Why Wrestlemania SUCKS!!!

[James Greiga]

Every wrestling fan knows that the biggest PPV every year is Wrestlemania.

"It's the World Series of professional wrestling." -Stone Cold
"The Showcase of the Immortals." - HHH
"What every wrestler strives to be a part of." CM Punk

Let's think about that for a minute. When you take a retrospective look, people say that these past few Wrestlemanias have been terrible but think about it. Can you name many Wrestlemanias that were good? When I say good I mean that more than half the card was great.

Wrestlemania 1 was terrible
Wrestlemania 2 was almost as bad but widely regarded as a flop in the sense that it sounded good on paper but not in reality
Wrestlemania 3 lets be honest the only things that were memorable were the I.C. title match and the main event but even that. The actual match itself was pretty bad but the crowd and the hoopla around it made it redeemable
Wrestlemania 4 was pretty good and probably the most exciting Wrestlemania ever
Wrestlemania 5 was terrible. The only good thing was the main event and that was mainly because of Hogan/Savage's great storyline
Wrestlemania 6 was awful. Again the only memorable thing was the main event and that was pretty bad when you think about two stiff one-dimensional guys in the same ring
Wrestlemania 7 with the exception of a Warrior/Savage match, the card was bad and forgettable.
Wrestlemania 8 only good matches were the Bret Hart/Piper match and the Savage/Flair match. Again forgettable card
Wrestlemania 9 with the exception of the tag title and I.C. title matches, it has gone down as one of the worst in history
Wrestlemania 10 was one of the best. Razon/HBK, Bret/Owen, and a few other good matches made it great but thats still only 2 good WM's out of 10
Wrestlemania 11 had a few good solid matches but overall it was mediocre and didn't feel like a Wrestlemania at all
Wrestlemania 12 was great. The infamous HBK/Bret match and a solid Austin/Savio Vega match. Plus we had Goldust vs. Piper in a really interesting parking lot brawl and Undertaker vs. Diesel which wasn't that great technically but it was entertaining
Wrestlemania 13 was pretty bad with the exceptions of Austin/Bret and a good but not great Goldust/HHH match which had a really intense finish that I recommend everyone should see. Overall not a very memorable PPV
Wrestlemania 14 was mediocre. It really defined what the Attitude era was all about but as a card it was poor
Wrestlemania 15 awful. The only good matches were Austin/Rock and Shane/X-Pac. The undertaker finish was very intense and memorable but the show itself was pretty bad and dare I say confusing for people who actually lived during that time
Wrestlemania 2000 was terrible with the exception of Y2J vs Kurt Angle vs. Benoit. Too much clutter considering there was only one singles match and it was Kat vs. Terri. They could have redeemed it by leaving it Rock vs. HHH as the main event and that be it but they f*&cked it up. The finish was stupid too especially just to have Rock get the title at the next PPV
Wrestlemania 17 without question one of the greatest
Wrestlemania 18 had Y2J/HHH and Taker/Flair putting on a good show but honestly no one cared about anything but Rock vs. Hogan. But 3 out of 11 matches doesnt cut it
Wrestlemania 19 definitely one of the greatest ever
Wrestlemania 20 had 2 good main events and a good Christian/Y2J match but it sucked as a PPV. Especially considering it's mainly remembered for Goldberg/Lesnar....
Wrestlemania 21 was pretty good. HBK/Angle, Taker/Orton, and Money in the Bank were great but everything else kind of dragged on
Wrestlemania 22 was 80% good and had really memorable matches especially Foley/Edge
Wrestlemania 23 only about half the card was good, everything else was trash
Wrestlemania 24 was when they started relying on HBK, Undertaker, and Money in the Bank to deliver as again their matches were the only good ones
Wrestlemania 25 only good matches were Matt Hardy/Jeff Hardy, Money in the Bank, and HBK/Taker. That's it, the main event was one of the worst ever for any PPV
Wrestlemania 26 only good match was HBK/Taker, pretty disappointing MITB match
Wrestlemania 27 only good matches were HHH/Taker and Punk/Orton and even they were just above mediocre. Miz was the main event, nuff said
Wrestlemania 28 was better than WM 27 but still bad. Rock/Cena was built up more than it delivered and the Punk/Y2J and HHH/Taker matches were pretty good
Wrestlemania 29 only good match was Taker/Cm Punk

And now we get to Wrestlemania 30 with a card that seems to be between just good and mediocre. So that's 29 Wrestlemanias and only about 6 were any good, arguably 7 or 8 but still thats only about a quarter for apparently the biggest event in wrestling history. So if they have been so bad why is it the biggest event ever? If anything Summerslam has always been the best PPV of the year. Historically it's had the best matches and although it hasn't been a great show every single year it's usually better than Wrestlemania. I'm not saying wrestlemania has to be good every single year but at least half should be especially if it's going to be billed as such a huge event.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Every wrestling fan knows that the biggest PPV every year is Wrestlemania.

"It's the World Series of professional wrestling." -Stone Cold
"The Showcase of the Immortals." - HHH
"What every wrestler strives to be a part of." CM Punk

Let's think about that for a minute. When you take a retrospective look, people say that these past few Wrestlemanias have been terrible but think about it. Can you name many Wrestlemanias that were good? When I say good I mean that more than half the card was great.

