What Kind Of Show Would You Prefer?

[Hard Hit Prince]

I get the definition of "fine" as in "it was what it had to be". People saying that two old man should have delivered better are insane. Nobody was expecting a good match nor a classic in a working standpoint, people were just expecting Bret beating Vince and that happened. It's nothing that I want to re-watch, but I could think of worse things to re-watch for sure.

As for the question, I'm going with " it depends". The "one classic" in a bad show does have it's place, because that will make the said match that much bigger, ence the guys involved too. It sometimes happen on the weekly shows and people talk about who did a good job, ence making them more popular I guess (Last example is probably Antonio Cesaro). As a fan, I would be okay with a top to bottom solid show, with nothing that good, but I would also be okay with one major match, involving two major stars going at it and delivering a five star performance, while the rest of the group were just bad to mediocre. It depends on the storyline and the goal for the storyline, etc...

 

[Dirk]

I wonder if 2014-Bret would give his own match a 4/10...

I'm going to look up some Hitman interviews now. I guess love IS blind. And deaf. And a self-mark.

 

[The Butcher]

I get the definition of "fine" as in "it was what it had to be". People saying that two old man should have delivered better are insane. Nobody was expecting a good match nor a classic in a working standpoint, people were just expecting Bret beating Vince and that happened. It's nothing that I want to re-watch, but I could think of worse things to re-watch for sure.

"Fine." It's the way a teenager who stayed at her grandparents for the weekend and was bored to tears describes her time when asked how it was by her parents.

I like how this blasé, borderline dismissive term is being used as an apology for this match. You and others are acting like Jake and I are saying that this match (which I've provided plenty of real-time and immediate reaction reviews of and not some cloudy memory, "fine" bullshit) should've been Flair/Steamboat. The purpose of the match was for Bret to get revenge. I get that and said as much. But the devil's in the details my lovelies.

Two old men can have psychology in a match even if they can't put on a technical classic. Hart/McMahon had a shoehorned plot twist out of the gate, then progressively got worse thanks to terrible pacing ("plodding"), a ridiculous beatdown on Vince ("This match made me feel bad"), and nothing interesting happening ("dull"). It put 72,000 people in a coma until the bell rung.

It's not always what you do; it's how you do it. The match accomplished the goal of Bret beating Vince, but the getting there took too long. The match took away from the finish. Like I said, though, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but to just give a 'meh' response to the match and then call others who are willing to give a definitive opinion on it "insane" is the height of douchebaggery. If there's a man among you who can say it was "good" and provide reasons why, he'll have earned my respect.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

That match wasn't fine, didn't NEED to happen and could've been condensed to a moment on PPV or even at the end of a RAW. It's only solace was that Cole and Lawler had an even worse match a year later.

 

[The Dragon Saga]

If you bring Bret Hart back to the WWE after 13 years and with the way he went out and DON'T have him face and beat McMahon then you're an idiot. Whether the match was shit, fantastic, a spot fest, indieriffic, Russo booked, Bill Watts booked, Paul Heyman booked, sleep inducing, orgasm inducing, decent, alright, bland, dull or otherwise is 100%, totally, irrelevant.

 

[The Butcher]

If you bring Bret Hart back to the WWE after 13 years and with the way he went out and DON'T have him face and beat McMahon then you're an idiot.

True.

Whether the match was shit, fantastic, a spot fest, indieriffic, Russo booked, Bill Watts booked, Paul Heyman booked, sleep inducing, orgasm inducing, decent, alright, bland, dull or otherwise is 100%, totally, irrelevant.

False. While for storyline purposes the point of the match was to have Bret get retribution for the Screwjob, the true point of the match and every match for that matter is to entertain the fans. Hundreds of thousands of people paid their hard earned money to be entertained. That alone makes the quality of the match of the utmost relevance.

That should bring us full circle, shouldn't it? The thread's intended topic asks whether we would want a one match show or a solid card. The replies to that question speak for themselves. Nobody is going out of their way to see schlock. Nobody is paying for "fine."

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

If you bring Bret Hart back to the WWE after 13 years and with the way he went out and DON'T have him face and beat McMahon then you're an idiot. Whether the match was shit, fantastic, a spot fest, indieriffic, Russo booked, Bill Watts booked, Paul Heyman booked, sleep inducing, orgasm inducing, decent, alright, bland, dull or otherwise is 100%, totally, irrelevant.

Just completely wrong. There's no president on what you do with a guy returning after a screwjob after 13 years. It's a unique situation. However, if it were now to happen again, WWE wouldn't do what they opted for then because they know better. You're an idiot if you choose to ave a match that you KNOW is going to be shit at the biggest PPV of the year based on some lofty idea of what you 'should do' in that situation.

And to answer the question, I'd have the average card. If you get WM, you want to watch all of it. Not get bored and turn off before on of the best matches of all time.

 

[The Dragon Saga]

When you buy a ticket to a WWE event, while entertainment is in the name you are not going to experience solely entertainment, you are going to feel a wide range of emotions at a WWE show. Sometimes boredom, depending on who is performing, other times shock like when Brock broke the Streak, other times you'll be overwhelmed with emotion like when Flair or HBK retired or when they did the tribute videos for Savage or Warrior. Hart/McMahon was serving a bigger purpose than giving people entertainment. It was giving a live close to a real life feud that spanned 13 years. Again, match quality is irrelevant. And while people can say, "two old men should have been able to have a psychologically good match", fuck that, psychology isn't everything.

