Why Wrestlemania SUCKS!!!

[d_henderson1810]

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?

Funny how you ask me to be objective, but then both you and the OP have stated your opinion. You are being subjective like me, not objective.

The OP stated which Wrestlemanias he liked, and I gave an opinion as to why he said that.

Being objective would be to give buy-rates of each WM to see how many actually paid money to see it, whether by ticket or PPV order. Otherwise, if you base it on what you consider being a good or bad card, that is you being SUBJECTIVE, and giving your opinion, not fact.

Provide evidence of which Wrestlemanias are good or not. If you can't, then it is only your opinion. And your opinion is no more important than mine!

 

[d_henderson1810]

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 actually thought that they should have done Rock (c) v Cena v Punk in a Triple-Threat Match at WMIXXX.

I would have had it that the Rock beat Punk at Elimination Chamber, giving both reason to be in the match (Rock as champ, Punk exercises rematch clause, and RR winner, Cena). So all three would have a logical reason to be in the match, and all three have little love for the other two in the ring, which would have added to the heat.

Also, the promos would have been better with Punk added, he would have got his WM main event, so would have stayed (unless he found something else to bitch about).

Taker could have had another opponent, and Punk would have been slotted into the main event. It also would have kept the "Once-In-A-Lifetime" thing intact, as there would have only been 1 one-on-one match between Cena v Rock.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Funny how you ask me to be objective, but then both you and the OP have stated your opinion. You are being subjective like me, not objective.

The OP stated which Wrestlemanias he liked, and I gave an opinion as to why he said that.

Being objective would be to give buy-rates of each WM to see how many actually paid money to see it, whether by ticket or PPV order. Otherwise, if you base it on what you consider being a good or bad card, that is you being SUBJECTIVE, and giving your opinion, not fact.

Provide evidence of which Wrestlemanias are good or not. If you can't, then it is only your opinion. And your opinion is no more important than mine!

If buyrates determined everything and meant "objectivity", then Justin Bieber , Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Nickelback and whichever other abominable and disgraceful pseudo-musician you can add to that list are probably so brilliant right, because people have bought their crap much more over countless genuine musicians and instrumental virtuosos that might not have that many people buying their CDs?

Let me cite another similar example. A guitarist that can play blues, jazz, heavy metal and instrumental virtuoso guitar exists but for whatever reasons he's either unable to sell his music or make a career out of it, or isn't well-known or chosen by people because they've decided they would much rather hear very limited, bland, and crappy songwriting which is frequently played on Radio, AKA Nickelback. Objectively, any true musician or music lover will know that the former's music is much more divine whereas the latter is commercial radio garbage. CD Sales tell an entirely different story. Should it mean the objectivity of the music lover must change in order to overlap and reflect CD Sales?

A WM that featured spectacular wrestling matches like Lesnar vs Angle, HBK vs Jericho and Austin vs Rock is a GREAT WM irrespective of whether I opine and agree with it or not. THAT is objectivity.

You citing buyrates for a Wrestlemania as a reason for it having been good but which can objectively be seen as bad is your imposing your subjectivity on an otherwise objective observation.

 

[WWEIsLife2]

Is this the same idiot who said Undertaker and/or his Streak sucked too? The fact that he said WM 6 sucked is where he lost me. Maybe its because of the Main Event,the Skydome Crowd,the awesome Commentary between Gorilla & Jesse,or all of the above but the rest of that Show is pretty damn good. Its also the first Mania that I saw on Tape so maybe thats why it holds a special place with me.

To me every WM at least has something memorable that we as Fans can take away from it. Are some better or worse than others? Sure but we still remember something about each of them and won't forget.

Also maybe it was because I was there but I had an awesome time at WM 27 a couple years ago. Seeing The Rock again was great,HHH/Taker is probably one of my favorite Matches I have seen Live and in person. The rest of the Show is not that bad either with Edge/ADR,Rey/Cody,Orton/CM Punk,and even Miz/Cena were all solid Matches. Even King & Cole as bad a Match as it was wasn't that offensive either to me anyway.

 

[DarksideEric]

If buyrates determined everything and meant "objectivity", then Justin Bieber , Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Nickelback and whichever other abominable and disgraceful pseudo-musician you can add to that list are probably so brilliant right, because people have bought their crap much more over countless genuine musicians and instrumental virtuosos that might not have that many people buying their CDs?

Let me cite another similar example. A guitarist that can play blues, jazz, heavy metal and instrumental virtuoso guitar exists but for whatever reasons he's either unable to sell his music or make a career out of it, or isn't well-known or chosen by people because they've decided they would much rather hear very limited, bland, and crappy songwriting which is frequently played on Radio, AKA Nickelback. Objectively, any "true" musician or music "lover" will know that the former's music is much more divine whereas the latter is commercial radio garbage. CD Sales tell an entirely different story. Should it mean the objectivity of the music lover must change in order to overlap and reflect CD Sales?