Wrestlemania 1 was terrible
Wrestlemania 2 was almost as bad but widely regarded as a flop in the sense that it sounded good on paper but not in reality
Wrestlemania 3 lets be honest the only things that were memorable were the I.C. title match and the main event but even that. The actual match itself was pretty bad but the crowd and the hoopla around it made it redeemable
Wrestlemania 4 was pretty good and probably the most exciting Wrestlemania ever
Wrestlemania 5 was terrible. The only good thing was the main event and that was mainly because of Hogan/Savage's great storyline
Wrestlemania 6 was awful. Again the only memorable thing was the main event and that was pretty bad when you think about two stiff one-dimensional guys in the same ring
Wrestlemania 7 with the exception of a Warrior/Savage match, the card was bad and forgettable.
Wrestlemania 8 only good matches were the Bret Hart/Piper match and the Savage/Flair match. Again forgettable card
Wrestlemania 9 with the exception of the tag title and I.C. title matches, it has gone down as one of the worst in history
Wrestlemania 10 was one of the best. Razon/HBK, Bret/Owen, and a few other good matches made it great but thats still only 2 good WM's out of 10
Wrestlemania 11 had a few good solid matches but overall it was mediocre and didn't feel like a Wrestlemania at all
Wrestlemania 12 was great. The infamous HBK/Bret match and a solid Austin/Savio Vega match. Plus we had Goldust vs. Piper in a really interesting parking lot brawl and Undertaker vs. Diesel which wasn't that great technically but it was entertaining
Wrestlemania 13 was pretty bad with the exceptions of Austin/Bret and a good but not great Goldust/HHH match which had a really intense finish that I recommend everyone should see. Overall not a very memorable PPV
Wrestlemania 14 was mediocre. It really defined what the Attitude era was all about but as a card it was poor
Wrestlemania 15 awful. The only good matches were Austin/Rock and Shane/X-Pac. The undertaker finish was very intense and memorable but the show itself was pretty bad and dare I say confusing for people who actually lived during that time
Wrestlemania 2000 was terrible with the exception of Y2J vs Kurt Angle vs. Benoit. Too much clutter considering there was only one singles match and it was Kat vs. Terri. They could have redeemed it by leaving it Rock vs. HHH as the main event and that be it but they f*&cked it up. The finish was stupid too especially just to have Rock get the title at the next PPV
Wrestlemania 17 without question one of the greatest
Wrestlemania 18 had Y2J/HHH and Taker/Flair putting on a good show but honestly no one cared about anything but Rock vs. Hogan. But 3 out of 11 matches doesnt cut it
Wrestlemania 19 definitely one of the greatest ever
Wrestlemania 20 had 2 good main events and a good Christian/Y2J match but it sucked as a PPV. Especially considering it's mainly remembered for Goldberg/Lesnar....
Wrestlemania 21 was pretty good. HBK/Angle, Taker/Orton, and Money in the Bank were great but everything else kind of dragged on
Wrestlemania 22 was 80% good and had really memorable matches especially Foley/Edge
Wrestlemania 23 only about half the card was good, everything else was trash
Wrestlemania 24 was when they started relying on HBK, Undertaker, and Money in the Bank to deliver as again their matches were the only good ones
Wrestlemania 25 only good matches were Matt Hardy/Jeff Hardy, Money in the Bank, and HBK/Taker. That's it, the main event was one of the worst ever for any PPV
Wrestlemania 26 only good match was HBK/Taker, pretty disappointing MITB match
Wrestlemania 27 only good matches were HHH/Taker and Punk/Orton and even they were just above mediocre. Miz was the main event, nuff said
Wrestlemania 28 was better than WM 27 but still bad. Rock/Cena was built up more than it delivered and the Punk/Y2J and HHH/Taker matches were pretty good
Wrestlemania 29 only good match was Taker/Cm Punk

And now we get to Wrestlemania 30 with a card that seems to be between just good and mediocre. So that's 29 Wrestlemanias and only about 6 were any good, arguably 7 or 8 but still thats only about a quarter for apparently the biggest event in wrestling history. So if they have been so bad why is it the biggest event ever? If anything Summerslam has always been the best PPV of the year. Historically it's had the best matches and although it hasn't been a great show every single year it's usually better than Wrestlemania. I'm not saying wrestlemania has to be good every single year but at least half should be especially if it's going to be billed as such a huge event.

Let me ask: Do you ever pull out a thesaurus and look up different words for "bad"? Do you ever get tired of hating everything? Just curious.

Anyways, as for a more detailed response, I'd leave that up to someone like kb or anyone with more knowledge than myself. However I will say that unless you've been able to experience every single one of them and their buildup, you can't judge them fully.

Buildup is what makes a match that much greater. Screw the wrestling itself. Just ask SCSA, Hulk Hogan, Ultimate Warrior and Andre the Giant. You call Hogan vs. Andre redeemable? Get the fuck out of here with that.

Now I'm not saying the in ring product can't add to a WrestleMania. Just talk to Savage and Steamboat about that. But to say so many matches weren't good at various WM's simply because the wrestling was "awful" is straight ignorant.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Couldn't agree with the OP more. Most Wrestlemanias have been terrible and I'll be honest and say I haven't really watched them entirely, prior to WM 15 and most look terrible in the card itself(example, WM 14).

Recent wrestlemanias have been ruined on account of several factors:-
Miz as champion.
John Cena being in one of the main-events each year since WM 21.
The fall of the WHC ever since Undertaker vs Edge at WM 24.
Too much reliance on Part-timers such as The Rock, Brock, and HHH.
Overemphasis of the Undertaker's streak every damn year and lack of interesting opponents after Shawn Michaels(HHH challenging the streak twice in a row was not interesting IMO, in fact, it was boring).