 

[The Butcher]

lol @ people paying to be bored. I had to go to Eternia to do it, but I found a man qualified to pull your head out of your ass:

 

[Viola Moonlight]

I prefer a solid show but if I knew 110% that there was a match amongst a terribly abysmal card that would generate 6 stars out of 5 and be considered one of the best matches in history, I would sit through all the shit you can throw at me to get there to watch that match.

 

[The Dragon Saga]

lol @ people paying to be bored. I had to go to Eternia to do it, but I found a man qualified to pull your head out of your ass:

My head is very firmly on my shoulders, maybe if you pulled your finger out of your ass you'd be able to stop squinting your eyes and see clearly. Bret/McMahon had to happen, match quality was irrelevant.

 

[The Butcher]

I'm gonna rescue that pathetic rejoinder by posting every wrestling fan's favorite non-pornographic finger-in-ass movie scene, but next time you're on your own.

[youtube]K6lY6IB-Clk&noredirect=1[/youtube]

Now next time be clever.

 

[lil steroid meat]

WM25 woulda been a lot better if Orton had won

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Bret vs. McMahon should've been more of an angle than a match. A bit of preamble leading to a quick punch then Sharpshooter victory from Bret. WWE didn't do that. Bret & McMahon had a ten minute long match in which Bret Hart got his revenge quickly and then continued to beat McMahon even more. The way I see it, after the booking of that match, McMahon deserves his shot at getting revenge on Bret.

Only they shouldn't have a rematch, because the original was an absolute stinker that nearly put people into a coma. I'm accepting of bad matches, I'm not accepting of boring ones. It is comfortably the worst match of both McMahon & Hart. And I bet if you honestly asked Bret if bet he wished his last Mania match was his classic with Austin rather than his boring prolonged beatdown of McMahon.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I'll take the Wrestlemania 26 type any day. An enjoyable show from top to bottom without a 5 star classic is better than a one match show to me.

My thoughts exactly. I'd rather enjoy a 3 hour show top to bottom than only really enjoy 1 match of a show, seems an easy choice to me.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

When you buy a ticket to a WWE event, while entertainment is in the name you are not going to experience solely entertainment, you are going to feel a wide range of emotions at a WWE show. Sometimes boredom, depending on who is performing, other times shock like when Brock broke the Streak, other times you'll be overwhelmed with emotion like when Flair or HBK retired or when they did the tribute videos for Savage or Warrior. Hart/McMahon was serving a bigger purpose than giving people entertainment. It was giving a live close to a real life feud that spanned 13 years. Again, match quality is irrelevant. And while people can say, "two old men should have been able to have a psychologically good match", fuck that, psychology isn't everything.

I'm going to stop you right there. I think that's where you're having your problem. Shock comes under entertainment, overwhelming of emotion comes under entertainment, boredom has no place being knowingly injected into a wrestling shows. There are natural highs and lows on a wrestling card. They should be high quality stuff of a lesser intensity or a lesser emphasis to create contrast to demonstrate the important parts of the card. McMahon and Hart didn't NEED to happen at all, they could have put it all to bed in an emotional re-union on that 4th of January show.

I can't speak for other people, but I wouldn't pay to be bored whilst thinking 'It's OK, it's more important that they have this match than me enjoy myself and get value for my ticket price'. As a fan, what I want is paramount at all times. Fans panned that match and rightly so. Therefore, in hindsight, it shouldn't have happened.

 

[Alastor]

In summary it is OK to have a shit match in the biggest card of the year if it involves a wrestler you favour.

 

[cmedge]

Wrestlemania 26 was a very good Wrestlemania in my opinion, it's very underrated. I think that WM24, 26, 28 and 30 have all been good Wrestlemania's and 25, 27 and 29 have been pretty bad. I enjoyed the Undertaker/HBK match but Wrestlemania 26 was a much better overall card than 25's despite one or a few good matches, the Jeff vs Matt match was very good too imo and the MITB match was fine. Wrestlemania 25 had a lot of potential to do be great but it flat out disappointed. I was very disappointed with HHH winning and I'm a huge HHH mark too and the match should have been a no DQ match or something like that. But yeah, WM 26 > 25.

 

[Judah's Lion]

guess i'll go against the grain on this one and say that i'd rather wade thru 3 hours of dog crap to get one classic than force myself to watch 3 hours of solid.

sometimes i feel that the WWE puts together video compilations of "solid", which is just mind-boggling to me. if you have the ability to put together a 3 hour dvd that features the best of a career or match type or arena, etc, how can you put together anything less than amazing?

Mania 13 was pretty rough. but what about that Austin/Hart? such an iconic and historic moment and incredible match.
Mania 8 was sadly lacking in execution what it had in potential. but Flair/Savage and Hart/Piper were both terrific bouts with stories to match.
SummerSlam 2001 was mostly forgettable with the exception of Austin/Angle in one of the most under-rated matches of all time.

in a perfect world, there would be cards that were mostly 4 and 5 star classics, especially when the stories and talents are available. that seems to happen almost never (in the WWE) these days.

but if i had to choose, i'd choose the 5 star classic. i'd go home talking about that one match and keep talking about it for weeks afterwards, as opposed to the alternative to finding myself vaguely satisfied yet unmistakably disappointed.