For the first time since Wrestlemania 17 I am -not- going. It's been 12 long amazing years. All but the first time, we've used the WM travelpackages that WWE has offered.
This year however, things got so expensive that we just decided to call it quits. The 'gold package' that was 1200 dollars 3 years ago is now 2000. We've always been treated like kings though so we didn't feel like trying to go the cheaper route and book a cheaper hotel & seats.
It'll be weird watching it on tv. But..I do believe that to make us feel less bad, the WWE is coming to the Netherlands for the first time in 22 years or so. Right after WM. Yay.
Originally posted by piemanI haven't been to a live show since the late 70s/early 80s. Pedro Morales, Tito Santana, Ivan Putski and from the Isle of Malta - Baron Mikel Scicluna!
UNACCEPTABLE! WWE comes to Maine, dont they? Are your kids into wrestling at all?
My last 2 WWE shows were the Raw where HHH & Steph got married in Vegas in 1999 and the Smackdown taping the next day. I'd like to see a WrestleMania in person someday but I'm running out of freinds to go with that still watch wrestling AND it's so damn expensive AAAND they havent really given me anything worth paying to see for awhile so yeah.
I went to 24, 25 and 28 live in Orlando, Houston and Miami. NY/NJ would be much easier for me to attend by comparison, but I'll be skipping it. I'm done with live WrestleManias. The Rock vs. John Cena was enough to get me to 28 live, but I don't know if there are any more dream matches worth the expense and effort of going live to me anymore. I've had my WrestleMania live experiences. 24 and 28 were magical. But for, I'm done. Everyone going, enjoy!
“@ZackRyder: @CMPunk She played me bro” I got your back.
Friends of mine tried to get us 75 dollar tickets (90 after the charges) and we were shut out. We will look to see if they release some tickets closer to the show, but it looks like we are watching it from home. Le sigh.
"Put on your helmets, we'll be reaching speeds of 3!" "It was nice of you to give that dead woman another chance." "All right, look alive everybody...oh sorry Susan."- MST3K: Space Mutiny Click Here (facebook.com)
Do we know any details about Axxess/the Hall Of Fame induction this year? M'lady & I were talking about maybe just going up for the Saturday festivities, without spending the money on Mania itself (or chancing the weather).
I went to Wrestlemanias 22 and 23 in Chicago and Detroit. 23 at the Ford Field with 70,000 people was absolutely amazing. I got a feeling of what it must have been like being at the Pontiac Silverdome at Wrestlemania 3 with over 93,000 people.
If Wrestlemania doesn't come to your town though, it's getting to be pretty expensive to travel to those. However, I think that a true wrestling fan should have at least one Wrestlemania moment of their own. I don't know about you guys, but for me there is just some magical about it. Of course, most of my friends think that I'm crazy for still watching this stuff..
Could this be our first RUMORED WRESTLEMANIA RUMORS thread? Sure why not.
From this week's Observer and Figure-Four...
As Amos alluded to, Foley is the expected HOF headliner. There is also a push for Owen Hart because of the WMX MSG connection, but that's a very touchy subject since his widow will be publicly negative about not wanting it. Bruno Sammartino also turned them down. Randy Savage is a hold-up since Lanny Poffo and his mother have insisted that the three Poffos go in as a family.
The Superdome in New Orleans is the frontrunner for Wrestlemania 30.
The working idea for the top of the card right now is
Cena vs. Rock HHH vs. Lesnar Undertaker vs. Punk Sheamus vs. Orton
and the expectation for a while has been that Rock would beat Punk at the Royal Rumble and defend against Cena, who'd probably win the Rumble.
Bryan also wrote this week, "For whatever it's worth, last week the idea was that CM Punk was closing out WrestleMania." I put less stock in that than if Dave had written it and/or we weren't still 5 months out, but we'll take it at face value out of boredom since wrestling sucks at the moment. Some people think this would mean they'd thinking of reversing the order of Punk and Cena's matches with Rock. To me I think it means Punk could retain against Rock -- maybe with Cena costing Rock the match, accidentally or on purpose, to set up their rematch -- and take a 500-day world title reign to Wrestlemania against the Undertaker's streak.
But I'd be surprised.
It'd be great if they just forgot to do the HHH/Lesnar rematch for some reason and gave Brock something better, but the one consolation might be Lesnar getting cheered over Triple H in New York. Full circle from Wrestlemania XX.
HHH vs. Lesnar with HHH getting his win back would be the worst and most hilarious waste of money ever, so I hate it and simultaneously want them to do it very, very badly. Especially if HHH does the meaningful stare at the Wrestlemania sign and Brock, who hasn't been around for the Wrestlemania Stare Era, is completely baffled by it and maybe F5s the sign on the go-home show.
