The W
Views: 97871605
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.8.14 0654
The W - Pro Wrestling - Making it a triple threat cripples WWE's chance in making the main event mean something long term
This thread has 16 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.05
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
(6902 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (43 total)
ParagonOfVirtue
Salami








Since: 20.8.03
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 3241 days
Last activity: 2921 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.24
Even though it's simply professional wrestling, I always look to the Wrestlemania main event to mean something to the business symbolically. There needs to be an epic quality to it that shows that in the next year, or two years, or next decade, the business will forever be changed because the pass was torched at Wrestlemania.

When you look at such main events, you think Hogan/Andre, HBK/Hart, HBK/Austin, Warrior/Hogan, and the bunch. Of course, the torch can't be passed every year, and that's why we also have main events that show two men who are already on top of their game going head to head to take the business to unprecedented heights. In recent years, Rock/Austin at 17 and Rock/Hogan at 18 are two matches that did exactly that. And then you have main events that fell in between both categories, and maintained that necessary epic quality..like Lesnar/Angle, Rock/Austin at 15, Savage/Hogan, etc.

For some reason, in my head, I strive for the 20th Wrestlemania to do for the business what the 10th one did. That is, Wrestlemania X was lacking all of the big names that put the company on map in the 80's, but the show represented a change for the company to make bigger and better names. Instead, however, all this Wrestlemania main event reminds me of is Wrestlemania 16. That is, a clusterfuck. As much as we all wanted to see Foley one last time, having the first Wrestlemania of the new century headlined by HHH versus Rock would have been a symbolic progression of the company without missing stars Taker, Austin, Foley, and Michaels. Instead, WWF chose to throw four names in a hat, and it produced a lackluster event.

I like Shawn Michaels, but as soon as I found out that he would make it a triple threat, I immediately felt that this Wrestlemania main event would lose its epic quality. As I've said a million times before, a match like this would look great for Judgment Day or Armageddon. But not for Wrestlemania. Of course, it looks good on paper, I've liked the interactions between the three men as of late, and I've never opposed the fact that it will be a good match. But what will this match mean for the company in the long term? What will it mean symbolically?

The problem is, the WWE is not really getting behind a babyface to take over what this dominant heel HHH has done for the past three years. I fear that when Wrestlemania XX comes around, half of the crowd will riot if HBK loses and the other half will riot if Benoit loses, so how are we supposed to get a feel-good result out of this match if we don't know who to cheer for? But like I said, I'm not just looking at this match for what it is now or what it will be next month. I'm looking at it from the perspective of what HHH/HBK/Benoit will be five or ten years from now, and I don't think it will be all that memorable. Even if it is a great match.

No matter who wins the main event, a large portion of the viewing audience will have a bad taste in their mouth. And because of that, it won't be the type of match that will stand the test of time. The only way the WWE can overcome this is if they get 100% behind Chris Benoit in the main event and the months afterwards, but with Mr. HBKliq as the appointed "top babyface" for a long time, I doubt that will happen.

Anyone else mixed on the lack of epicness of this matchup?
Promote this thread!
XManiac24
Bauerwurst








Since: 2.3.04

Since last post: 3746 days
Last activity: 3738 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.21
I think this is one of the dumber ideas I have heard of, especially with how they are hyping it as "the first ever Triple Threat match for the title." Who cares, as was mentioned in the previous post, WM2000 had a Fatal Four-Way...I don't see how 3 wrestlers instead of 4 makes that big of a difference.

I also sincerely hope that HHH/Benoit/HBK doesn't headline the event. To me that would be the most inane and stupid idea there could be. The notion and possibility that Vince would put WCW's belt over his own WWE belt is so lame, I can't describe it, literally. As well as the fact that the little prick Shawn Michaels "who did so much for the company..."(please someone give me a list other than not putting anyone over and show me how he actually helped the company draw people and money) weaseled his way into it, it's all stupid. WrestleMania sucked after VIII. Now, it is just like any other of the WWE's events, just with more hype.
SC
Potato korv








Since: 11.12.01
From: Valparaiso, IN

Since last post: 1244 days
Last activity: 578 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.83
    Originally posted by ParagonOfVirtue
    Even though it's simply professional wrestling, I always look to the Wrestlemania main event to mean something to the business symbolically.