A WM that featured "spectacular" wrestling matches like Lesnar vs Angle, HBK vs Jericho and Austin vs Rock is a "GREAT" WM irrespective of whether I opine and agree with it or not. THAT is objectivity.

You citing buyrates for a Wrestlemania as a reason for it having been good but which can objectively be seen as bad is your imposing your subjectivity on an otherwise objective observation.

Hey look, more subjective terms, pointing out yet again that you do not actually understand what "objectivity" is.

Objectivity is (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

This is not a factual thread. There are no facts here other than if you bring up what matches were on what card, who won/lost, the audience attendance number and buy rates, or other factual statistics or citations that can be measured.

"Suck, good, bad, great, bland, boring, etc, etc" are not factual statements, they are purely subjective terms based on your personal feelings or opinions in regards to the subject matter.

If you do not like Kurt Angle as a wrestler (which is plausible), Angle vs. Lesnar is not a great match because you have a bias against him, even if it's purely based on his performance as an entertainer and has nothing to do with him personally.

You have zero idea of what the difference is between "objective" and "subjective" is.

This thread is about what the OP subjectively thinks about Wrestlemania as a whole and narrows down each show, stating subjective opinions to support his subjective thoughts on why he thinks Wrestlemania as a whole sucks.

And, as I prior stated (to remain on topic of "Wrestlemania sucking"), in my opinion (which is subjective), some Wrestlemanias have not been as good as others, some comparing Wrestlemania IX to Wrestlemania X, IX "sucks." But comparing Wrestlemanias to wrestling PPVs as a whole? Wrestlemania has not reached the level of "bad" that WCW, ECW or TNA have.

 

[James Greiga]

Is this the same idiot who said Undertaker and/or his Streak sucked too? The fact that he said WM 6 sucked is where he lost me. Maybe its because of the Main Event,the Skydome Crowd,the awesome Commentary between Gorilla & Jesse,or all of the above but the rest of that Show is pretty damn good. Its also the first Mania that I saw on Tape so maybe thats why it holds a special place with me.

No I am not that idiot who said The Undertaker's streak sucks. I'm actually a big Undertaker fan and defended his streak. But the thing is Wrestlemania 6 is only seen in a certain light because of that main event. Can you name anything from that show that was good besides the build to the main event? It goes back to what I said earlier. Since when does one match make an entire show great. If that's our new way of thinking, no wonder WWE stopped paying attention to everything but the main event for so many years. One match does not make a show

 

[DarksideEric]

Since when does one match make an entire show great. If that's our new way of thinking, no wonder WWE stopped paying attention to everything but the main event for so many years. One match does not make a show

When I say good I mean that more than half the card was great.

Since when does "more than half the card" have to be "great" just in order for the show, as a whole, to be at least considered "good"? "Good" often being on a lower (oftentimes much lower) level than "great"?

The reason the Warrior vs. Hogan match itself made the entire Wrestlemania "great" to fans is because the moment was so stunning in the minds and memories of those that have seen it, so as a whole it elevates the entire thing.

It's the opposite of the phrase "a single bad apple can ruin the whole bunch."

One single great moment can blanch out what otherwise may have been something terrible.

 

[MMK]

While I don't necessarily agree that Wrestlemania sucks, I'll tip my hat to the writer of this thread for at least having an independent thought. Writing this thread undoubtedly opens yourself up for a lot of criticism and sarcastic responses. So kudos for being willing to say something that is probably not going to make you very popular.

However, even if a fan is to go year-by-year and match-by-match and come to the conclusion that more than half the Wrestlemania's have been mediocre at best, that still doesn't take away from the real reason why Mania is considered the biggest wrestling event of all time.

The original appeal of Mania was that you would get to see all of the main roster competing against each other on live pay per view television at a major venue. Back in the 80's that was a pretty big deal considering that during that period most of the WWF wrestling I saw featured only squash matches on Saturday morning and an occasional big feud match between two legit superstars on Saturday Night. That was it. Which made Mania a pretty frickin big deal.

Unfortunately as the years went by and we entered the age of Monday Night Raw and 12 pay-per-views a year, the event lost a lot of it's luster. And in todays era the main selling point of Wrestlemania has nothing to do with quality wrestling and everything to do with the size of the venue and whether or not Vince McMahon can break his own attendance record.