This year's WM will be terrible for these reasons:-

Hulk Hogan as the host (Why do you need a host for WM anyway? The Rock being a host was the most disappointing WM in recent memory. Who wants to hear "If you smell what the rock is cooking" in the beginning itself? Why not start with MITB or something?

Daniel Bryan being a part of the show, or rather the CENTRE. Say what you want but Daniel Bryan should be given the Eddie Guerrero or Chris Benoit treatment and not otherwise and he's not even as good as they were nor has their charisma/physique.

The lame Undertaker schtick which has largely ruined what could have been a believable match for Brock to beat him. But since he's the "deadman" with supernatural powers, it's damn predictable how this match is going to end.

No CM Punk, and over-all lack of star-power despite the presence of HHH, Taker, Brock and Batista, it doesn't feel as great as it should. Disaster, ever since DB got that match with the stipulation IMO.

 

[MC_Live]

I'm in the middle of watching each Mania, one by one, and I can kind of agree. Most of the cards are one or two match shows, especially early on. But part of the idea of WrestleMania is that it's always going to be big. Not everything is going to be good. In fact, a lot of it will downright suck. But WrestleMania is going to be big. The first WrestleMania was a platform to say "hey, we're wrestling, and wrestling is cool" and people believed it. WrestleMania I was huge! And after that, you just have to keep raising the bar. Is the Super Bowl always good? No way. Take this past year for example. Half the time, one of the Conference Championship games is better than the Super Bowl. But the Super Bowl is the big one because everyone tunes in. And that's WrestleMania. It's big, it's grand, it's exciting. It's just WrestleMania! There's really no other way to describe it.

 

[closet_fan]

A Wrestlemania being good or not is really of the opinion of the viewer. I actually liked WM2. I liked the genius of having matches take place in 3 cities. I thought the Battle Royal was good. Not great, but different for it's time. The British Bulldogs taking the belts off The Dream Team made it for me since i was a huge BB fan back then.

I know if I didn't have the Network, I wouldn't be getting WM30. It's not shaping up to be all that good compared to others. It just doesn't have that feel of being an anniversary show. I guess the fact that it's a bit predictable kills some of it for me.

Does anyone really see Cena, UT or Bryan losing?

 

[Eddie Menuek]

I'm in the middle of watching each Mania, one by one, and I can kind of agree. Most of the cards are one or two match shows, especially early on. But part of the idea of WrestleMania is that it's always going to be big. Not everything is going to be good. In fact, a lot of it will downright suck. But WrestleMania is going to be big. The first WrestleMania was a platform to say "hey, we're wrestling, and wrestling is cool" and people believed it. WrestleMania I was huge! And after that, you just have to keep raising the bar. Is the Super Bowl always good? No way. Take this past year for example. Half the time, one of the Conference Championship games is better than the Super Bowl. But the Super Bowl is the big one because everyone tunes in. And that's WrestleMania. It's big, it's grand, it's exciting. It's just WrestleMania! There's really no other way to describe it.

Spot on.

As much as the fans of wrestling would love to see a card stacked with great matches every year - and I'd argue that WWE has started to gear more towards that in recent years (WM29 in particular I'd consider underrated/overhated - the only match on that card which I didn't think lived up to the billing was the main event) - but Wrestlemania is about, first and foremost, the spectacle. It's something that was lacking for a few years, but has been recaptured with the return to stadiums and an abundance of special entrances from the top superstars. In terms of the wrestling they might not always stand up to the better PPVs, in terms of match quality, every single year. But I'd find it difficult to watch a live Wrestlemania and not feel immersed by the occasions and the spectacle.

 

[DarksideEric]

Daniel Bryan being a part of the show, or rather the CENTRE. Say what you want but Daniel Bryan should be given the Eddie Guerrero or Chris Benoit treatment and not otherwise and he's not even as good as they were nor has their charisma/physique.

Which treatment is that?

Winning the title from Brock Lesnar?

Defending said title successfully at Wrestlemania vs. Kurt Angle?

Winning the WHC during a triple threat that included HHH and Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania?

Those treatments?

 

[Rocky84]

I have to agree and disagree with a lot here lol. I'll start off by agreeing that WrestleMania rarely ever lives up to it's own hype. As fans we expect the best and that it's done to perfection (well I at least do, and from what I see and hear from people). There are so many times they don't make the obvious matches people want and I don't know if it's due to circumstances beyond our knowledge or what, but I'd imagine they probably do have to deal with a combo of creative differences between talent and management plus injuries.

I disagree with some of the Manias you thought were bad. In my personal opinion, I always look at 3 things when judging a match. The buildup/story, the actual match, and the finish. I'm not one of the fans that needs to see a Bret Hart style technical battle every time because then there wouldn't be a variety of matches and I'd probably get sick of watching the same style over and over.

In regards to 1 match (or 3 tops) cards I have to say that I'm more of a fan of them than I am of a overall solid card like this years but with no amazing match that I'm anticipating. Like Mania 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15. Although 7, and 12 had 2 big matches in Savage vs Warrior and Taker vs Diesel co-main eventing each. Plus Savage & Steamboat @ 3.

I LOVED the Warrior-Hogan match @ Mania 6. The buildup was phenomenal with 2 larger than life characters, both faces, and were about even in terms of fan base, charisma and ability. The in-ring action was very good and one of the best finishes of all time in my opinion. They were two big bodied godly titans fighting in a Greco roman type of battle...it wasn't a Cruiserweight match. It was great for what it was. That one match alone was worth the price of admission.

