but if you do, you're point is irrelevant. What Matt and Jeff have become in the 9 years since that match, is NOT a reflection of what the creative team thought of them in 2001 as future commodities.
So that's why i think E+C were the true TLC Kings, because they had brighter futures as either a tag team or singles stars, than either Hardy or Dudley at that point in time.
Booker v HHH? Yeah Booker should have won. He evn beat HHH the week before WM, proving that he could do it. But WM comes around, Flair interferes, Booker puts on one of his best WM performances, if not THE best, and still loses.
I guess Brock winning was pretty much guaranteed, so that's why they decided to give HHH the choice of whether or not to drop the belt.
Creative: "Well one World title is changing hands anyway, so we don't really need you to drop the belt Paul, but Booker could probably draw some decent numbers with it....."
HHH: "I disagree."
Creative: "BOOKER!!!! You're getting pinned tonight! (sound of Booker saying, 'Awwwwwwwww' in the background)...... Cool, well see you at the after party champ."
Kane v HHH? No way. Kane won that match btw so i don't see why the outcome needs changing. They were playing us to make us think that Chyna had rejoined DX, when in reality, HHH had joined the Corperation, and Kane left! Plus the Corporate Ministry started soon after that, so they were weeding out the talent they didn't want in that group, which included Kane.
That swerve was one of the key moments of WM15, and i don't honestly see why a HHH/Kane fued would have been so desirable. That particular match wasn't exactly awesome.
Benoit/Angle? Personally, i think it just made it look like they were THAT evenly matched that Kurt had to cheat. Anyway, Benoit won the 30 minute submission match the next month, so you couldn't really have Angle lose 2 PPVs in a row could you? He was one of the best heels at the time, and he'd accomplished MORE than Benoit. Angle losing twice would have put Benoit in a position they obviously felt he wasn't yet ready for, and personally i felt gratified knowing Benoit had proven himself by beating Angle with pure wrestling, whereas Angle had to cheat.
Kane/Taker I? No way should Kane have won. If he'd won they may as well have kicked Taker to the curb straight afterward. Taker had been beaten on for months on end, to the point where he disappeared entirely for a while. Meanwhile Kane had also beaten the crap out of most of the roster, including monsters like Vader.
So after being shit on for months, you'd have preferred it if Taker had made his return and gotten beaten again?
Taker shouldn't have won the Inferno match imo, but no way should he have lost at WM.
Now, for the match outcome that i'd have changed. MiTB at WM 26.
Bare with me, this will be complicated, because the outcome of WM before is what should have changed the outcome of this match.
I understand that they wanted to give Punk another chance with the World title after the terrible booking they did for his previous one, but could they seriously not hear the screams of fans urging Christian to unhook the briefcase during MiTB at WM25? Or the boos as Punk actually did it? Or the chants at the very beginning of the match for Christian?
So why the fuck did Jack Swagger win the match the following year?
WM25 - loads of fans scream their lungs out in anticipation of Christian winning MiTB. Instead, CM Punk gets another instant title reign. Fair play, his second reign and everything since has been awesome, but at the time, that really didn't seem like it was a good decision.
WM26 - Jack Swagger, who's lost to Santino 3 weeks in a row before hand, becomes MiTB winner, and cashes in for what a lot of people consider to be, a worse title reing than Punk's first one, even though, Christian had spent most of 2009 as the face of ECW, putting on quality PPV matches every time he was on the card.
Swagger however, didn't. Ok, so he had some crappy opponents when he was champ. Christian, probably would have still done better.
Ok, yeah, my final point sounds like fanboy whining, and that's essentially what it is, but i really, really think that Christian should have won at least one fo the 3 MiTB ladder matches he's been in since his return, and the live audience response in each of those matches only solidifies my viewpoint. Hell, they even cheered Christian over M. Hardy as they reached for the case. So if he's getting cheered over everyone's favourite chairty case, why isn't Vince doing anything with him????????
