|
|
Post by LtD73 on Jun 25, 2013 13:44:18 GMT -5
I really wanted to see this match at Wrestlemania and was just thinking about it then.
This match would've been huge:
Cena finally defeats both Punk and Rock in the same match no less
Punks title reign coming to an end at Wrestlemania wouldve been a much bigger deal than the Rumble
Gives Punk his first WM Main Event (show closer)
Different main event to once in a lifetime 2
WWE really dropped the ball by not having this match
|
|
|
|
Post by Spear Guy on Jun 25, 2013 14:02:27 GMT -5
Would have been good but who would have faced UT?
|
|
|
|
Post by philly boi on Jun 25, 2013 14:03:27 GMT -5
Considering how bad the Rock/Cena match was at Mania this year, yes. People are going to come in here and bash us though for getting our hopes up about the match before it was confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by philly boi on Jun 25, 2013 14:03:40 GMT -5
Would have been good but who would have faced UT? Jericho. |
|
MonsoonMan
Main Eventer
SE Wisconsin, NE Illinois figure hunter.
Joined on: Jan 1, 2012 22:47:05 GMT -5
Posts: 2,447
|
Post by MonsoonMan on Jun 25, 2013 14:05:00 GMT -5
I 100% agree. Wwe totally shot themselves in the foot
|
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jun 25, 2013 15:00:10 GMT -5
The three year story arc for Rock/Cena was always in the cards, and WWE was unwilling to stray from it, plain and simple.
Rock/Punk/Cena made a tremendous amount of sense, practically booked itself and would have given Cena the same storybook ending, but Rock/Cena was the bigger draw. Not to mention, Cena would have something to do other than twiddle his thumbs while The Rock phoned in the entire month and a half prior to Wrestlemania.
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jun 25, 2013 15:05:25 GMT -5
Would have been good but who would have faced UT? brock. and hhh can just take the night off. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jun 25, 2013 15:05:26 GMT -5
Cena vs Rock was always the planned story, and a much bigger match than it would have been if it was watered down by adding CM Punk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Jun 25, 2013 15:07:36 GMT -5
Would have been good but who would have faced UT? Jericho. Who would've put over Fandango, then? The Mania main event was only going to be a triple threat as a backup if Undertaker decided that he couldn't go. Once Taker gave WWE the word that he was performing, CM Punk was the guy and the main event was Rock/Cena. There was no other way. You don't tell Undertaker "no, we don't want you", and Vince was determined to get Fandango on the card and get him a win, so Jericho was already booked. And really, it was better for CM Punk this way, anyway. Yeah, there was no shot in hell he was winning so that pisses off some internet marks, but would those people rather he been in a triple threat he also had no shot in hell of being made the winner while also getting overlooked next to Cena and The Rock's star power? Would have been good but who would have faced UT? brock. and hhh can just take the night off. Brock and Triple H's story was too far in development to pull the plug on it. Triple H is a bigger PPV draw than CM Punk, anyway. Just like you don't tell Undertaker "no thanks", you don't pull Triple H off of a card anyway. More people will pay to see Triple H than will pay to see CM Punk. Hence why CM Punk didn't get any PPV Main Events as Champion unless he was facing John Cena or The Rock. |
|
|
|
Post by ThugSuperstar on Jun 25, 2013 15:07:43 GMT -5
The WWE wanted Cena to have a clean win over the guy who started his "downward spiral" over the last year. It would've been a much better match with Punk involved, but the WWE most likely felt like it would make Cena look stronger by beating The Rock cleanly one-on-one. After all, why have Superman win a triple threat match for the title when he could beat them BOTH over the span of a month cleanly in singles matches?
|
|
|
|
Post by Flair Forever on Jun 25, 2013 15:09:19 GMT -5
I think Vince has been trying to re-capture that "lightning in a bottle" what was Hogan/Warrior, and Hogan/Andre for years.... he's come close a few times, but never quite duplicated that level of excitement....
Anyway, I think a three-way-match (in Vince's eyes) would not have had the same aura that he was trying to re-create...
As a wrestling match, it would have been much better!
For the record: I thoroughly enjoyed CM Punk VS Undertaker - both live, and on the Blu Ray.... and I resent those who think Punk deserved something more - it is quite an honor to be one of Undertaker's "Wrestlemania Opponents".....