Mania 7 was huge with Sgt. Slaughter and his whole defection by joining the Sheik and bad mouthing America. Warrior and Macho was a great match as was the ending with Liz...such a classic Mania moment.

18 I didn't appreciate at the time the way I do now. It was basically Rock and Austin vs the NWO and the rest of the card was LARGELY WCW vs WWF. Taker took on the Horsemen basically too(Flair and Arn) and Austin took on The Outsiders. The build up to those fueds were awesome too. I was however disgusted by HHH vs Jericho...the actual match, the buildup and finish. Part of the reason I started to not watch anymore.

Mania 28 was one of the best ever in my opinion. I think it ranks in the top 3-5 of the Mania's with stacked cards. We got Rock vs Cena, HHH vs Taker w/ HBK as ref, Punk vs Jericho, Show vs Cody was a very entertaining build and good match, Kane vs Orton had a solid match with a good finish... The 3 main events were insane though. I was there and eeeeeveryone was freaking out during every close call/false finish. I absolutely disagree with the wasted buildup you felt Rock vs Cena was.

I can't comment too much on 20-26 because I stopped watching through those years, but from what I have seen and what I know now, some like 21, 23, and 25 looked good. I thought the HHH vs Orton storyline in 25 was fantastic...too bad the match wasn't.

It does seem a large part of the IWC are perfectionist when it comes to in ring wrestling, whereas I'm more so the perfectionist on particular fueds/storylines/build ups/hype.

All in all, it's rare we get a stacked card with the best possible matches and dream matches we all crave. I don't know why, but I guess it's for reasons I mentioned at the beginning of this incredibly long post lol and that creative is on the inside looking out and we are on the outside looking in so it's easier for us to see the obvious. I heard Vince Russo say that before.

 

[DarksideEric]

I think he means the "getting the belt once for a short period and after their hype blows over send the back to midcard." Only Eddie is a bit debatable considering he was supposed to take the belt off Batista

And Benoit was supposed to win the ECW Championship which potentially could have pushed him forward towards the main event yet again.

I'll point out though, Bryan did get somewhat of the Eddie/Benoit treatment.

He won the WHC then lost it in 18 seconds and was put into tag teams.

Now he's achieved a higher status than that.

 

[DarksideEric]

One post about Daniel Bryan and one post about wrestlemania constitutes every single post ever? Wow this is news to me....

I'm fairly certain your post count is far more than just two.

And yes, by textbook definition, if you're meaning threads you've made (a single Bryan one and a single Mania one) and both are bashing things...

Then two out of the two threads you've made are every single one ever.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Which treatment is that?

Winning the title from Brock Lesnar?

Defending said title successfully at Wrestlemania vs. Kurt Angle?

Winning the WHC during a triple threat that included HHH and Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania?

Those treatments?

No. The treatment where they battle for the tag titles whereas Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar showcase what WM IS ALL ABOUT.

The treatment where you lose to Rey Mysterio in the opening bout of the night and Kurt Angle steals the show with Shawn Michaels because the two main events SUCK!

The mid-card treatment you see because Vince already got the result of pushing two short but technically sound wrestlers on the TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF WM. Within 3 yrs, they both vanished.

The only reason Eddie Guerrero was given the title at NWO was because Brock decided to quit the WWE and/or his "big feud " with Goldberg that culminated into a disaster of a match. Do you really think Eddie would've won the title had it not been for Brock's departure? I'd rather have loved Brock Lesnar vs Kurt Angle II.

And I still love the first half of 2004 as Chris Benoit year and wouldn't change a thing. Those were very amazing triple threat matches. Unrivalled to this day.

 

[Rich the UK WWE Fan 2k14]

Every wrestling fan knows that the biggest PPV every year is Wrestlemania.

"It's the World Series of professional wrestling." -Stone Cold
"The Showcase of the Immortals." - HHH
"What every wrestler strives to be a part of." CM Punk

Let's think about that for a minute. When you take a retrospective look, people say that these past few Wrestlemanias have been terrible but think about it. Can you name many Wrestlemanias that were good? When I say good I mean that more than half the card was great.