Business is in the shitter. I think they're right on.

    Originally posted by ParagonOfVirtue
    There needs to be an epic quality to it that shows that in the next year, or two years, or next decade, the business will forever be changed because the pass was torched at Wrestlemania.


The what was who now?

    Originally posted by ParagonOfVirtue
    As much as we all wanted to see Foley one last time, having the first Wrestlemania of the new century headlined by HHH versus Rock would have been a symbolic progression of the company without missing stars Taker, Austin, Foley, and Michaels.


What? Rock? I mean, I love the Rock, but how on earth is a guy that shows up once a year part of a symbolic progression?

    Originally posted by ParagonOfVirtue
    The problem is, the WWE is not really getting behind a babyface to take over what this dominant heel HHH has done for the past three years. I fear that when Wrestlemania XX comes around, half of the crowd will riot if HBK loses and the other half will riot if Benoit loses, so how are we supposed to get a feel-good result out of this match if we don't know who to cheer for?


I don't think anyone's going to have much of a fit over a match I'm not sure they're even going to care about in the first place. The problem with this match is not so much the result anymore, it's trying to get people hyped up to see it with *one week* of TV left to do it. So far, I'd say they've failed, and that's pretty unfortunate. All of this could have been avoided if Shawn Michaels weren't in the match, which I agree with you on fully, just because at least then it's a one-on-one match, and the biggest match of Chris Benoit's career - which it still is, but the heroic babyface Benoit doesn't get to keep the spotlight with Michaels involved, because it also becomes the story of Michaels trying to get one more huge win at Wrestlemania, and both at root are "inspirational stories," and I don't think that really helps either of them whatsoever. Too many cooks, etc.



Scott Christ
All them women gonna make me teach 'em what they don't know how.

ParagonOfVirtue
Salami








Since: 20.8.03
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 3241 days
Last activity: 2921 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.24
    Originally posted by ScottieKStones
      Originally posted by ParagonOfVirtue
      As much as we all wanted to see Foley one last time, having the first Wrestlemania of the new century headlined by HHH versus Rock would have been a symbolic progression of the company without missing stars Taker, Austin, Foley, and Michaels.


    What? Rock? I mean, I love the Rock, but how on earth is a guy that shows up once a year part of a symbolic progression?




Argument for argument's sake here? Read the paragraph over, I was clearly talking about HHH vs Rock being a step forward for the company...at Wrestlemania 16.
Tenken347
Boudin blanc








Since: 27.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 21 min.
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.06
I'll agree that this triple threat is splitting the crowd. The best way to book a triple threat is with two heels, so the crowd rallies behind the babyface who's up against the odds. But right now, the crowd doesn't really know who they want to win. Michaels is definately more over, but he's also been acting more like a heel than Benoit. Even on tv, the story's been Michaels vs. Benoit, then HHH comes out and wails on the both of them.
SC
Potato korv








Since: 11.12.01
From: Valparaiso, IN

Since last post: 1244 days
Last activity: 578 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.83
    Originally posted by ParagonOfVirtue
    Argument for argument's sake here? Read the paragraph over, I was clearly talking about HHH vs Rock being a step forward for the company...at Wrestlemania 16.


Ah, I misread. I apologize.



Scott Christ
All them women gonna make me teach 'em what they don't know how.

Torchslasher
Knackwurst








Since: 17.1.02
From: New F'n Jersey

Since last post: 296 days
Last activity: 263 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.53
    Originally posted by XManiac24
    I think this is one of the dumber ideas I have heard of, especially with how they are hyping it as "the first ever Triple Threat match for the title." Who cares, as was mentioned in the previous post, WM2000 had a Fatal Four-Way...I don't see how 3 wrestlers instead of 4 makes that big of a difference.

    I also sincerely hope that HHH/Benoit/HBK doesn't headline the event. To me that would be the most inane and stupid idea there could be. The notion and possibility that Vince would put WCW's belt over his own WWE belt is so lame, I can't describe it, literally. As well as the fact that the little prick Shawn Michaels "who did so much for the company..."(please someone give me a list other than not putting anyone over and show me how he actually helped the company draw people and money) weaseled his way into it, it's all stupid. WrestleMania sucked after VIII. Now, it is just like any other of the WWE's events, just with more hype.


