Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 5:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2009 21:07:41 GMT -5
I feel the Royal Rumble Winner vs. Champion should always main event. I echo that sentiment, that's the whole thing about winning the Rumble, outlasting the other 'Superstars' and getting a prestigious shot at the Main Event at WM. |
|
Greensborohill
Main Eventer
CHAMPION
Joined on: Jan 14, 2007 14:44:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,657
|
Post by Greensborohill on Jan 20, 2009 11:38:04 GMT -5
If your world title isn't on your main draw. . . . then you're organization has a problem. Your champion should ALWAYS wrestle last.
|
|
Greensborohill
Main Eventer
CHAMPION
Joined on: Jan 14, 2007 14:44:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,657
|
Post by Greensborohill on Jan 20, 2009 11:38:40 GMT -5
I feel the Royal Rumble Winner vs. Champion should always main event. I echo that sentiment, that's the whole thing about winning the Rumble, outlasting the other 'Superstars' and getting a prestigious shot at the Main Event at WM. Now that there are 2 world titles. . . I agree with the above quotes. |
|
Greensborohill
Main Eventer
CHAMPION
Joined on: Jan 14, 2007 14:44:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,657
|
Post by Greensborohill on Jan 20, 2009 11:39:36 GMT -5
Here's a question. . . . should the world title match always be after the royal rumble match?
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jan 20, 2009 12:11:01 GMT -5
Here's a question. . . . should the world title match always be after the royal rumble match? you know what, i'd say no. the crowd is so buzzed out by the time that match rolls around...everyone went to watch the rumble anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Kurt Burton: Script Doctor! on Jan 21, 2009 1:01:00 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. Really, because the main event at the first WM was not a title match. WM 4, but because the entire thing was a tournament to declare a champ, did have a world title match, though not champion versus challenger. And WM8 had Sid versus Hogan, non title as the Main Event. |
|
wagwan
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 28, 2007 3:40:07 GMT -5
Posts: 496
|
Post by wagwan on Jan 23, 2009 2:48:08 GMT -5
I like the fact that the title match should go last, because if your the champion, than in reality, you are the best, so you always give that appearence. It also gives your title and company credibility; but...
titles don't mean anything anymore, mainly because they change so often, and now there's 2 world titles.
I'm all about what match is most desired going on last in this day and age.
Hogan/Rock was the main event at XVIII no doubt about it
Vince/Hogan was the main event at XIX, imo
Flair/Shawn was the main event at XXIV
and this year if it's Austin vs anyone, especially a current roster guy, that should be on last.
|
|
|
|
Post by steverow on Jan 24, 2009 5:03:14 GMT -5
Out of respect for the title, of course it should always be last.
There's always gonna be a show-stealer on the midcard though
|
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Jan 24, 2009 8:42:01 GMT -5
All wrestlemanias should have an electric opening match to really get the crowd warm. (HBK vs Tito Santana come to mind) then around the middle have another top notch strong match (Steamboat vs Savage, MITB) and then close with your World Title
|
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 25, 2009 1:10:41 GMT -5
The ONLY time in Wrestlemania's history that I could justify a non-title main event is X8, because Hogan/Rock was built famously and Jericho/H went pretty much untouched. In fact, I was shocked they went with that as the main event.
Wrestlemania 11 was a total failure because of LT/Bam Bam main eventing. I remember being young watching that event and thinking it was stupid even then.
|
|