Wrestlemania 1 was terrible
Wrestlemania 2 was almost as bad but widely regarded as a flop in the sense that it sounded good on paper but not in reality
Wrestlemania 3 lets be honest the only things that were memorable were the I.C. title match and the main event but even that. The actual match itself was pretty bad but the crowd and the hoopla around it made it redeemable
Wrestlemania 4 was pretty good and probably the most exciting Wrestlemania ever
Wrestlemania 5 was terrible. The only good thing was the main event and that was mainly because of Hogan/Savage's great storyline
Wrestlemania 6 was awful. Again the only memorable thing was the main event and that was pretty bad when you think about two stiff one-dimensional guys in the same ring
Wrestlemania 7 with the exception of a Warrior/Savage match, the card was bad and forgettable.
Wrestlemania 8 only good matches were the Bret Hart/Piper match and the Savage/Flair match. Again forgettable card
Wrestlemania 9 with the exception of the tag title and I.C. title matches, it has gone down as one of the worst in history
Wrestlemania 10 was one of the best. Razon/HBK, Bret/Owen, and a few other good matches made it great but thats still only 2 good WM's out of 10
Wrestlemania 11 had a few good solid matches but overall it was mediocre and didn't feel like a Wrestlemania at all
Wrestlemania 12 was great. The infamous HBK/Bret match and a solid Austin/Savio Vega match. Plus we had Goldust vs. Piper in a really interesting parking lot brawl and Undertaker vs. Diesel which wasn't that great technically but it was entertaining
Wrestlemania 13 was pretty bad with the exceptions of Austin/Bret and a good but not great Goldust/HHH match which had a really intense finish that I recommend everyone should see. Overall not a very memorable PPV
Wrestlemania 14 was mediocre. It really defined what the Attitude era was all about but as a card it was poor
Wrestlemania 15 awful. The only good matches were Austin/Rock and Shane/X-Pac. The undertaker finish was very intense and memorable but the show itself was pretty bad and dare I say confusing for people who actually lived during that time
Wrestlemania 2000 was terrible with the exception of Y2J vs Kurt Angle vs. Benoit. Too much clutter considering there was only one singles match and it was Kat vs. Terri. They could have redeemed it by leaving it Rock vs. HHH as the main event and that be it but they f*&cked it up. The finish was stupid too especially just to have Rock get the title at the next PPV
Wrestlemania 17 without question one of the greatest
Wrestlemania 18 had Y2J/HHH and Taker/Flair putting on a good show but honestly no one cared about anything but Rock vs. Hogan. But 3 out of 11 matches doesnt cut it
Wrestlemania 19 definitely one of the greatest ever
Wrestlemania 20 had 2 good main events and a good Christian/Y2J match but it sucked as a PPV. Especially considering it's mainly remembered for Goldberg/Lesnar....
Wrestlemania 21 was pretty good. HBK/Angle, Taker/Orton, and Money in the Bank were great but everything else kind of dragged on
Wrestlemania 22 was 80% good and had really memorable matches especially Foley/Edge
Wrestlemania 23 only about half the card was good, everything else was trash
Wrestlemania 24 was when they started relying on HBK, Undertaker, and Money in the Bank to deliver as again their matches were the only good ones
Wrestlemania 25 only good matches were Matt Hardy/Jeff Hardy, Money in the Bank, and HBK/Taker. That's it, the main event was one of the worst ever for any PPV
Wrestlemania 26 only good match was HBK/Taker, pretty disappointing MITB match
Wrestlemania 27 only good matches were HHH/Taker and Punk/Orton and even they were just above mediocre. Miz was the main event, nuff said
Wrestlemania 28 was better than WM 27 but still bad. Rock/Cena was built up more than it delivered and the Punk/Y2J and HHH/Taker matches were pretty good
Wrestlemania 29 only good match was Taker/Cm Punk

And now we get to Wrestlemania 30 with a card that seems to be between just good and mediocre. So that's 29 Wrestlemanias and only about 6 were any good, arguably 7 or 8 but still thats only about a quarter for apparently the biggest event in wrestling history. So if they have been so bad why is it the biggest event ever? If anything Summerslam has always been the best PPV of the year. Historically it's had the best matches and although it hasn't been a great show every single year it's usually better than Wrestlemania. I'm not saying wrestlemania has to be good every single year but at least half should be especially if it's going to be billed as such a huge event.

Are you aware that you are actually made, of FAIL?

So according to you, every Wrestlemania so far was "bad"?!

I have WM 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 20 on DVD, I've watched and enjoyed them loads, WM 14 was very good IMO, especially the Undertaker vs Kane match and the Austin vs HBK main event.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I think he means the "getting the belt once for a short period and after their hype blows over send the back to midcard." Only Eddie is a bit debatable considering he was supposed to take the belt off Batista

Exactly. IMO Eddie Guerrero was an okay champ, just too short and tiny to be a credible champ considering it was BROCK LESNAR who was champion before him. Very small guys like Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio shouldn't be holding WHC/WWE championship IMO though I loved Eddie Guerrero as a wrestler/performer quite a bit. I don't mind Chris Benoit because he had that build, was 5'10 and not 5'8, and his intensity and in-ring dominance has only been matched ever by Bret Hart and Kurt Angle.

Benoit was vastly underrated and shouldn't have been given lacklustre and boring US title feuds with Orlando Jordan and Chavo Guerrero later in his career IMO, but have been defeating Batista for the WHC and a reignited feud for the WHC with Randy Orton in 2005 wouldn't have made SD as boring as it was with Batista as a babyface WHC. But then, had the WWE known WHOM to push and whom NOT to overpush, 2005 wouldn't have had superbly talented performers like Chris Jericho losing and leaving the WWE, Chris Benoit defending the US title, and Kurt Angle losing half a dozen matches to an overrated sucky wrestler named John Cena.

Great thread BTW, and as usual I expect more than half of these IWC bums to criticize it because they can't see a conspicuous point made in a totally clear thread.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Well, here he have again, people who only started following wrestling since the Attitude Era, running down the product yet again.

I have never seen such so-called "fans" trash on something they "claim" to love (I say claim to, as no-one who loves something or someone only ever says bad things about them).

The OP is an example. When it was a good WM, he only says it was good, with no detail. Yet when it is a bad one, he says why he thought it was bad. So he would rather be negative rather than positive.

If WM is so bad, then why do you want Daniel Bryan winning the title at it?

Here's how it will work.

If Daniel Bryan doesn't win the belt at WMXXX, it will be added to many people's collection of bad WMs, even if the rest of the show is awesome.

If Daniel Bryan does win the belt, then it will be a good WM according to many of you, but only because the fans themselves petitioned to get Bryan that shot, get him added to the main-event. Again, no credit will be given to the WWE for it.

The trashing of Vince McMahon's legacy continues!

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Are you aware that you are actually made, of FAIL?

So according to you, every Wrestlemania so far was "bad"?!