Yeah, I'm sure your "sources" told you about HBK "weaseling" his way into the match. It couldn't have been the bookers and Vince's idea right? They couldn't have seen the enormous amount of singles matches at WM XX and decide to switch up the format?

No, of course it's the Clique's fault.



Loud dogs suck. Working overnight sucks. Working overnight and then coming home to loud dogs keeping me up?
PRICELESS!
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 5 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.15
    Originally posted by XManiac24
    As well as the fact that the little prick Shawn Michaels weaseled his way into it, it's all stupid.


Dear god. When oh when will people get it into their heads that Shawn Michaels did not 'weasel in' on this match. While the match was, in storyline terms, originally slated as Benoit v HHH (all be it for only a week), this has little to do with how things were planned backstage.

Not once has the booking of the event looked thrown together or suddenly altered. HBK has been teased as participating in the ME from the moment Benoit jumped. In all likelihood the plan always was for the main event to be a triple threat. Heck from an outsiders perspective, if anyone looks to have been thrown or weasled in it would be the guy that jumped shows.

Maybe the ME was originally slated to be HHH v HBK. Maybe HHH v Goldberg. Maybe Y2J v HBK. Heck maybe it was orignally planned to be Hurricane against a swerving Rosey in a midget on a pole match. I DON'T KNOW. And unless any of you have neglected to mention the fact that you're part of the writing team, NEITHER DO YOU. The End. Goodnight. Ta ta.

Now lets move on.

    Originally posted by ParagonOfVirtue
    Even though it's simply professional wrestling, I always look to the Wrestlemania main event to mean something to the business symbolically. There needs to be an epic quality to it that shows that in the next year, or two years, or next decade, the business will forever be changed because the pass was torched at Wrestlemania.



See the thing is, most fans really couldn't give a rats ass about the history of Wrestlemania. They don't take things that seriously or follow the history that closely. I'd imagine that the vast majority of the audience would struggle to name the main events of anything but the past 3 or 4 Wrestlemania's without doing some research.

All most people care about is seeing a good quality match with a strong build behind it. The triple threat has that. All 3 competitors have strong reasons to dislike each other, all 3 have a chance of winning, and we may even see a heel turn from Michaels who is currently playing the role of tweener very effectively.

The reaction from the majority of fans I know(who are almost the epitomy of casual fans) is that this is the match they're looking forward to most, save for one or two who can't wait for Brock v Goldberg. If anything a couple have uttered words of disdain regarding Benoit, ranging from "he's awright, but he's no' got any banter" to "I just dinnae like him. He's mince".

But in spite of that there's enough in the match to keep them entertained. They don't care whether theres 2, 3 or a hundred and 3 men going for the belt, whether its a technical classic or s SPORTZ ENTERTAINMENT schmoz. As long as the story behind the match is strong, theres some good fights and 'banter' along the way, an the final match is entertaining.

So far this match has achieved 2 out of 3 (which I'm reliably informed ain't bad). Time will tell if they get the final piece of the puzzle right.
dskillz
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Houston Texas

Since last post: 3116 days
Last activity: 2821 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.51
For this to be shaping up as one of the best WMs in history (on paper atleast), there has been an amazing about of bitching and moaning about everything about it. Can we just enjoy the show with analyzing every match and it's long-term importance to the wrestling universe?

Spefically about the Triple Threat Main Event, did you hear the reaction to Benoit last night? Did you hear the 'Chris Benoit' chants? Did you hear the pop when he slapped on the crossface? Sometimes you have take of the smarky smarm hat and enjoy the show. I have been enjoying the hell out of the past few weeks. Involving HBK has done nothing but put more heat on the match. I will honestly say that if it remained HHH/Benoit the same amount of heat would not have been there.

Wrestling is entertainment. Treating it like something serious like open-heart surgery kind of kills the entertainment factor.



January 4th 1999 - The day WCW injected itself with 10 gallons of Liquid Anthrax...AKA...The day Hogan "Defeated" Nash to win the WCW title in front of 40,000.
Excalibur05
Knackwurst








Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by ParagonOfVirtue
    Argument for argument's sake here? Read the paragraph over, I was clearly talking about HHH vs Rock being a step forward for the company...at Wrestlemania 16.