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jun 25, 2013 15:25:39 GMT -5
brock. and hhh can just take the night off. Brock and Triple H's story was too far in development to pull the plug on it. Triple H is a bigger PPV draw than CM Punk, anyway. Just like you don't tell Undertaker "no thanks", you don't pull Triple H off of a card anyway. More people will pay to see Triple H than will pay to see CM Punk. Hence why CM Punk didn't get any PPV Main Events as Champion unless he was facing John Cena or The Rock. what do you mean too far in development? you had him break hhh and beat him the year before, done deal. lesnar returned to raw in january to f5 vince and restart the feud with hhh. at that point is where you could have easily had a brock/taker feud ignition. as for your assertion that hhh draws more than cm punk, i don't believe that is necessarily a fact. i also don't believe your reasoning of not getting any 'ppv main events'. hhh is not an active member of the roster anymore, so to put cm punk and him on the same standard despite differences in years for title reigns and state of the business would be illogical. lesnar/taker would've drawn far more than hhh/lesnar, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Jun 25, 2013 15:40:34 GMT -5
Brock and Triple H's story was too far in development to pull the plug on it. Triple H is a bigger PPV draw than CM Punk, anyway. Just like you don't tell Undertaker "no thanks", you don't pull Triple H off of a card anyway. More people will pay to see Triple H than will pay to see CM Punk. Hence why CM Punk didn't get any PPV Main Events as Champion unless he was facing John Cena or The Rock. what do you mean too far in development? you had him break hhh and beat him the year before, done deal. lesnar returned to raw in january to f5 vince and restart the feud with hhh. at that point is where you could have easily had a brock/taker feud ignition. as for your assertion that hhh draws more than cm punk, i don't believe that is necessarily a fact. i also don't believe your reasoning of not getting any 'ppv main events'. hhh is not an active member of the roster anymore, so to put cm punk and him on the same standard despite differences in years for title reigns and state of the business would be illogical. lesnar/taker would've drawn far more than hhh/lesnar, imo. Too far in development is pretty self explanatory. You just said it yourself. Brock Lesnar showed up on RAW and F5'd McMahon on January 28. Once that happened, there was no other conclusion than to have Triple H fight Lesnar to get revenge for not only himself, but for McMahon. The Undertaker didn't return until March 4th. The Undertaker was not sure if he was going to even wrestle at Wrestlemania until he worked that house show 2 weeks before that. You don't have Lesnar F5 McMahon and have it lead to nothing. It would make no sense whatsoever for Undertaker to fight Lesnar when Lesnar's return to WWE was F5'ing McMahon. Undertaker is not going to come to the rescue of Vince McMahon. Their characters have had a long history of hating each other which have resulted in bloody bloody wars. The plan all along was if Undertaker could go, he was beating CM Punk. If not, Punk would have been added to the Rock/Cena match. Triple H/Lesnar and Jericho/Fandango were set in stone. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jun 25, 2013 15:54:42 GMT -5
what do you mean too far in development? you had him break hhh and beat him the year before, done deal. lesnar returned to raw in january to f5 vince and restart the feud with hhh. at that point is where you could have easily had a brock/taker feud ignition. as for your assertion that hhh draws more than cm punk, i don't believe that is necessarily a fact. i also don't believe your reasoning of not getting any 'ppv main events'. hhh is not an active member of the roster anymore, so to put cm punk and him on the same standard despite differences in years for title reigns and state of the business would be illogical. lesnar/taker would've drawn far more than hhh/lesnar, imo. Too far in development is pretty self explanatory. You just said it yourself. Brock Lesnar showed up on RAW and F5'd McMahon on January 28. Once that happened, there was no other conclusion than to have Triple H fight Lesnar to get revenge for not only himself, but for McMahon. The Undertaker didn't return until March 4th. The Undertaker was not sure if he was going to even wrestle at Wrestlemania until he worked that house show 2 weeks before that. You don't have Lesnar F5 McMahon and have it lead to nothing. It would make no sense whatsoever for Undertaker to fight Lesnar when Lesnar's return to WWE was F5'ing McMahon. Undertaker is not going to come to the rescue of Vince McMahon. Their characters have had a long history of hating each other which have resulted in bloody bloody wars. the whole f5'ing of vince was to kickstart the feud. so how do you not have the feud? no f5 to vince! you'd think i was talking to a brick wall here. they could have easily planned a taker/lesnar feud as it practically writes itself: old unbeatable cowboy vs. the monster man. have hhh be the fall-back guy just to cover taker, in case his fellow legend of the era couldn't participate. done and done. where is your proof of this. you're just making assumptions again. |