I have WM 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 20 on DVD, I've watched and enjoyed them loads, WM 14 was very good IMO, especially the Undertaker vs Kane match and the Austin vs HBK main event.

Look dork. Most Wrestlemanias weren't just "bad" but were terrible. You might want to disagree with that and choose to go and relish the superb main-event that was John Cena vs The Miz, or that amazing triple threat match featuring Edge, John Cena and that big bum the big show or that half-hearted moron The Rock stealing CM Punk's spotlight and wrestling a half-hearted and disgusting rematch with John Cena while CM Punk was given a consolation prize in losing to Uncle Fester in that year's annual streak match which by then didn't have much but The Undertaker's overhyped and intolerable Deadman schtick.

As far as I'm concerned, I agree with James in that the only true Wrestlemania that are worthy of the name WM are Wrestlemanias like 17, 19, 25, 26. The rest were mediocre to bad to terrible. I'd include WM 20 as well because I think it had 2 big and awesome wrestling matches in the WHC match, and the WWE title match.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

I agree with most of your Wrestlemania analysis except Wrestlemania 20. Wrestlemania 17 to Wrestlemania 22 were all pretty good in my opinion (Wrestlemania 19 is my favorite).

Its isn't as good nowadays as WWE hypes it up to be. The last few Wrestlemania have been pretty boring. Since Rock came back, Wrestlemania has become a show of 2-3 matches with the rest being filler. The overhyped predictable streak and the matches involving the part-timers.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Well, here he have again, people who only started following wrestling since the Attitude Era, running down the product yet again.

I have never seen such so-called "fans" trash on something they "claim" to love (I say claim to, as no-one who loves something or someone only ever says bad things about them).

The OP is an example. When it was a good WM, he only says it was good, with no detail. Yet when it is a bad one, he says why he thought it was bad. So he would rather be negative rather than positive.

If WM is so bad, then why do you want Daniel Bryan winning the title at it?

Here's how it will work.

If Daniel Bryan doesn't win the belt at WMXXX, it will be added to many people's collection of bad WMs, even if the rest of the show is awesome.

If Daniel Bryan does win the belt, then it will be a good WM according to many of you, but only because the fans themselves petitioned to get Bryan that shot, get him added to the main-event. Again, no credit will be given to the WWE for it.

The trashing of Vince McMahon's legacy continues!

No. You're the one who's failing and even refusing to see the point. He isn't asking you what YOUR opinion is but stating objective facts which I'm sure are more objective than YOU could endeavour to be. So be subjective and enjoy each and every trashy WM the WWE and Vince Mcmahon throw at you. Revel in disgusting and abominable Wrestlemania main-events such as The Rock vs John Cena II.

You may enjoy main-events like The Miz vs John Cena, or the same lame-ass yearly schtick featuring the Undertaker, or The Rock's disappointing and deplorable return to the WWE that ruined not ONE not TWO but THREE Wrestlemanias. How ironic is it that the show-stealing matches didn't feature The Rock but CM Punk vs Chris Jericho? or CM Punk vs Taker?

And what is there to disagree about WM 27 being a disaster? The Miz in the main-event. Really? Really?

 

[oneofakind318]

So what do you suggest they do to "fix" Wrestlemania since it's so "broken?"

The early Wrestlemanias were built around Hulk Hogan and that's really all they needed. Granted, most of them were littered with filler, but the point was to make the main events stand out and also get as many guys the spotlight as possible. I really don't think it hurt the shows much if at all. And you must not have been watching around Wrestlemania 3 because that was a most satisfying show at the time (and still holds up). Every match had a story. It blew off 6-9 month feuds for Steamboat & Piper. It launched new characters like Beefcake & Duggan. You really have to grasp the context of the time in history to intelligently evaluate some of those shows. Mania 3 was pretty close to a perfect show at that time in wrestling history.

As for the last 10-15 Manias, there's no secret the idea is to build around 2-3 matches that everyone would be interested in and then fill out the card with a variety of matches that appeals to the wider audience. Simple and smart formula that they should never change because it works. And that doesn't mean they're all good. 16 was a snoozer basically up until the main event. 18 had a couple long lulls. 26 was disappointing. But if you're expecting wall-to-wall main events, you're being unrealistic because once they've sold you on the 2-3 big matches, they have you. And they'd also have a worn out crowd halfway through the show. Pacing and giving us an opportunity to catch our breathe is a big part of it too.

 

[Rocky84]

No. You're the one who's failing and even refusing to see the point. He isn't asking you what YOUR opinion is but stating objective facts which I'm sure are more objective than YOU could endeavour to be. So be subjective and enjoy each and every trashy WM the WWE and Vince Mcmahon throw at you. Revel in disgusting and abominable Wrestlemania main-events such as The Rock vs John Cena II.

You may enjoy main-events like The Miz vs John Cena, or the same lame-ass yearly schtick featuring the Undertaker, or The Rock's disappointing and deplorable return to the WWE that ruined not ONE not TWO but THREE Wrestlemanias. How ironic is it that the show-stealing matches didn't feature The Rock but CM Punk vs Chris Jericho? or CM Punk vs Taker?

And what is there to disagree about WM 27 being a disaster? The Miz in the main-event. Really? Really?

This is the point I made about people and their values. You're clearly of the belief that only a good in ring technical match is entertaining. I disagree. I thought the hype and build up of Rock vs Cena for Mania 28 was awesome and the match was very good. There's a reason why it got so many buys. Yes, Jericho vs Punk was awesome, but that doesn't mean Rock vs Cena sucked. Millions of people loved that match. I was there and everyone was going apeshit over that match. So it didn't suck. It just wasn't as entertaining to you as Punk vs Jericho.