Even then the WWE knew that Rock's time was limited. He'd just done SNL, and everybody and their mom was still on the Rock gravy train. Now sure it'd be swell to have your big top star guy go over at Mania, but what's the point if he's clearly more interested in acting than wrestling? HHH obviously only cared about wrestling, and thus he should get the torch. But if you're going to try to milk that main event for all it's worth, then why not save it for a PPV you're not sure you can hit a buyrate with (Backlash), let the Wrestling Guy get the big win at your big show, and run out "The Retired Guy" and "The Really Huge Guy" to appease the fans.

Ultimately, it proved to be a terrible strategy for the WWE, and they ended up handing Rock the title a few weeks later anyway, but if you're going to argue that there was a torch to be passed, I'd say that there was nobody to pass it to. The only big money match there was Rock/HHH, and I can't blame them for not being super trigger happy on pulling out THAT match, when they had a perfectly viable alternative sitting right there.



Maybe I should put something clever down here....

Nah.
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst








Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.79
    Originally posted by dMr

    Dear god. When oh when will people get it into their heads that Shawn Michaels did not 'weasel in' on this match. While the match was, in storyline terms, originally slated as Benoit v HHH (all be it for only a week), this has little to do with how things were planned backstage.

    Not once has the booking of the event looked thrown together or suddenly altered. HBK has been teased as participating in the ME from the moment Benoit jumped. In all likelihood the plan always was for the main event to be a triple threat. Heck from an outsiders perspective, if anyone looks to have been thrown or weasled in it would be the guy that jumped shows.


We don't know what's going on backstage, and it's likely that WWE doesn't either, but all that aside, we - the fans - judge things by what we see on TV. And, what we saw, regardless of how they "teased" HBK's involvement, was HHH vs Benoit turn into HHH vs Benoit vs HBK. How? HBK's character weasled his way into the match.

He did. There's no question about it. The contract signing was for HHH vs Benoit, HBK runs up and involves himself in the match. Whether it's "real" or not, HBK weasled his way into the match. We saw it on TV.

Now, you may be confusing people's criticisms about HBK's character sticking his nose into the match with people's criticisms of HBK's politics backstage. It's understandable, but I think the original poster is criticising the contrived nature of the storyline, and lack of potential to make a real impact, regardless of the real intent or the "big plan all along."


    See the thing is, most fans really couldn't give a rats ass about the history of Wrestlemania. They don't take things that seriously or follow the history that closely. I'd imagine that the vast majority of the audience would struggle to name the main events of anything but the past 3 or 4 Wrestlemania's without doing some research.


WrestleMania history impacts the viewer, casual or not, and it impacts the storylines people see on TV. WWE shoves it in our faces every week leading up to WrestleMania. Even if people "forgot" or "don't care," they are constantly reminded. The history of WrestleMania DOES matter, whether it's WWE revisionist or fan-inspired. You assume too much about the audience.

With it being WrestleMania XX in MSG, I expect a higher buyrate than last year based simply on history alone. There isn't one top level match no this show that really stands up. The Triple Threat match does indeed seem to have the best story, but it's not a very good one in my view. Just my opinion.


    All most people care about is seeing a good quality match with a strong build behind it. The triple threat has that. All 3 competitors have strong reasons to dislike each other, all 3 have a chance of winning, and we may even see a heel turn from Michaels who is currently playing the role of tweener very effectively.


None of the matches at WrestleMania XIX seemed to get the job done. Hogan/Vince had a strong build, Angle/Brock was a strong match, Austin/Rock was a proven success in the past. Lowest buyrate for WM in recent memory, too.



Personally, I feel it's a Triple Threat match for no good reason, because HHH vs HBK resolved itself a long time ago in the 4 PPV matches they had previously. It's been done. Wrestling is pre-determined, and they could have ended the Royal Rumble Last Man Standing match in a decisive manner, but they chose not to for whatever reason.

At WMXX, where it's supposed to "All Begin. Again." all I see is a repeat of the same stuff we have been watching for the last two years. Again.

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 2.3.04 0943)
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 5 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.15
    Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID
    HBK's character weasled his way into the match.

