Why Wrestlemania SUCKS!!!

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

I'm not saying they should only care about the main event (if that happens there is no growth), I'm saying the main event usually sells the show and a shows success is often determined by how the main event went. I know it's not black and white like that but main events often save bad events and cripple good events because its the match everyone cares about. Think of it like this: I remember seeing the 1st Holyfield vs. Lewis title fight live on PPV, there were some good fights on that card but the Holyfield/Lewis fight SUCKED, and it had a screwy finish, ergo the card was looked at as a dud based on that alone, it overshadowed everything else on the card. I'm just saying the success of the main event often determines the light a big event like Wrestlemania is looked at.

I also look at it like this. If the main event attracts the fans and gets the fans to buy the event, then hitting those big notes will be a huge factor in determining if those fans will come back or not. For example you didn't have much good to say about WM14, yet that Wrestlemania is what ultimately swayed the ratings war in WWE's favor, so it can't be bad if it achieved the goal it set out to achieve. It wasn't amazing or anything but a lot of the matches were fun, they hit all the right notes (Taker/Kane, Sable looked good in her match, Tyson turning on DX, Austin winning the title) therefore it was a good Mania and achieved what WWE was aiming for.

I feel that Wrestlemania is not only the culmination of the year, but its also the start of the year as well as what happens in Wrestlemania starts setting up what will happen in the next year. As long as Wrestlemania can hit the big notes and get fans watching then it opens up an opportunity for the Cesaro's of the world to get noticed and to get on the map.
 
You think old wrestlemanias suck because you don't understand how wrestling worked back then. Or you're a troll. Or you're failing at trying to be cool and edgy.

Most wrestlemania's have an undercard of solid matches and then 1-4 really good matches. Occassionally an all time great match (Bret vs Owen, Bret vs Austin, Rock/Austin II, HBK/Angle, HBK/Taker, etc).
 
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.

Wrestlemania is about moments, it's not about an excellent card. It's about catching that one moment and making it yours. It's about seeing something you'll never forget. Wrestlemania is just the scene of the event, but on wrestlings biggest night it's about making yourself immortal. HBK was the best imo, Hogan did it, and many others have. It's about having that one moment that lives forever not a perfect card. It's about having something unforgettable. And most WM's have had that.
 
You say it sucks but this not only had at least AT LEAST 60 of the greatest matches of all-time if not WAY more.But this is the same event the created the biggest legends in the business and made them who they are today.Would Hogan and Flair be were they are/were without Mania.YES! but would anybody else not really.Cena for example if he hadn't beaten the likes of The Rock,HHH,HBK,Orton,JBL,Show,Edge,Batista,etc he probably wouldn't be the icon he is today.Same as Orton,Rock,Austin,HBK,Bret Hart,HHH,Batista,etc.Would Undertaker be as big with out the streak I don't think so.That's why Wrestlemania DOES NOT suck.Thank You
 
You say it sucks but this not only had at least AT LEAST 60 of the greatest matches of all-time if not WAY more.But this is the same event the created the biggest legends in the business and made them who they are today.Would Hogan and Flair be were they are/were without Mania.YES! but would anybody else not really.Cena for example if he hadn't beaten the likes of The Rock,HHH,HBK,Orton,JBL,Show,Edge,Batista,etc he probably wouldn't be the icon he is today.Same as Orton,Rock,Austin,HBK,Bret Hart,HHH,Batista,etc.Would Undertaker be as big with out the streak I don't think so.That's why Wrestlemania DOES NOT suck.Thank You

Undertaker's streak didn't actually mean anything to WWE until about 2005 and by that time he was already considered a legend. John Cena would have been who he was without Wrestlemania same for Randy Orton. John Cena's first title win was against JBL at WM 21 who was in no way considered a big enough star to establish Cena which is exactly why he was quickly moved to RAW to face bigger stars and Randy Orton has only won 4 matches at WM in 10 years. He's main evented once and didn't even win so how could WM establish him. Especially considering in 2002 Linda and Vince handpicked Cena and Orton to be the future faces of the company and that was while Brock was already the company face. WM had nothing to do with their success. Also I don't remember Cena beating Orton at Wrestlemania anyway. And HHH too? HHH lost far more WM's than he won. He would have been on top regardless. And you said same for Rock????? ROCK MAIN EVENTED 3 TIMES DURING HIS CAREER AND LOST EVERY SINGLE ONE. The Rock vs. Cena doesn't count. Then you mention Ric Flair. HE NEVER EVENT MAIN EVENTED WRESTLEMANIA. By the time he got to WWF he faced Savage for the title in the middle of the show and by that time he was already at the peak of his career.

I hate to be this guy saying it but you have got to be the biggest fucking idiot I have ever seen on here.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,851
Messages
3,300,884
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top