I agree with you on Rock vs Cena 2. I HATED it, and would've preferred Punk vs Cena just like I wanted that match for this year. I also think Punk vs Taker was really over rated. Maybe because I knew Punk had no chance of winning but the match wasn't spectacular imo...good but not great.

I also agree that many Mania's don't deliver as much as they should in all facets of the game...hype/build, match, and finish....the first and last being the most important imo.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Objective facts.

Something "sucks."

Objective.

Facts.

...are you not aware of what these words mean?

The OP objectively (and not like some Kid who's going to love John Cena regardless of how boring he might be) states that XYZ wrestlemania sucked. I agree with him. Sucked/Terrible/Disastrous. That're few of the ways to put it. You do not wish to agree with the OP/myself in something that was very bad, like WM 27. That's your subjectivity. That's like a music critic objectively asserting that Nickelback largely suck as a band, however Judas Priest Rock. Now if there are thousands of dumb Nickelback fans who'd rather hear Chad Kroeger sing drab songs about some strip club than Judas Priest, that makes them subjective and unable to see the objectivity of the DISCERNING CRITIC. That is why there are fewer Critics and more fans of any artform, be it music , literature, or pro wrestling. If you disagree with an Objective post and an Objective inference, that's fine because at the end of the day, there's plenty of crap in this world you might find likeable. Leave objectivity and criticism to more discerning folks.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

This is the point I made about people and their values. You're clearly of the belief that only a good in ring technical match is entertaining. I disagree. I thought the hype and build up of Rock vs Cena for Mania 28 was awesome and the match was very good. There's a reason why it got so many buys. Yes, Jericho vs Punk was awesome, but that doesn't mean Rock vs Cena sucked. Millions of people loved that match. I was there and everyone was going apeshit over that match. So it didn't suck. It just wasn't as entertaining to you as Punk vs Jericho.

I agree with you on Rock vs Cena 2. I HATED it, and would've preferred Punk vs Cena just like I wanted that match for this year. I also think Punk vs Taker was really over rated. Maybe because I knew Punk had no chance of winning but the match wasn't spectacular imo...good but not great.

I also agree that many Mania's don't deliver as much as they should in all facets of the game...hype/build, match, and finish....the first and last being the most important imo.

I'm not a holder of either extreme beliefs of WM main-event merely featuring star power and spectacle, or merely featuring great technical wrestling . It should be a mix of the two, IMO. The perfect examples are Kurt Angle vs Brock Lesnar, or Stone Cold vs Bret Hart, or Angle vs Shawn Michaels(though it wasn't for the title). John Cena vs The Rock 1 had star power and spectacle but the match itself was very mediocre and overhyped IMO and I guess I should admit that more people wanted to see that match at WM 28 than CM Punk vs Chris Jericho and I'm not even saying the latter should've been the match to close WM.

But Cena vs Rock II at WM 29 was not necessary at all and if they did have to have a singles rematch, it shouldn't have sucked so much in every possible way, from the buildup to the match, and if it did have to suck so bad in everything then it shouldn't have been for the WWE title because it ruined the WWE championship picture in what was growing to be a really great and historic title reign of CM Punk IMO. If The Rock cared more for his movies and brought nothing new to the table but his old schtick from 1999 and 2003 with those guitar segments, they should've let CM Punk defend the title against maybe somebody more deserving and worthy?

I never liked the whole idea of The Rock hosting Wrestlemania 27 and I remember downloading it a month after the event in 2011, and just glimpsing through it. I somehow endured the opening of the show with the Rock's usual schtick which wasn't even creative, and then that disastrous main-event and ending. Even the rest of the card was largely a disaster if you check it. Some critcs have said Edge vs Del Rio was a solid match, Punk vs Orton was good, and I wasn't much into HHH vs Taker because I intuitively knew nothing is going to equal Taker vs Michaels II, let alone surpass it, both match-wise and story-wise.

 

[DarksideEric]

The OP objectively (and not like some Kid who's going to love John Cena regardless of how boring he might be) states that XYZ wrestlemania sucked. I agree with him. Sucked/Terrible/Disastrous. That're few of the ways to put it. You do not wish to agree with the OP/myself in something that was very bad, like WM 27. That's your subjectivity. That's like a music critic objectively asserting that Nickelback largely suck as a band, however Judas Priest Rock. Now if there are thousands of dumb Nickelback fans who'd rather hear Chad Kroeger sing drab songs about some strip club than Judas Priest, that makes them subjective and unable to see the objectivity of the DISCERNING CRITIC. That is why there are fewer Critics and more fans of any artform, be it music , literature, or pro wrestling. If you disagree with an Objective post and an Objective inference, that's fine because at the end of the day, there's plenty of crap in this world you might find likeable. Leave objectivity and criticism to more discerning folks.

So I was correct.

You don't know what said words meant.

Returning to the topic at hand, there have been many Wrestlemanias I've not been satisfied with, however I'd not use "suck" in such a general term. "Sucked" compared to other Manias? Yeah, Wrestlemania IX arguably sucked compared to Wrestlemania X.

"Sucked" compared to WWE or wrestling pay-per-views in general?

I'm not sure if any Wrestlemania could have hit so low on the quality scale to compete with some WCW, ECW or TNA stuff.