    He did. There's no question about it. The contract signing was for HHH vs Benoit, HBK runs up and involves himself in the match. Whether it's "real" or not, HBK weasled his way into the match. We saw it on TV.


And if you choose to dislike the guy because of what he did ON TV then he's generating heat, as he should given that he's the tweener. Job done.

I got the impression however that the original post (and many like it in these parts)was suggesting that Shawn Michaels the person, rather than the wrestler, used politics to weasel his way into the match.


    Even if people "forgot" or "don't care," they are constantly reminded. The history of WrestleMania DOES matter, whether it's WWE revisionist or fan-inspired. You assume too much about the audience.


But the very fact that they CAN throw their own version of history at us (a version which many if not most lap up) suggests that the actual history doesn't matter.

Having a triple threat this year will NOT affect the stature of the main event as in a few years time they'll, play it back as a 'Match For The Ages Bah Gawd' and nobody save for a few of us will remember any differently.

My point was that fans don't care in the same way they do about the history of the Superbowl, or the World Cup, because they accept Wrestlemania for what it is. Not a serious bona fide sport, but entertainment. Thus they accept WWE spin and worry not about the finite details of past main events.

Personally I doubt we'll see a high buy rate. Kane/Taker's been done, Eddie/Angle wouoldn't look out of place on the upper mid card of a single brand ppv, Brock/Goldberg hardly screams MONEY, and $49.95 (I think) seems a bit steep.

As far as I'm aware, ratings havent been that mych higher than in coresponding weeks last year either, so in many ways the buyrate shouldn't be expected to be high. And I wouldn't expect it to be any higher if the Triple Threat had been a singles match.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1904 days
Last activity: 1838 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.24
"For some reason, in my head, I strive for the 20th Wrestlemania to do for the business what the 10th one did."

The main event of WMX was that titanic, fondly remembered clash...Breat Vs. Yokozuna. Yeah.

You seem to be convinced that, because you don't like the notion of a triple threat match as the main event, the rest of the card will have no impact and there won't be any era-defining moments. X's moment was HBK Vs. Razor-that wasn't the main event. Rock/Hogan wasn't the main event. Austin/Bret wasn't the main event. In fact, let's go back and look, shall we?

-WM11-Bam Bam Vs. Lt. Heh.
-WM12-Hart Vs. Michaels, Iron Man Match.
-WM13-Taker Vs. Sid. Dig that crazy high-spot of the night! Not.
-WM14-Austin Vs. Michaels. Far game here.
-WM15-Austin Vs. Rock. A good main event for that year, hardly a blow-away match or company turning-point.
-WM2000-Fatal Fourway. Served its purpose in the short-run, nothing special.
-WMX-7-Austin Vs. Rock. Rock's last serious program. Austin's heel turn. All of which means pretty much jack today.
-WM18-HHH Vs. Jericho. Pfeh.
-WM19-Angle Vs. Brock. As much as we'd love it to be, it wasn't anything special in terms of history.

Look, from previous posts I know you don't like the tirple threat match. And that's fine. But your argument about it tarnishing 'Mania history just doesn't stand up. Foley/Rock/Evolution, Brock/Goldberg, 'Taker/Kane could all be those moments you speak of. Hell, this new logo they'r eunveiling could end up being it. It doesn't have to be the main event.

"but I think the original poster is criticising the contrived nature of the storyline"

No, he's not. Check his thread on how Shawn sucks. He's got serious hatred for Shawn the person.



"You're A Big Hunk Of Hero Sandwich, And You Wanna Save The Girl!"

SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst








Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.79
Just because the guy may have a personal vendetta against Shawn Michaels doesn't make his point moot. Personally, I think the potential of HHH vs Benoit was ruined by HBK's involvement. I agree with that.

I've made my opinion of HBK clear in another thread, too. I think he's one of the best workers I've seen in my life, but that he's also such an afterthought in today's WWE - which has all of the tools to build new stars at WMXX - that he shouldn't be in the prominent role he's in. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

    Originally posted by dMr
    My point was that fans don't care in the same way they do about the history of the Superbowl, or the World Cup, because they accept Wrestlemania for what it is. Not a serious bona fide sport, but entertainment. Thus they accept WWE spin and worry not about the finite details of past main events.


