|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Aug 10, 2014 9:58:20 GMT -5
Not sure how accurate these are but I found the supposed match times for SummerSlam. Cena/Lesnar - 25 minutes Reigns/Orton - 20 minutes Rollins/Ambrose - 15 minutes Brie/Stephanie - 15 minutes (yes I know) Jericho/Wyatt - 15 minutes Paige/AJ - 12 minutes Rusev/Swagger - 12 minutes Ziggler/Miz - 10 minutes So that's just over 2 hours....personally I'd switch Brie/Stephanie's time with Miz/Dolph. The other 45-50 minutes will be entrances, build up videos, network plugs and commercials.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 23, 2024 21:01:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2014 10:29:39 GMT -5
So that's just over 2 hours....personally I'd switch Brie/Stephanie's time with Miz/Dolph. The other 45-50 minutes will be entrances, build up videos, network plugs and commercials. Sounds about right. I'm surprised Cena/Lesnar didn't get 30 minutes though.
|
|
|
Post by Escape The Rules on Aug 10, 2014 14:19:49 GMT -5
Really looking forward to this Summerslam. The card looks superb.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 23, 2024 21:01:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2014 17:41:47 GMT -5
Really looking forward to this Summerslam. The card looks superb. I just love the fact every match has a build to it, something I've not seen I a while.
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Aug 10, 2014 22:25:37 GMT -5
So, seriously, from a kayfabe standpoint... how the f did Ambrose not choose "Money in the Bank on the line" as his stipulation? Is he an idiot?
|
|
Cody Rhodes Diva
Main Eventer
#1 Seattle Seahawks fan!
Joined on: Aug 10, 2011 3:28:01 GMT -5
Posts: 1,954
|
Post by Cody Rhodes Diva on Aug 12, 2014 1:10:13 GMT -5
Something tells me that the WWE will probably move The Miz vs. Dolph Ziggler to the SummerSlam kickoff show due to time constraints. Your thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 23, 2024 21:01:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2014 5:45:19 GMT -5
Something tells me that the WWE will probably move The Miz vs. Dolph Ziggler to the SummerSlam kickoff show due to time constraints. Your thoughts? I think Rusev/Swagger should be the pre-show.
|
|
|
Post by philly boi on Aug 12, 2014 10:30:06 GMT -5
So, seriously, from a kayfabe standpoint... how the f did Ambrose not choose "Money in the Bank on the line" as his stipulation? Is he an idiot? Those curb stomps that Rollins has been giving him must have done some damage.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 23, 2024 21:01:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2014 17:09:29 GMT -5
So no tag titles at the second biggest show of the year? Makes sense...
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Aug 12, 2014 17:21:10 GMT -5
So no tag titles at the second biggest show of the year? Makes sense... They're defending them tonight... I'm sure we'll get a rematch on Sunday, at least on the preshow.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 13, 2014 5:28:16 GMT -5
It really is madness if Lesnar doesn't win. Beating the streak is a far bigger accomplishment that winning the title will ever be, and in fact is probably the biggest kayfabe accomplishment in wrestling except maybe the streak itself and being the record holder for most title wins. They've already taken the big (still one of the biggest mistakes they've made) step, would be terrible to fumble it at a far smaller hurdle for this story.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Aug 13, 2014 11:07:36 GMT -5
It really is madness if Lesnar doesn't win. Beating the streak is a far bigger accomplishment that winning the title will ever be, and in fact is probably the biggest kayfabe accomplishment in wrestling except maybe the streak itself and being the record holder for most title wins. They've already taken the big (still one of the biggest mistakes they've made) step, would be terrible to fumble it at a far smaller hurdle for this story. I agree, Lesnar has to win. The sad thing here is that the ending of the streak could have been so much bigger if Lesnar had just gone undefeated. None of Lesnar's losses really meant anything, so what would it have hurt to have him go undefeated into facing Taker's streak? That would have made the build a lot more believable from the get-go. That's a conversation for another day, I suppose. But yeah, Lesnar has to win.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 13, 2014 11:40:29 GMT -5
It really is madness if Lesnar doesn't win. Beating the streak is a far bigger accomplishment that winning the title will ever be, and in fact is probably the biggest kayfabe accomplishment in wrestling except maybe the streak itself and being the record holder for most title wins. They've already taken the big (still one of the biggest mistakes they've made) step, would be terrible to fumble it at a far smaller hurdle for this story. I agree, Lesnar has to win. The sad thing here is that the ending of the streak could have been so much bigger if Lesnar had just gone undefeated. None of Lesnar's losses really meant anything, so what would it have hurt to have him go undefeated into facing Taker's streak? That would have made the build a lot more believable from the get-go. That's a conversation for another day, I suppose. But yeah, Lesnar has to win. I like that idea but it seems Lesnar was never supposed to go over until very late in the programme, when it became clear that 'Taker couldn't go any more. That means that Lesnar was probably planned to lose, and so the undefeated stuff would've been irrelevant. If you ask me they should've done it differently. If they knew it was 'Taker's last match at or before Rumble time I would've had Cena win the belt, put him against 'Taker (market it as the last guy 'Taker has to beat at WM) and then have 'Taker win. 'Taker poses with title, lights go off, 22 gongs sound, lights back on and 'Taker is gone with belt in the middle of the ring. If it only became clear late on I would've just had 'Taker beat Lesnar and then do the gongs thing without the belt. Bit confusing in the short run but I think its better than ending the streak to Brock, who was literally the most problematic guy on the roster because of his limited dates meaning its harder for him to go and become the champion after. Now its happened though, anything other than a Brock win makes his victory at WM30 even more pointless, and is a slap in the face to both the fans and Undertaker himself.
|
|
Chief
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 21, 2008 15:36:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,849
|
Post by Chief on Aug 13, 2014 19:46:18 GMT -5
And ignoring the MITB contract bit, why the did he choose a Lumberjack Match over a Steel Cage?!
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 23, 2024 21:01:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 21:07:52 GMT -5
Really really really hope Paige & Dolph win, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
|
|
|
Post by revolution on Aug 13, 2014 22:06:00 GMT -5
Watched the special on Brock/Cena, godamn that was a brilliant way to hype it. But I'm torn on who I want to win. Cena's stale and I'm sick of him, but if Brock wins he will still be part time... I don't know
|
|
|
Post by Yambag Jones on Aug 14, 2014 14:31:39 GMT -5
So, seriously, from a kayfabe standpoint... how the f did Ambrose not choose "Money in the Bank on the line" as his stipulation? Is he an idiot? When he made the announcement I had the equivalent of a brain freeze.
|
|
|
Post by Jaz on Aug 15, 2014 4:31:08 GMT -5
Just saw a commercial for Summerslam advertising Cena vs. Lesnar on the Nick @ Night channel. WWE is going all out with plugging this Network.
|
|
|
Post by metallica90 on Aug 15, 2014 5:38:02 GMT -5
Sooo nooo harper and rowan..
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 23, 2024 21:01:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2014 8:25:35 GMT -5
I'd love to see a Tag Team Turmoil for the Tag Titles added too.
|
|