 

[The Perfect Max]

Great bunch of guys you lot are, Jesus H. Christ. I'm not sure if there has been a thread that's bashed WWE anymore. Here's the thing, each WrestleMania can be singled out as a stand-alone event, with each card analysed to Kingdom Come. In which case, they may not be as good. However, no WWE pay-per-view, especially prior to this current degrading era we find ourselves in now, was ever a stand-alone event. You claim WrestleMania I was terrible, yet fail to see that it's purpose was to help wrestling get over in the mainstream. What did it do? It made this company internationally famous. The wrestling wasn't brilliant, but it has a lasting legacy. WrestleMania III was terrible? WrestleMania VI was terrible? Arguably two of the best known events, featuring two Hulk Hogan matches (you know, the company's only real over guy in the mainstream at the time), and a match that, for sixteen years, was the best in the events history. Back then, WrestleMania and wrestling wasn't necessarily about making wrestling bigger and bigger, but it could only use it's viable assets (Hogan) to do so anyway. The Attitude Era sucked? But WrestleMania X-Seven was perfect? Yeah, that match with the APA and Tazz vs. Right to Censor was a classic. Jeez.

I'll admit, some of the past few WrestleMania cards have disappointed, some in more ways than one, however I do think they've delivered as much as they could in the ring. In my opinion, from WrestleMania XIX to WrestleMania 22, they did the events right. Yeah, even WrestleMania XX. It was a bit like a classic Mania with the stacked card.

Since WrestleMania XXV, it's really been hit or miss. As much as I love this company, I'm in no rush to see WrestleMania XXVII again. Is is because of The Miz? No, it's because the event was lackluster. WrestleMania XXVI had some good moments, some actually underrated moments, and WrestleMania XXVIII delivered. Was it anticlimactic? 80,000 people in Miami certainly didn't think so. Other than the main event, WrestleMania 29 wasn't awful. The Shield's match was good, CM Punk vs. The Undertaker was match of the night, and even Brock Lesnar vs. Triple H was good.

This is all very subjective, and some comparisons are beyond ridiculous. You cannot compare WrestleMania 2 with WrestleMania XXVII, just like you cannot compare Fast and Furious with The Tooth Fairy. They may be similar in ways, but we're very different in direction and aspirations. I'll admit, some arguments may be true, but some guys sound like they're here just to bitch. If you are, and you've hated wrestling for 30 years, just leave. Nothing will ever change, will it?

 

[Messiah]

Just because you say these WrestleMania's were bad, doesn't mean they were. If you don't enjoy these major shows, why do you watch the product? You're just wasting your time.. Maybe you have nothing better to do with your life.

 

[James Greiga]

Great bunch of guys you lot are, Jesus H. Christ. I'm not sure if there has been a thread that's bashed WWE anymore. Here's the thing, each WrestleMania can be singled out as a stand-alone event, with each card analysed to Kingdom Come. In which case, they may not be as good. However, no WWE pay-per-view, especially prior to this current degrading era we find ourselves in now, was ever a stand-alone event. You claim WrestleMania I was terrible, yet fail to see that it's purpose was to help wrestling get over in the mainstream. What did it do? It made this company internationally famous. The wrestling wasn't brilliant, but it has a lasting legacy. WrestleMania III was terrible? WrestleMania VI was terrible? Arguably two of the best known events, featuring two Hulk Hogan matches (you know, the company's only real over guy in the mainstream at the time), and a match that, for sixteen years, was the best in the events history. Back then, WrestleMania and wrestling wasn't necessarily about making wrestling bigger and bigger, but it could only use it's viable assets (Hogan) to do so anyway. The Attitude Era sucked? But WrestleMania X-Seven was perfect? Yeah, that match with the APA and Tazz vs. Right to Censor was a classic. Jeez.

I'll admit, some of the past few WrestleMania cards have disappointed, some in more ways than one, however I do think they've delivered as much as they could in the ring. In my opinion, from WrestleMania XIX to WrestleMania 22, they did the events right. Yeah, even WrestleMania XX. It was a bit like a classic Mania with the stacked card.

Since WrestleMania XXV, it's really been hit or miss. As much as I love this company, I'm in no rush to see WrestleMania XXVII again. Is is because of The Miz? No, it's because the event was lackluster. WrestleMania XXVI had some good moments, some actually underrated moments, and WrestleMania XXVIII delivered. Was it anticlimactic? 80,000 people in Miami certainly didn't think so. Other than the main event, WrestleMania 29 wasn't awful. The Shield's match was good, CM Punk vs. The Undertaker was match of the night, and even Brock Lesnar vs. Triple H was good.

This is all very subjective, and some comparisons are beyond ridiculous. You cannot compare WrestleMania 2 with WrestleMania XXVII, just like you cannot compare Fast and Furious with The Tooth Fairy. They may be similar in ways, but we're very different in direction and aspirations. I'll admit, some arguments may be true, but some guys sound like they're here just to bitch. If you are, and you've hated wrestling for 30 years, just leave. Nothing will ever change, will it?

You're saying WM 3 and 5 were good based off of the two matches that I said made those Wrestlemanias memorable? In the original post I said that Wrestlemanias rarely have cards with more than half of the matches being good. One Hogan match does not equate to an entirely good show. I also don't ever remember saying the Attitude era sucked. I never said Wrestlemania 17 was perfect either. I said it was one of the greatest. Again my definition of great was to have more than half the card be good matches. I also never compared Wrestlemanias. I was talking about the idea of Wrestlemania in general. I never specifically compared one wrestlemania to another unless they were maybe a year apart because they were different times. I understand what you are saying but a lot of your arguments are ones that I don't remember any one bringing up.