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Jun 25, 2013 16:08:08 GMT -5
Too far in development is pretty self explanatory. You just said it yourself. Brock Lesnar showed up on RAW and F5'd McMahon on January 28. Once that happened, there was no other conclusion than to have Triple H fight Lesnar to get revenge for not only himself, but for McMahon. The Undertaker didn't return until March 4th. The Undertaker was not sure if he was going to even wrestle at Wrestlemania until he worked that house show 2 weeks before that. You don't have Lesnar F5 McMahon and have it lead to nothing. It would make no sense whatsoever for Undertaker to fight Lesnar when Lesnar's return to WWE was F5'ing McMahon. Undertaker is not going to come to the rescue of Vince McMahon. Their characters have had a long history of hating each other which have resulted in bloody bloody wars. the whole f5'ing of vince was to kickstart the feud. so how do you not have the feud? no f5 to vince! you'd think i was talking to a brick wall here. they could have easily planned a taker/lesnar feud as it practically writes itself: old unbeatable cowboy vs. the monster man. have hhh be the fall-back guy just to cover taker, in case his fellow legend of the era couldn't participate. done and done. where is your proof of this. you're just making assumptions again. You seem to be missing the whole point here, or you own a time machine. Once you F5 McMahon on January 28th, you can't take it back. If Undertaker isn't ready to announce that he's wrestling until March 4th, and Wrestlemania is April 7th....you're leaving 2 of your main events with only a month of build up to the biggest PPV of the year. That's a huge business risk and lame and insufficient build up, and if you've hold off on Lesnar and then Undertaker ends up not being able to go, then you're screwed and Triple H/Lesnar has a rushed build up. As it is, if Percy hadn't passed away the build up to Taker/Punk would have been awful. WWE had nothing. And no, I'm not assuming anything. We all read that internet "rumor" in mid-January that Fandango was going to feud with Jericho when he came in. Most people just blew it off, but the fact that it leaked in mid-January shows that it was already set. |
|
|
|
Post by Rule 30 on Jun 25, 2013 16:15:29 GMT -5
I honestly think not going for the triple threat was one of the biggest WrestleMania mistakes they've ever made, but at the end of the day they only gave a damn about the money. It's a shame, because Rock/Cena II was awful and did not deserve to main event WrestleMania. I actually liked the first match,too.
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jun 25, 2013 16:25:49 GMT -5
the whole f5'ing of vince was to kickstart the feud. so how do you not have the feud? no f5 to vince! you'd think i was talking to a brick wall here. they could have easily planned a taker/lesnar feud as it practically writes itself: old unbeatable cowboy vs. the monster man. have hhh be the fall-back guy just to cover taker, in case his fellow legend of the era couldn't participate. done and done. where is your proof of this. you're just making assumptions again. You seem to be missing the whole point here, or you own a time machine. Once you F5 McMahon on January 28th, you can't take it back. If Undertaker isn't ready to announce that he's wrestling until March 4th, and Wrestlemania is April 7th....you're leaving 2 of your main events with only a month of build up to the biggest PPV of the year. That's a huge business risk and lame and insufficient build up, and if you've hold off on Lesnar and then Undertaker ends up not being able to go, then you're screwed and Triple H/Lesnar has a rushed build up. As it is, if Percy hadn't passed away the build up to Taker/Punk would have been awful. WWE had nothing. And no, I'm not assuming anything. We all read that internet "rumor" in mid-January that Fandango was going to feud with Jericho when he came in. Most people just blew it off, but the fact that it leaked in mid-January shows that it was already set. ah, that is a good point about the 2 months. to clarify, i was saying if the f5 to vince did not happen, then there would be no reignition of the lesnar/hhh feud, which would make it possible for lesnar to have had a different storyline going into mania. and these... ...are assumptions. |
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Jun 25, 2013 16:46:57 GMT -5