Cena vs. Rock II TWICE IN A LIFETIME TWO TIMES ONLY doesn't interest me.
Punk vs. Undertaker is the only Undertaker Match that makes sense for me for this year (note: if Brock had been undefeated and Undertaker came back and "died" beating him to save wrestling from MMA, obviously, that would have been fine).
But as I see it, as much as Cena vs. Rock II Twice In A Lifetime Two Times Only But This Time For The Belt doesn't interest me, I do think Punk losing the belt before Wrestlemania is the only logical set-up for Punk vs. Undertaker at Wrestlemania. If Punk loses it at the Rumble to The Rock, he still gets to break Cena's "modern record", making him the greatest champion of the current era. And yet, he can still be taunted (illogically, but that hasn't stopped them) of not being The Best In The World or a true legend or what have you because he hasn't had "that moment". And so a titleless, disrespected Punk would then decide to stop letting them move the bar and pull away the brass ring by doing the one thing that no one else ever has done to prove himself and get that "one moment" that Foley rambled about by ending The Streak.
(And then, to fantasy book my fantasy booking, Undertaker raises the beaten Punk's hand and says he respects him and then returns in June to, I don't know, save Punk from an evil Ryback. Then he tries to announce his retirement, only to have a newly Heel John Cena - perhaps on a power mad high from the sensation of defeating The Great One - take him out as the 2013 June Surprise to set up Undertaker vs. Cena at WM30, with an "I'll give you a REAL reason to boo me" motivation for Cena.)
Cena vs. Rock II is a foregone conclusion, which is maybe why WWE wouldn't put it on last --- save Punk/Undertaker for the main event slot, which will only increase the drama that Punk might actually win. If Punk goes through Foley at TLC, Rock at Royal Rumble and, I dunno, Val Venis at Elimination Chamber, then he can claim to have beaten the entire Attitude Era....then cue the GONG. (Or the broken glass...it's been finalized that Austin isn't coming back to face Punk, right?)
Punk/UT can't be a title match since the expectation is that Taker will win, and obviously he isn't in physical shape to be champion unless they give him a token month-long reign and have him drop it to Punk or someone at Extreme Rules. (Which would detract from the Mania match, in my opinion.)
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
I'm not going to update this every week or anything, but just wanted to follow up:
Bryan elaborates in this week's issue about Punk and the title and confirms the idea that they're thinking about having Punk retain at the Rumble and wrestle Taker, title vs. streak. Rock was long planned to take the title for a couple months for Mania season, but that was before the GI Joe rescheduling and Hercules commitments changed how available Rock would be to be visible as WWE champion -- i.e. they didn't necessarily mind him only wrestling once or twice while holding the title, but he would need to be around while champion, not disappear with the belt like Hogan in WCW.
I think either scenario is a win. Rock winning the title would be a cool moment, Punk's reign actually becomes a bigger deal since the only person who could end it was a living legend, and involving the championship would be a welcome alteration to the story for Rock/Cena after the bitchiness of round 1.
But Punk winning and setting up 500 vs. 21 is a bigger hook for the show than Punk vowing to end the streak to get respect/be a dick. It might not create legit plausible doubt that Punk can win (although they can always float rumors that it's Taker's last match and maybe...), but it creates real stakes in that something's gotta give. Imagine the reign-counting video package by March when you can put the Rock (and Val Venis) in it. It also means the show doesn't have to put almost all its eggs in the Cena/Rock twice in a lifetime basket.
As for how to get the belt off of Taker, well, that's a good question. One we could wait until Punk actually beats Rock to start thinking about, but what the heck. I think Taker sticking around for three weeks to drop the title would be fine. It's too bad Ziggler can't MITB that belt the night after Mania, especially since he's running out of months to have a quality reign pre-Mania, assuming they stick with Orton/Sheamus.
Rey Mysterio vs. Sin Cara is also a fifth match they're planning for the show.
Question: Ziggler won Money in the Bank at Money in the Bank in July, not at WrestleMania 28. The briefcase owner has one year to cash in, so doesn't that mean one year from July 12 to July 13, not one "year" from July 12 to WrestleMania 29?
“@ZackRyder: @CMPunk She played me bro” I got your back.
Oh, okay! Thank you, I somehow hadn't noticed. I like it. As for everyone shrieking about how I *shouldn't* be offended at the John Ritter remark -- newflash: it wasn't the John Ritter remark itself that offended me. Reread my post.