But Wrestlemania has always managed to stand out from the rest of the events held every year since the first Mania albeit for different reason depending on what era you're referring to. In the 80's it stood out because it was the only time you could see all the biggest names on one card competing against each other. By the late 80's and early 90's it got a bit watered down after the introduction of Summerslam, but it still stood out from the Rumble and Survivor Series because those were gimmick themed events. And in the new millienium it still manages to stand out because every year it is the only event held in a huge stadium with enormous crowds and a super sized pyro show.

Wrestlemania was never billed as the greatest pure "wrestling" event you'd ever see. If you listen carefully they usually hype it for it's "pageantry", "grandeur", and "spectacle". And on that level it usually lives up to the hype. Although I personally don't give a damn about that aspect of wrestling, which is why I tend to agree with the original premise of this thread that Wrestlemania is not nearly as great as we are led to believe.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Hey look, more subjective terms, pointing out yet again that you do not actually understand what "objectivity" is.

Objectivity is (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

This is not a factual thread. There are no facts here other than if you bring up what matches were on what card, who won/lost, the audience attendance number and buy rates, or other factual statistics or citations that can be measured.

"Suck, good, bad, great, bland, boring, etc, etc" are not factual statements, they are purely subjective terms based on your personal feelings or opinions in regards to the subject matter.

If you do not like Kurt Angle as a wrestler (which is plausible), Angle vs. Lesnar is not a great match because you have a bias against him, even if it's purely based on his performance as an entertainer and has nothing to do with him personally.

You have zero idea of what the difference is between "objective" and "subjective" is.

This thread is about what the OP subjectively thinks about Wrestlemania as a whole and narrows down each show, stating subjective opinions to support his subjective thoughts on why he thinks Wrestlemania as a whole sucks.

And, as I prior stated (to remain on topic of "Wrestlemania sucking"), in my opinion (which is subjective), some Wrestlemanias have not been as good as others, some comparing Wrestlemania IX to Wrestlemania X, IX "sucks." But comparing Wrestlemanias to wrestling PPVs as a whole? Wrestlemania has not reached the level of "bad" that WCW, ECW or TNA have.

Wrestlemania 27 is probably one the worst Wrestlemanias of all time. Yes, it was that "bad"

The whole PPV sucked.

-Pointless 8 man tag-team match which ended in like 2 minutes.

-Michael Cole vs Jerry Lawler

-Undertaker/Triple H was a slow finisher spotfest

-Another pointless tag-team match

-Miz vs Cena is probably the worst Wrestlemania main event ever.

The only decent match of the whole PPV was Punk/Orton which was pretty mediocre as well.

 

[the green b@stard]

OP seems to be a big fan of highly technical wrestling. .... that said I understand why he would prefer summer slam over wm.

That said seeing how op crapped all over wm i would hate to see his survior series reviews...

There have been many wm matches that were made by their build. Dibiase vs virgil comes to mind, where if your judging them on the match alone they fall flat but in the context of their story were actually pretty good.

If you can honestly say you only think 6 of 29 were good maybe wwe isn't for you. Nothing wrong with that, each to their own.

 

[DarksideEric]

Wrestlemania 27 is probably one the worst Wrestlemanias of all time. Yes, it was that "bad".

The whole PPV sucked.

-Pointless 8 man tag-team match which ended in like 2 minutes.

-Michaels Cole vs Jerry Lawler

-Undertaker/Triple H was a slow finisher spotfest

-Another pointless tag-team match

-Miz vs Cena is probably the worst Wrestlemania main event ever.

The only decent match of the whole PPV was Punk/Orton which was pretty mediocre as well.

Still all subjective opinion.

And still, in my own subjective opinion, not as bad as say... Uncensored '95.

 

[James Greiga]

If you can honestly say you only think 6 of 29 were good maybe wwe isn't for you. Nothing wrong with that, each to their own.

It's not that 6 of 29 WM's were good it's just that I never understood why it has always been regarded as such a spectacle. I agree on why it was a spectacle in the beginning and I have even said that "the crowd and the hoopla (which for me translates into the build) made Hogan vs. Andre great. I was never really a fan of Hogan so I wasn't really interested in Warrior vs. Hogan, if you haven't noticed I'm a much bigger Randy Savage fan. But I love WWE. My point was just that if one should bill an event as such a spectacle, shouldn't it truly be a spectacle every year? Sometimes the build for a match can make it redeemable (like Hogan/Andre or Hogan/Rock or even Rock/Cena) but sometimes even that won't save it (i.e. Orton/HHH). I'm not saying each match from those "bad" wrestlemanias were as bad as that but it's not like each match got a Hogan/Andre sized build

 

[James Greiga]

While I don't necessarily agree that Wrestlemania sucks, I'll tip my hat to the writer of this thread for at least having an independent thought. Writing this thread undoubtedly opens yourself up for a lot of criticism and sarcastic responses. So kudos for being willing to say something that is probably not going to make you very popular.

