5. No Way Out 2003 2003 had some really bad pay per views, and this one was no exception. The triple main event of HHH/Steiner, Stone Cold/Bischoff, and Rock/Hogan 2, which was their WM X-8 match but worse and without the insane crowd heat. The undercard was okay, but golly gee that's the worst triple main event EVER. And Undertaker/Big Show didn't help. The Edge angle was ok but never got resolved, and the resulting handicap match wasn't as great as it could have been as a result.
4. Vengeance 2007 It's going to take some time to set in on how awful this PPV was, but this was such an awful mess. Edge/Batista was the best match by far at 2 stars.
3. Armageddon 2003 This pay per view was so awful. The opening match was Booker T vs mark Henry. The last match was a triple threat which featured HHH pinning Kane to win Goldberg's title. There was a lot of useless stuff in between, with the one good match being Orton owning RVD for the IC title.
2. Armageddon 2004 Historically bad. I cannot tell you how bad this PPV was. The main event was the top rated match at 2 stars. They reduced the cruiser title to Spike vs Funaki in the semi main event. The one good match besides the main event wasn't even announced, and was very short (Holly/Haas vs bashams). Cena squashed jesus. Big Show squashed 3 people! Angle beat Santa Claus. This PPV stunk and was far worse than GAB 2004.
1. King of the Ring 99 Oh my lord, where to start? BILLY GUNN beats Big Show, Kane, and X-Pac in 5 minute matches to win KOTR. Rock/Undertaker in a 2 star classic. One of the worst ladder matches of all time in the main event. The average match length must have been 5 minutes excluding the two main events. This was garbage.
You can't have watched much WWE before 1999 if those are the worst shows you've seen them put on.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
I started watching in 1999, yes. I fail to see how that's such a big deal.
I have seen some of the historically "bad" PPVs like WM9 and KOTR 95 and didn't find them to be all that bad.
In terms of older PPVs that came close.. WM 2, 4, 12, 13. In Your House: It's Time. and Royal Rumble 1995. But they all were slightly better to me than NWO 2003.
I'll agree with that.. but on the flip side, it's almost always been like that. WM10 is the most overrated PPV ever to me because it has two good matches and a TON of worthless 1-2 star crap, yet everyone ignores the crap and focuses on the two good matches. I've heard people call it the greatest PPV ever! It's not even in my top 50. So, I'd say a PPV can always get by if it has a "classic" match or two. (Same with WM3 really. One great match, some decent stuff, a historic spot.. and what else?)
KOTR '95 featured Bam Bam Bigelow with flamethrowers, heel Tatanka in a main event, and Mabel going over Undertkaer and, indirectly, Shawn Michaels. It defies what you would expect of a bad PPV. And WM IX ain't far behind. Ut/Gonzalez alone was enough to make it one of the worst shows of all time.
And they're just the most known ones.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
Thank the heavens I clearly stated in the topic that it was MY opinion.
I like King Mabel, so maybe I am a little biased towards KOTR 95. I don't see how him beating Undertaker makes it a bad PPV. The main event sucked but I liked everything else.
Wrestlemania 9 had one really bad match.. ok. So did a lot of Wrestlemanias. Some even had more than one really bad match.
They get unfairly criticized too much. There's definitely a lot worse out there.
There's not a match that breaks ** on the WM IX card, if we're going by your criteria.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
Thread rated: 4.90
#
#
#