Exactly. And since it is entertainment, more thought needs to be put into their storylines. Since wrestling isn't a sport, we need less "Brock/Angle"s and more "Austin/Foley"s. HBK's a great worker? So what? Why is HBK wrestling for the title? What's his motivation? We've seen him win the title since his comeback, and I don't see any dramatic interest in Shawn's pursuit of the title at WMXX. What does he have to gain that he hasn't already done in his comeback run?

That's one of the key reasons why his involvement really doesn't help Benoit, or even HHH for that matter. We know HHH's character wants to hold onto his spot. We know Benoit finally wants to prove himself at the "biggest event of them all." HBK's character has done everything, including beat HHH for the same belt before. I don't see the dramatic point. It's overly redundant.

EDIT: Yes, people may accept WWE's "spin" on things, but that doesn't make WM any less historic or impactful. That doesn't mean that what happens at WMXX is meaningless. When people start empathizing and following the characters in a deeper way, you see stronger storylines. WWE can put whatever spin it wants on things, the bottom line is that the spin has to work.

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    The main event of WMX was that titanic, fondly remembered clash...Breat Vs. Yokozuna. Yeah.


This was actually a very big deal at the time, and ended up shaping the direction of the WWF until Steve Austin got the title. Yokozuna defeated Hulk Hogan, and there was a burning question during his 8 month reign: who would beat him? Who would beat the man that even Hulk Hogan couldn't beat? The very fact that it was between Bret Hart and Lex Luger, the two most popular men in the WWF at the time (Yeah, yeah, Lex is a bad worker. I got it), made the champion at the end of WrestleMania X all the more important.

And, yeah, HBK/Razor happened on the undercard.

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 2.3.04 1059)

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 2.3.04 1103)
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 5 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.15
SKLOKAZOID: I really don't see how you can have missed HBK's reasons for wanting to be in the main event.

1. He hates HHH and would probably gladly fight him over a wine gum.

2. He wants to hold the title. Sure he's done it before, but thats sureas shit no reason to not want it again.

3. In his last 2 cracks at the belt (and HHH) he's gotten a pretty raw deal and has been unlucky not to be declared the winner.

4. He's Shawn Michaels. His character is one that adores the limelight and what bigger stage than the Main Event of WM?

5. He feels aggrieved that an outsider (Benoit) who has no place challenging for the belt has come over and attempted to steal 'his' title shot from him, and he wants to do everything in his power to stop him from doing so.

Number 1, 2, 3 and 5 have all been explicitly stated, while number 4 is strongly implied.

You may be tired of the feud, but as I've stated before, live audiences are lapping it up and ratings and buy rates have been strong (considering the recent downturn) when the 2 have paired up on recent ppv's and Raw's.

I never meant to imply that the history of WM is meaningless, but it is overstated by those of us who take the programming seriously. The booking and storyline have been strong and the crowd have been empathising in the appropriate manner with all 3 guys, and very vociferously too.

HHH is clearly the most over heel on RAW, and arguably on either roster. Benoit is being built nicely as the underdog face who is increasingly reaching a level of popularity with fans to rival that of once super-face/now tweener Michaels.

I already argued the point that it was stories that were important, rather than whether the match was a triple threat, a point you appear to agree with. The audience also appears into the match with Michaels involvement, and I doubt Benoit would have been able to garner the support he has either in the short or long term without it.

But whatever, it seems our differences on that one are down to personal taste. I just get sick of the notion that having a triple threat is as near as damn it to blasphemy.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1904 days
Last activity: 1838 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.24
I know Bret/Yoko was a big deal at the time, but it's not what the history-making moment of the show ending up being. It seems churlish to judge the historical worth of a show before it's even taken place.



"You're A Big Hunk Of Hero Sandwich, And You Wanna Save The Girl!"

SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst








Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.79
    Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID
    Exactly. And since it is entertainment, more thought needs to be put into their storylines. Since wrestling isn't a sport, we need less "Brock/Angle"s and more "Austin/Foley"s. HBK's a great worker? So what? Why is HBK wrestling for the title? What's his motivation? We've seen him win the title since his comeback, and I don't see any dramatic interest in Shawn's pursuit of the title at WMXX. What does he have to gain that he hasn't already done in his comeback run?