However, even if a fan is to go year-by-year and match-by-match and come to the conclusion that more than half the Wrestlemania's have been mediocre at best, that still doesn't take away from the real reason why Mania is considered the biggest wrestling event of all time.

The original appeal of Mania was that you would get to see all of the main roster competing against each other on live pay per view television at a major venue. Back in the 80's that was a pretty big deal considering that during that period most of the WWF wrestling I saw featured only squash matches on Saturday morning and an occasional big feud match between two legit superstars on Saturday Night. That was it. Which made Mania a pretty frickin big deal.

Unfortunately as the years went by and we entered the age of Monday Night Raw and 12 pay-per-views a year, the event lost a lot of it's luster. And in todays era the main selling point of Wrestlemania has nothing to do with quality wrestling and everything to do with the size of the venue and whether or not Vince McMahon can break his own attendance record.

But Wrestlemania has always managed to stand out from the rest of the events held every year since the first Mania albeit for different reason depending on what era you're referring to. In the 80's it stood out because it was the only time you could see all the biggest names on one card competing against each other. By the late 80's and early 90's it got a bit watered down after the introduction of Summerslam, but it still stood out from the Rumble and Survivor Series because those were gimmick themed events. And in the new millienium it still manages to stand out because every year it is the only event held in a huge stadium with enormous crowds and a super sized pyro show.

Wrestlemania was never billed as the greatest pure "wrestling" event you'd ever see. If you listen carefully they usually hype it for it's "pageantry", "grandeur", and "spectacle". And on that level it usually lives up to the hype. Although I personally don't give a damn about that aspect of wrestling, which is why I tend to agree with the original premise of this thread that Wrestlemania is not nearly as great as we are led to believe.

Thank you for your first statement and I thank you for truly being the first person to comment on this thread with a valid reason for why Wrestlemania is billed the way it is. I always knew that but it wasn't really presented to me in that particular way and while I still feel the way I do about the show as a whole I do understand a bit more of why the earlier shows (mainly 1-3) were billed with such magnitude.

 

[DarksideEric]

It's not that 6 of 29 WM's were good it's just that I never understood why it has always been regarded as such a spectacle. I agree on why it was a spectacle in the beginning and I have even said that "the crowd and the hoopla (which for me translates into the build) made Hogan vs. Andre great. I was never really a fan of Hogan so I wasn't really interested in Warrior vs. Hogan, if you haven't noticed I'm a much bigger Randy Savage fan. But I love WWE. My point was just that if one should bill an event as such a spectacle, shouldn't it truly be a spectacle every year? Sometimes the build for a match can make it redeemable (like Hogan/Andre or Hogan/Rock or even Rock/Cena) but sometimes even that won't save it (i.e. Orton/HHH). I'm not saying each match from those "bad" wrestlemanias were as bad as that but it's not like each match got a Hogan/Andre sized build

Probably because... not everyone can pull off a Hogan vs. Andre type build because not everyone is Hogan or Andre...?

Do you think WWE wants to go "well, okay, Wrestlemania isn't that big anymore, let's make... uh... Summerslam the new Showcase of the Immortals!" That's not going to happen. Mania is WWE's main showcase just as the SuperBowl is the NFL's.

 

[#1druid]

If buyrates determined everything and meant "objectivity", then Justin Bieber , Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Nickelback and whichever other abominable and disgraceful pseudo-musician you can add to that list are probably so brilliant right, because people have bought their crap much more over countless genuine musicians and instrumental virtuosos that might not have that many people buying their CDs?

Let me cite another similar example. A guitarist that can play blues, jazz, heavy metal and instrumental virtuoso guitar exists but for whatever reasons he's either unable to sell his music or make a career out of it, or isn't well-known or chosen by people because they've decided they would much rather hear very limited, bland, and crappy songwriting which is frequently played on Radio, AKA Nickelback. Objectively, any true musician or music lover will know that the former's music is much more divine whereas the latter is commercial radio garbage. CD Sales tell an entirely different story. Should it mean the objectivity of the music lover must change in order to overlap and reflect CD Sales?

A WM that featured spectacular wrestling matches like Lesnar vs Angle, HBK vs Jericho and Austin vs Rock is a GREAT WM irrespective of whether I opine and agree with it or not. THAT is objectivity.

You citing buyrates for a Wrestlemania as a reason for it having been good but which can objectively be seen as bad is your imposing your subjectivity on an otherwise objective observation.

