madness1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 31, 2007 10:26:16 GMT -5
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by madness1 on Jan 8, 2009 12:14:12 GMT -5
After reading how WM 11 sucked in large part because of LT vs Bam Bam being the mainevent. imo there are worse WM's. (13,9,1 for starters) Should the main event always be the Title match. I personally don't think so. Because there have been WM's that EVERYONE(well almost everyone) main draw was antoher match and the match that is in fact remembered the most. For instance.
These matches imo should have been the Main Event
1. Hogan vs The Rock
Does anyone remember or talk about HHH vs Jericho?
2. Shawn Michaels vs Ric Flair
The match itself wasn't in HBK's greats and the Taker vs Edge was a better match but in 10 years from now will people talk about the 10th time Taker and Edge fought or about Flair's last match? Already due to their SS match Taker's and Edges has been forgotten yet how many times has highlights of Flair's match been shown?
3. Steve Austin vs The Rock (last match)
yeah you could put up a good arguement about how they already main evented two previous WM's but seeing these for the last time in a match was more emotional and bittersweet than the title match even if it was a great one.
Your thoughts?
|
|
Dwight
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 10, 2007 11:02:46 GMT -5
Posts: 2,686
|
Post by Dwight on Jan 8, 2009 23:28:19 GMT -5
Yes it should just because that is what the show is based upon. The guy that won the Rumble getting his big title shot. And besides, its not guaranteed that a earlier match will outdo the main event.
I'd prefer that it always end in a title match.
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jan 8, 2009 23:37:09 GMT -5
unless a match/feud legimately holds more concern and interest with fans than the title match.
|
|
|
|
Post by tnafan4life on Jan 8, 2009 23:39:42 GMT -5
Title matches should always main event UNLESS another match has a better storyline/build up.
|
|
I LIKE BIG BUTTS
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
5-1
Joined on: May 14, 2008 16:35:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,557
|
Post by I LIKE BIG BUTTS on Jan 9, 2009 0:30:06 GMT -5
Not always, it just depends on the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Jan 9, 2009 2:19:57 GMT -5
World title as your main event brings more prestige to your belt. (Not like the WWE cares about that anymore). To me if you have Cena vs Batista after a WWE Title match, you're saying those guys are more important then your champion. That doesnt look good IMO
|
|
redypiper
Main Eventer
bravery over timidity
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 19:51:33 GMT -5
Posts: 2,948
|
Post by redypiper on Jan 9, 2009 2:23:25 GMT -5
totally depends on the champion
|
|
Too Sweet
Main Eventer
R.I.P MJ
Joined on: Sept 20, 2006 23:28:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,611
|
Post by Too Sweet on Jan 9, 2009 13:14:46 GMT -5
Yeah I'd agree that HBK/Flair and Hogan/Rock should have been the Main Events simply because they were more " Bigger " in a way than the common Title match every PPV, the way they build up the matches it has that " Only once " feeling to it. Both of those Wrestlemanias could have ended in a bang.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheBigThing on Jan 9, 2009 16:20:50 GMT -5
Apparently management asked Flair if he wanted to go on last but he opted otherwise, stating that there is nothing more important than the World Title and that it should be in the spotlight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jan 9, 2009 19:25:12 GMT -5
I feel the Royal Rumble Winner vs. Champion should always main event.
|
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Jan 9, 2009 20:51:28 GMT -5
Apparently management asked Flair if he wanted to go on last but he opted otherwise, stating that there is nothing more important than the World Title and that it should be in the spotlight. Flair is old school bitches!!! Just the way it should be |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 2:48:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2009 15:51:39 GMT -5
I think the Rumble winner should be in the last match challenging for the strap at WM.when they arent it feels anticlimatic.
example..........the year WWE rushed Rey vs Kurt vs Orton to pad HHHs ego.
I mean for Gods sake they got 9-12 minutes for the world title match(which could have been one of the greats)........which was followed by a diva pilow fight..........and then the ultimate insult.........
HHHs "barbarian"entrance was nearly as long as Reys victory match and Cena and HHHs entrances combined were definately longer.
no one remembers HHH vs Jericho at WM18 because it sucked ass and the crowd didnt give a shit.
|
|
madness1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 31, 2007 10:26:16 GMT -5
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by madness1 on Jan 11, 2009 16:04:11 GMT -5
I think the Rumble winner should be in the last match challenging for the strap at WM.when they arent it feels anticlimatic. example..........the year WWE rushed Rey vs Kurt vs Orton to pad HHHs ego. I mean for Gods sake they got 9-12 minutes for the world title match(which could have been one of the greats)........which was followed by a diva pilow fight..........and then the ultimate insult......... HHHs "barbarian"entrance was nearly as long as Reys victory match and Cena and HHHs entrances combined were definately longer. no one remembers HHH vs Jericho at WM18 because it sucked ass and the crowd didnt give a ****. Agree. Though Cena was a bigger name the triple threat match could have been almost as good as the HHH vs HBK vs Beniot. I say almost because that match was the classic |
|
|
|
Post by joker123 on Jan 11, 2009 17:13:11 GMT -5
Not always.
There's occasions where they should have e.g. WrestleMania VIII, and there's times where they shouldn't have e.g. WrestleMania X8.
|
|
|
|
Post by HugoOne on Jan 11, 2009 18:07:24 GMT -5
Always. The problem becomes when the build isn't strong enough. Nobody remembers Jericho vs. Triple H mainly because it was an average match with HORRIBLE build to it. It should have been built like the strongest match on the card.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBT on Jan 11, 2009 18:11:40 GMT -5
I'm gonna answer it with an emphatic statement.
If Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels happens at WM-25, with or without gold on the line, it should main event. I can't think of a potential title match that would draw more interest.
If the title match draws more interest, it should be at the top of the card. However, the title is not a necessary component to have the fan's attention. Cena could wrestle and that'd be main event worthy, due to his drawing power, not whether he has the gold or is challenging for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jan 12, 2009 17:53:16 GMT -5
Not always. There's occasions where they should have e.g. WrestleMania VIII, and there's times where they shouldn't have e.g. WrestleMania X8. Exactly. It depends on the show and matches - there should be no set rule that the title match should go on last, because sometimes it's just bad decision-making to do it (like at X8). However, I will disagree with your WrestleMania 8 example. Flair vs Savage wasn't as big a deal as the Ultimate Warrior's return or Hulk Hogan's "retirement." Ultimately, that show should've been Hogan vs Flair, and that would've definitely been the main event. But as it was, I can see why Hogan-Sid was on last (even if it did suck big balls). |
|
|
|
Post by dennis on Jan 14, 2009 10:04:41 GMT -5
Like I'm sure it's been said already, I absolutely think the Rumble winner getting his shot should be the main event. If not it begins to not only devalue the championship, but also takes away from winning the Rumble itself.
And remember how ass backwards Raw felt when Punk(the Champion) was wrestling during the first hour and the show was main evented by Orton?
|
|
|
|
Post by spawnsyxx9 on Jan 15, 2009 11:37:57 GMT -5
Yes because the title no matter what should be the most important part of any promotion.
|
|
|
|
Post by 49% Motherf**ker, 51% SOB on Jan 18, 2009 20:04:36 GMT -5
World Title matches should ALWAYS be the last matches on any PPV card.
|
|