    That's one of the key reasons why his involvement really doesn't help Benoit, or even HHH for that matter. We know HHH's character wants to hold onto his spot. We know Benoit finally wants to prove himself at the "biggest event of them all." HBK's character has done everything, including beat HHH for the same belt before. I don't see the dramatic point. It's overly redundant.


I didn't mean that Shawn didn't have any motivation, but rather questioned whether his motivation really added anything to the main event at WMXX. Yes, he has his reasons to challenge HHH. He hates HHH. He used to be his Clique Buddy and all that. I got that.

Why should the fans care about what Shawn wants in this match? We've seen him get every opportunity for the last two years, seen him actually seize that opportunity at Survivor Series 2002 (in the same arena, no less), and we've been down that road. He's accomplished his goals, yet he keeps on coming. Of course his character wants attention. Feeding that need for attention doesn't really help the main event.

I don't think the ratings/buyrates here are strong enough to warrant doing the same match repeatedly. That's like saying "Hogan/Piper drew great 4 PPVs in a row in WCW, so why not do it a 5th time?" There's a very good reason why you move onto something new, even in the face of success. It's the nature of the business to beat things into the ground until they're dead and buried. That doesn't mean it's any good.

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    I know Bret/Yoko was a big deal at the time, but it's not what the history-making moment of the show ending up being. It seems churlish to judge the historical worth of a show before it's even taken place.


Razor/HBK is more memorable, but Bret/Yoko was a turning point for the WWF Championship. It was Bret's - and the "New Generation"'s - official christening as the WWF Champion and the establishment that smaller guys can rise up and beat the giants. Small guys could accomplish what even Immortal superheros couldn't.

The potential IS there for WMXX. I'm not saying that it isn't historical on March 2, 2004, because of what I think will happen (honestly, I haven't a clue, though HHH retaining does look likely). We'll see what happens the night-of and see if it's clear that WWE will do something that will change the scope of its company like they did 10 years ago. Benoit could definitely emerge out of WMXX as a legend the same way Bret did 10 years ago, but the likelihood isn't that great. The fact that it isn't very likely now will make it more historical if Benoit is indeed successful.

Given that the match is on the card for WMXX, and given the fact that WWE would like me to order this PPV, I think it's fair game to judge whether or not it has the potential to make that impact. I don't think it's worth my money to order this match. Just my opinion. I could be wrong, but why risk it?

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 2.3.04 1226)
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1904 days
Last activity: 1838 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.24
"I don't think it's worth my money to order this match. Just my opinion. I could be wrong, but why risk it?"

I sincerely hope that you're not judging the show's value based on this one match. I don't think that's the wa to aproach it, ya know? Not after the effort that's been put in across the board.



"You're A Big Hunk Of Hero Sandwich, And You Wanna Save The Girl!"

Mr Tuesday
Kolbasz








Since: 6.1.02
From: Chicago, IL

Since last post: 784 days
Last activity: 489 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.80
It's the belt that makes the difference. This is for the World title, not the WWE title.

"the first time the World title has been defended in a triple threat match at a Wrestlemaina."

Yeah, it makes little diffrence to us. And it's doomed to be a clusterfuck. Amd it shows WWE has no faith in Benoit to carry a Wrestlemania main event. But WWE is sticking with i's guns, even if they shoot themselves in the foot with it.
XManiac24
Bauerwurst








Since: 2.3.04

Since last post: 3746 days
Last activity: 3738 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.21
(deleted by CRZ on 2.3.04 1321)
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.05
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: SmackDown! Spo-Dee-O-Dee...
Next thread: Hall Of Fame
Previous thread: WWE superstars upset of new signings
(6902 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Eric Young over A1 Jay Lethal over Petey Williams Alex Shelley & Johnny Devine win the Battle Royal Raven over Brother Runt & Abyss Rhino over Christian Cage TNA World X-Division Champion Senshi over Chris Sabin Samoa Joe over Jeff Jarrett AJ Styles & Chr...
- Freeway, No Surrender predictions (2006)
Related threads: How much time.... - WrestleMania XX Preview Thread - The return of Hulk Hogan - More...
The W - Pro Wrestling - Making it a triple threat cripples WWE's chance in making the main event mean something long termRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.416 seconds.