I took the liberty of bolding all your opinions.
You have your right to your opinion but that does not make your opinion fact. You pretend to be some sort of connoisseur but you just come across as a hipster whiner. I bet every time someone asks you your favorite band you pretext your answer with "You probably haven't heard of them". Most wrestlemanias delivered on some level, if they hadn't people would not continually show up and cities would not bid on it. Sure 27 could be considered not a critical success but 28 was well recieved and I was in attendance for 29 which is underrated. I bet if Bryan was still being midcarded you would be outraged but because he's finally getting the recognition he deserves you need to dislike him now and whine about punk, the guy who walked out on the fans. I don't know if you're trolling or serious but you need to pull your head out of your @$$.

P.s. Sandow is overrated.

 

[James Greiga]

Probably because... not everyone can pull off a Hogan vs. Andre type build because not everyone is Hogan or Andre...?

Do you think WWE wants to go "well, okay, Wrestlemania isn't that big anymore, let's make... uh... Summerslam the new Showcase of the Immortals!" That's not going to happen. Mania is WWE's main showcase just as the SuperBowl is the NFL's.

Again I'm not saying they should do that. My point is that if it truly is the showcase of the immortals and the greatest PPV of the year then why not make it the best PPV of the year? Why not book them better? I would have even preferred Wade Barrett vs. Cena for the title than Miz vs. Cena. Also I was just using Hogan/Andre as an example of a match with such a great build that it was great regardless of the match itself. Another example of that would be Undertaker vs. Diesel

 

[DarksideEric]

Again I'm not saying they should do that. My point is that if it truly is the showcase of the immortals and the greatest PPV of the year then why not make it the best PPV of the year? Why not book them better? I would have even preferred Wade Barrett vs. Cena for the title than Miz vs. Cena. Also I was just using Hogan/Andre as an example of a match with such a great build that it was great regardless of the match itself. Another example of that would be Undertaker vs. Diesel

Because "better" is different in different people's eyes and mind.

You may have thought Barret vs. Cena would have been amazeballs, but 30 other people may have shaken their head in disgust.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

If there is one thing I look for in a review of the original WM it is the opinion of someone who had attained negative four years old when it happened. Especially one that is clearly an alt for TheOneandOnlyGOAT.

By the way, learning that you had to watch 29 WMs to figure out you think WM sucks says a lot. Like a scarred two year old that won't stop touching the stove.

Some WMs have sucked. Some were awesome. Rarely has more than half a card delivered if ever. WWE isn't trying to blow minds for three or four hours. It's not worth it as a live crowd can only stay so hot for so long and you don't want to burn them out. Even with WMs hype and aura part of the job of the show is to leave you wondering what is next. Unlike movies that need reviews to stay and make money in the theaters WM is a one shot deal each year built more on the last two months of Raw than the previous Manias.

I'm just saying a bunch of shit now but there is not much to really build discussion from the first post other than it is clear that James greiga is an alt.

 

[willross]

I can't believe the hot garbage of what I just read.

Pro Wrestling has never been about the "matches" its always been about the storylines behind the match. That's what WWE has based a company on for 50yrs, a company that is worth $2.2 Billion as of this posting.

WM1: Groundbreaking, ahead of it's time. The mix of celebrities and the epic encounter of Hogan/Mr T vs Roddy Piper and Orndorff was amazing. Just cause you weren't alive to live that moment, doesn't mean it sucked. It was an amazing event.

WM2: Left alot to be desired but it was the ultimate attempt to try and top the previous event.

WM3: Greatest WM of all time....why? Because it broke attendance records and that's what its all about....how many eyes are on your event. Its predetermined, its always been about $$$$$$$$$$$. Hogan vs Andre was the match everyone had wanted to see forever and it happened and it was exactly what it needed to be and it elevated Hogan to SUPERSTARDOM. If you think Hulk was at his peak before this match, well be born sooner and you would know it wasn't true.

WM4: Amazing concept built around the Tournament and the Hulk/Andre 3. Wonderfully put together and the storytelling from top to bottom is what pro wrestling is all about.

WM5: Another fantastic event. Saw one of the most over babyface teams break up in Strike Force. Warrior/Rude collided. Jake vs Andre was HUGE, it was the first feud where Andre looked extremely vulnerable. Mega Powers exploding says enough for itself. Again, just cause you weren't old enough to know or weren't watching to know, doesn't mean it sucked, it was great.

WM6: Built 100% around the first babyface main event, title for title, two biggest good guys in wrestling Hogan/Warrior and it was probably the best match either man had ever been in. It was an amazing match that the crowd was into from bell to bell. EPIC!!!

WM7: Slaughter vs Hogan was built wonderfully. American Hero vs American Traitor. Retirement Match between two of the biggest stars in the business Warrior/Savage and the storytelling was AMAZING. Another damn good Mania.