You seem to be missing the whole point here, or you own a time machine. Once you F5 McMahon on January 28th, you can't take it back. If Undertaker isn't ready to announce that he's wrestling until March 4th, and Wrestlemania is April 7th....you're leaving 2 of your main events with only a month of build up to the biggest PPV of the year. That's a huge business risk and lame and insufficient build up, and if you've hold off on Lesnar and then Undertaker ends up not being able to go, then you're screwed and Triple H/Lesnar has a rushed build up. As it is, if Percy hadn't passed away the build up to Taker/Punk would have been awful. WWE had nothing. And no, I'm not assuming anything. We all read that internet "rumor" in mid-January that Fandango was going to feud with Jericho when he came in. Most people just blew it off, but the fact that it leaked in mid-January shows that it was already set. ah, that is a good point about the 2 months. to clarify, i was saying if the f5 to vince did not happen, then there would be no reignition of the lesnar/hhh feud, which would make it possible for lesnar to have had a different storyline going into mania. and these... ...are assumptions. I obviously can't give you rock solid proof....but the way it played out on TV was way too obvious for me to just be assuming. Look at what they did with CM Punk. They kept him right in the thick of the John Cena/Rock situation the entire Road to Wrestlemania. Then as soon as Undertaker tells WWE he's good to go they IMMEDIATELY have the match on RAW where Cena beats Punk, and then Punk wins the match on Old School RAW for the rights to face The Undertaker. I just think it's pretty obvious what WWE was doing. They were so non-committal with what direction CM Punk was going in, and then as soon as Taker works that house show they yank Punk right out of the Cena/Rock storyline...so in my opinion, that shows me that they were banking on Punk/Taker the whole time and keeping his toes in the Cena/Rock situation was just a safe guard in case Undertaker decided he couldn't work, because they wouldn't in a million years just leave CM Punk off Wrestlemania. And I Understand that you would have just NOT had Lesnar F5 Vince on January 28th because you wanted Taker vs. Lesnar all along...but on January 28th, you didn't know what Undertaker was doing. There was literally nothing else for Triple H to do at the time, and just like Undertaker, if Triple H is healthy, he's working Wrestlemania. He's a draw and he's earned that right. SO even though I obviously can't prove it, like I said...I just think what I'm saying is probably more accurate than inaccurate. Based on the fact that they did bring Lesnar back so early shows they were committed to Triple H/Lesnar. Based on the internet rumor of Jericho vs. Fandango, I'd say they were committed to that too, since it's odd to hear of a rumored Mania match for a guy who hasn't made his debut yet. And since Punk remained in the Cena/Rock story the whole time and was immediately yanked from it as soon as the Undertaker returned tells me that they were waiting on Undertaker the whole time to decide what they were doing with Punk. |
|
|
|
Post by Flair Forever on Jun 25, 2013 17:09:30 GMT -5
I think that Lesnar/Triple H was set in stone back in August (SummerSlam) when Triple H jobbed to Lesnar.... there's no way he wasn't going to get his win back on an even bigger stage - the grandest stage of them all....
|
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Jun 25, 2013 17:26:34 GMT -5
I think that Lesnar/Triple H was set in stone back in August (SummerSlam) when Triple H jobbed to Lesnar.... there's no way he wasn't going to get his win back on an even bigger stage - the grandest stage of them all.... I agree with this. When Triple H lost to Lesnar at SummerSlam and came out there on RAW and did his teary eyed speech apologizing to the fans and his family for letting everybody down and hinting at but not actually confirming his retirement...anybody who didn't see Triple H getting his revenge on Lesnar at Wrestlemania was just kidding themselves. Even CM Punk said it in an interview a few months ago....this years Wrestlemania suffered from severe forgone conclusion syndrome. By July/August, you could easily figure out exactly what was going to happen. At RAW 1000 when they announced Rock was facing the WWE Champ at the Royal Rumble, everyone knew Punk was done. Cena started sniffing around the situation and you knew he was winning the Rumble and facing The Rock at Mania. At SummerSlam when Triple H lost, you knew the rematch was coming, and it was coming at Wrestlemania. The only thing up in the air was Punk, and once Undertaker decided he was in, he was facing Punk and going 21-0. This is the double edged sword with WWE where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. People say they want longer feuds, but then complain that they are drawn out and predictable. People say they want to be surprised, but then complain that the feuds seem rushed and don't make logical sense. I figured out a long time ago that to enjoy this stuff, you have to just hope the matches are good and try not to be bias for or against anybody. When you start taking it personally and really caring who wins or who loses, you're just asking to be pissed off and disappointed. I know all the CM Punk fans were pissed that he lost at Mania, but really, that match was amazing. It was the best match of the night. I don't think taking that match and having Punk win makes it any better of a match. The match was what it was, a GREAT match. CM Punk has beaten Undertaker before, as have Kane, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Batista, Edge, Diesel, Sid, and many many others....hell, even Vladimir Kozlov has a clean win over Undertaker. But NOBODY should ever beat him at Wrestlemania. People who for whatever reason aren't Undertaker fans just need to learn to accept this. No, your favorite wrestler will NOT be beating the Streak. EVER. lol |
|