WM8: Riddled in political games from Flair Hogan and Vince. Saw Jake vs Taker which told a great story like Jake always did. Bret vs Piper was a great babyface match andtold a great story. Savage and Flair was fantastic as well. Hogan/Sid was what it needed to be. Great ending with Warrior return, HUGE OVATION.

WM9: Transitional period for the company and was pretty much riding on Hulk's comeback. Very blah

WM10: Bret vs Owen is probably the best technical match of all time. Great storytelling and a SHOCKING finish. Probably the first true upset and probably the biggest one in WM history. LAdder Match was an amzing match as well.

WM11: Was shit. WWE Title match was only thing worth watching. LT and Bam Bam did better than expected. Rest of the card was horrible.

WM12: Iron Man Match was 10/10. Hollywood Backlot Brawl was AMAZING. Taker/Diesel was a huge clash of two very over top guys. Warrior return. Solid Mania.

WM13: Austin's best match of his entire career hands down. Very underrated matches on that card as well, specifically HHH vs Goldust.

WM14: No match was great but not a single match was bad either. Kicked off the Austin Era officially. Mike Tyson's involvement was EPIC and unheard of since WM1 with MR T. Taker/Kane finally came head to head. Solid Mania.

WM15: Saw the heel turn of HHH which was shocking as hell. Big Show turns on Vince, which was great. Taker/Bossman was meh but the end was shocking. Of course the 1st Austin/Rock match. The two hottest stars in the business this side of Goldberg going head to head. Solid Mania

WM16: Triangle Ladder Match and Fatal 4 Way ELimination saved the card. Lack of Austin and Taker really hurt it.

WM17: Do I need to explain?

WM18: Hogan/Rock was AMAZING!! HHH/Jericho would've been viewed as way better had it not followed Hogan/Rock. Taker/Flair was fantastic. Not a bad match on the card.

WM19: Do I need to explain?

WM20: Return of Deadman Taker and Paul Bearer....EPIC. Triple Threat Main EVent is probably the best Triple Threat match ever. Eddie vs Angle told a great story. Only match that was lacking was Brock/Goldberg.

WM21: Top to bottom GREAT CARD. Main event was great. HBK/Angle was great. Taker/Orton was amazing, thought Orton had it won at one point. MITB was unique and groundbreaking. Eddie/Rey was a very solid opener.

WM22: Cena/HHH was so well done with great storytelling. HBK/Vince was fantastic. MITB was good again. Rey finally got the title which everyone was begging for at the time.

WM23: Do I need to explain? HBk/Cena was great. Taker/Batista stole the show. MITB solid again. Trump angle was very fun.

WM24: Main event was GREAT. HBK/Flair told an another amazing story. MITB was solid with a surprise winner.Triple Threat was very good with another surprise win. JBL/Finlay is way underrated.

WM25: HBK/Taker is one of the best matches period of all time. MITB was solid again with Punk repeat being quite surprising. Orton/HHH suffered from HHH/Y2J syndrome, tired crowd. Steamboat's performance was amazing and Jericho never looked better.

WM26: Bret Hart's return (though the matchran about 5min long). Batista vs Cena was very good. HBK/Taker II was another classic. HHH/SHeamus is way underrated as was Punk/Mysterio. Clash of Legacy was well put together.

WM27: Edge vs Del RIo was pretty good. Punk/Orton was well done. HHH/Taker was the first time in a long time it looked as if the streak was over (HHH Tombstone spot). And the return of THE ROCK (that we all begged for, for years!!)

WM28: Rock/Cena....AMAZING. Great story. Hell in the Cell was one of the best matches ever (SCM to Pedigree spot gave me chills). Punk/Jericho was fantastic.

WM29: Punk/Taker was very good. Rock/Cena II was very good. Brock/HHH was very physical and exactly what it needed to be, pretty good. Shield never have bad matches. Another solid Mania.

So you can see that I broke it down. Seems like you may not have witnessed the build to the early Mania's. And your blind hate to some of the better Mania's is just coming across as trolling to me.

I have enjoyed most of the Mania's. I really only struggled to enjoy 2,9, and 11. But even then, I have seen worse wrestling shows than those.

Pro Wrestling is art. YOu really gotta be there to know if something is good or not, or know the builds from top to bottom.

 

[wwesux]

I totally agree all 29 wrestlemanias sucked maybe 2 or perhaps 3 matches out of a 4 hour ppv is great but the other matches are awful and terrible with no build up as if mcmoron was placing the matches last minute without any thought or consideration for the average wrestling fan

Lets not forget how we are so sick and tired of john semen we don t need another reincarnation of hulk Hogan or Savage which is none of that when it comes to skills

Lastly The lame Undertaker gimmick 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. I am hoping The beer bellin leather claddin mascara wearin hangs up his boots once and for all and let Brock beat him otherwise his UFC image will be tarnished! We are all sick and tired of underfaker aren t we glad I didn t have to see STING job to him!

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I took the liberty of bolding all your opinions.
You have your right to your opinion but that does not make your opinion fact. You pretend to be some sort of connoisseur but you just come across as a hipster whiner. I bet every time someone asks you your favorite band you pretext your answer with "You probably haven't heard of them". Most wrestlemanias delivered on some level, if they hadn't people would not continually show up and cities would not bid on it. Sure 27 could be considered not a critical success but 28 was well recieved and I was in attendance for 29 which is underrated. I bet if Bryan was still being midcarded you would be outraged but because he's finally getting the recognition he deserves you need to dislike him now and whine about punk, the guy who walked out on the fans. I don't know if you're trolling or serious but you need to pull your head out of your @$$.

P.s. Sandow is overrated.

Another DB fan kid whom I inadvertently hurt so much so they try to redeem their beloved hero's loss of status by picking on the poster and stating Damien Sandow's overrated. Nice try, Junior. Clearly you're trolling with your conspicuous tries and you even mentioned a PS which says Sandow is overrated when NOBODY here has mentioned him nor cared about his career trajectory, not in this thread.

Now, I might come across to you as many things, hipster, whiner, blah blah blah. You've a right to your opinion. My opinion is that you come across to me as a jealous prick with no redeeming qualities who's going to rely on saying things like "you need to pull your head out of your @$$" to which I could say you need to pull your putrid mouth out of the stinking butt of envy and resentment.

Most wrestlemanias might have delivered according to YOU but they fail according to me and the OP and there's nothing you can do to change that. Most wrestlemanias (Like WM 2000) were disasters and again you cannot impose your opinions by citing a bunch of arena statistics and pay per view buys. If you disagree with someone, picking on them by calling them a whiner only reveals dorky childishness on your part.

I've never been a DB fan, nor ever be and I'd be more than happy if Bryan disappears forever.

And what are you, 3? Whine about punk who "walked out on his fans". Look idiot, it's CM Punk. He'll walk out when he wants to, he'll whine, he won't whine, he might take up alcohol, but one thing he won't do is ASK YOU or any FAN before doing those things. So idiots like you don't deserve to tell ME whether I'm supposed to miss/whine/plead/yearn for CM Punk or not. You may go and rebuke Punk's actions all you want. Don't come here blaming me because I'll do what I want.

 

[#1druid]

Another DB fan kid whom I inadvertently hurt so much so they try to redeem their beloved hero's loss of status by picking on the poster and stating Damien Sandow's overrated. Nice try, Junior. Clearly you're trolling with your conspicuous tries and you even mentioned a PS which says Sandow is overrated when NOBODY here has mentioned him nor cared about his career trajectory, not in this thread.

Now, I might come across to you as many things, hipster, whiner, blah blah blah. You've a right to your opinion. My opinion is that you come across to me as a jealous prick with no redeeming qualities who's going to rely on saying things like "you need to pull your head out of your @$$" to which I could say you need to pull your putrid mouth out of the stinking butt of envy and resentment.

Most wrestlemanias might have delivered according to YOU but they fail according to me and the OP and there's nothing you can do to change that. Most wrestlemanias (Like WM 2000) were disasters and again you cannot impose your opinions by citing a bunch of arena statistics and pay per view buys. If you disagree with someone, picking on them by calling them a whiner only reveals dorky childishness on your part.

I've never been a DB fan, nor ever be and I'd be more than happy if Bryan disappears forever.

And what are you, 3? Whine about punk who "walked out on his fans". Look idiot, it's CM Punk. He'll walk out when he wants to, he'll whine, he won't whine, he might take up alcohol, but one thing he won't do is ASK YOU or any FAN before doing those things. So idiots like you don't deserve to tell ME whether I'm supposed to miss/whine/plead/yearn for CM Punk or not. You may go and rebuke Punk's actions all you want. Don't come here blaming me because I'll do what I want.

What do I have to be jealous of? A pathetic crybaby cm punk apologist who misses his beloved CM punk like the child who needs his security blanket. I'm guessing your father walked out on you in a similar manner which is why you still cheer for a man who couldn't care any less about you or their fans. Let's see how you react when he returns as "a spotlight stealing" part time star in 2017 and main events wrestlemania 2017, will you still whine like you do about the streak? the undertaker who you spend time bitching about in most threads even though he puts on a spectacular match year after year. I called you a whiner because you're whining you put out a whole other host of insults at everyone else. Get over it.

I mention sandow because obviously you're copying his shtick.

The only method of delivery that matters is success. You Can say something isn't critically successful but that doesn't matter because you can't take that to the bank. Your supposed talented artist you mentioned in your hypothetical scenario either sucks at marketing or just plain sucks because clearly he couldn't do enough to get his stuff publicity which means he's worse than nickleback who I admit suck but are still better than listening to dribbling garbage mouth, you uneducated imbecile.

Daniel Bryan is pure talent he will help make this year a success. I know you like your thesoris but here's some Hemingway for you" poor Faulkner, does he really think bog words equal big emotions? " because what really matters is the fans emotional response. And nothing punk can deliver delivers as much response as one simple word "YES!" and the fans love it because they relate to the underdog narrative. Similarly a non word delivers more than punk and that's the sound of undertaker's gong. Whine all you want you just come a cross as a whiney hipster who should maybe try a different product.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Don't you think you're nit picking a little too much here OP? I understand that's the IWC way but you seem to be taking this further than you need to.

Yeah some Wrestlemania's sucked the big one, yeah there were some where there were only a few good matches but when you're making arguments like you did for WM 6 and WM 3 it seems the whole concept of the big show eludes you. Wrestlemania isn't about every match being good, its a spectacle, that's what makes WM3 and 6 so good.

Wrestlemania 3 had one of the greatest matches ever and the most iconic main event ever, what more do you need for that show to be great? Because some of the other matches weren't as good? Hogan bodyslamming Andre, Andre losing and passing the torch to Hogan is what that event was ALL about and they did that part tremendously, it doesn't even matter if the rest of the card is shit at that point (and we STILL got the IC title match on top of that!), they nailed the parts they needed to nail, that's all it takes to make an event like that good.

It seems to me that you are putting every match on the card at the same level (it sure seems that way when you say "only the matches that people cared about were good") and it just doesn't work that way. Honestly if Hogan vs. Warrior was good (the only match that MATTERED really) then why does it matter if Martel vs. Koko wasn't good? It doesn't really.

At the end of the day as long as Wresltemania puts on some decent matches and hits all the notes its meant to hit (like Andre getting pinned at WM3) then its a good Wrestlemania. It doesn't have to be a bunch of high quality matches to be good in my opinion.

 

[The Perfect Max]

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.

My argument is based on prior posts over a long period of time. This topic is sort of new, but in a lot of ways, it's a recycled argument as to "which WrestleMania was the best" and whatnot. My opinion is different to yours. Plus also, the thread is called "Why WrestleMania Sucks". Yeah, I'm not gonna argue any more.

 

[James Greiga]

Don't you think you're nit picking a little too much here OP? I understand that's the IWC way but you seem to be taking this further than you need to.

Yeah some Wrestlemania's sucked the big one, yeah there were some where there were only a few good matches but when you're making arguments like you did for WM 6 and WM 3 it seems the whole concept of the big show eludes you. Wrestlemania isn't about every match being good, its a spectacle, that's what makes WM3 and 6 so good.

Wrestlemania 3 had one of the greatest matches ever and the most iconic main event ever, what more do you need for that show to be great? Because some of the other matches weren't as good? Hogan bodyslamming Andre, Andre losing and passing the torch to Hogan is what that event was ALL about and they did that part tremendously, it doesn't even matter if the rest of the card is shit at that point (and we STILL got the IC title match on top of that!), they nailed the parts they needed to nail, that's all it takes to make an event like that good.

It seems to me that you are putting every match on the card at the same level (it sure seems that way when you say "only the matches that people cared about were good") and it just doesn't work that way. Honestly if Hogan vs. Warrior was good (the only match that MATTERED really) then why does it matter if Martel vs. Koko wasn't good? It doesn't really.

At the end of the day as long as Wresltemania puts on some decent matches and hits all the notes its meant to hit (like Andre getting pinned at WM3) then its a good Wrestlemania. It doesn't have to be a bunch of high quality matches to be good in my opinion.

I think you kind of misunderstood me. I understand why Wrestlemania 3 is seen in the light that it is which is why i said "the hoopla" for the Andre/Hogan match made it redeemable. With WM 6 I guess I'm a bit bias for that Wrestlemania alone because I never really liked Hogan and I didn't really become a Warrior fan until recently. But again one match can't make a card. The notion that a show can be good by putting all the focus on the main event is exactly why non-main eventers get buried so often and why no one really cares about anything except the top titles. And not really them anymore considering we've had so many PPVs in the past few years where the champion didn't main event. isn't that pretty much what a lot of you guys have been complaining about for a while now? That WWE doesn't care about anything but the main event yet it's ok if it's for Wrestlemania? That's kind of a double standard