Wrestlemania #6: Is This The Right Formula?

It seems that there are two ways to run a Wrestlemania:There’s the way that the earlier ones (as in 1, 3, 5 and 6 so far) have been done and then there’s the way that most of the more recent ones have been done.  By that I mean having one big main event and then the rest of the card is whatever, or the way today’s are run with multiple huge matches.  Simple question: which do you prefer?

 

I think I prefer the older way.  It’s about one match and one showdown and there’s something cool about that.  However if it fails, you’re pretty much screwed.

 

Thoughts?

4 comments

  1. newc868 says:

    The current Wrestlemanias are good but I don’t like the fact that they big up matches as ‘four main events’ when one of them recently has been Undertaker’s match.

    I think I prefer the current Wrestlemanias though because there’s a lot more potential for Wrestlemania momenst and what you remember, rather than having all but one moment to remember. Hogan v Andre was huge and will probably be the biggest match of all time but what else is there to remember from that card?

    To use the ‘Superbowl of Wrestling’ line for comparison’s sake, I love the playoffs just as much as I love the Superbowl. Even if the Superbowl disappoints there are still some great playoff moments that go down in history. I feel like that with the undercard under the main event match.

    HHH v Taker wasn’t as epic as they would like you to think but I still remember it more than that god awful main event.

    [Reply]

  2. Steve says:

    KB,

    While I do enjoy todays formula of the four match main event, I actually prefer the old style of the one big main event showdown.

    Im not sure that the WWE can pull off a mega showdown these days. There are 3 main reasons for this. The bigeest problem in my mind behind this is the two world titles. Back in those days the WWF title was what everyone was gunning for and it meant holding it you were the best in the world. Now if you lose the WWE title you can simply go after the WHC a la edge at EC a few years back, plus the title chan ges hands to often it seems like the two in the main event either have held the title already or will eventually hold it.

    THe nex problem is the lack if BIG TIME superstars, after Cena, Taker, HHH, Orton, and maybe Punk there really is nobody that can be thrown into a WM main event and make it have that big time feel to it. Plus you can take HHH and taker out of the equation beucase they might wrestle 7 times a year combined. Back in the day they had Hogan, Piper, Andre, Dibiase, Savage, Warrior, and Flair (Goddamn WM8 I still cant watch it and enjoy it becuase IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HOGAN VS FLAIR!!) toward the end. I mean if you stand back and look at the big picture the Main event for last years WM was Cena and Miz, while its was great fot the time, where does it hold up all time?

    Also WM28 is going to be the biggest WM in a long time and look at the 4 main events this year

    Cena vs Rock, The face of the WWE vs a part time guy who shows up maybe 10 times a year, and not for the WWE title

    HHH vs Taker, two part time guys who have been in the ring maybe twice since the last WM

    Punk vs Jericho, the WWE champion is in the third main event, facing off against a guy who just came back in January and is probably going to leave very soon after.

    Byran vs Sheamus, The RR winner is in the fourth main event fighting for a title that opened the show last year, against a guy who he was supposed to face off against last year, but thier match went from on the card to a dark match to the WM Battle Royal.

    Finaly to go along with the lack of big times names, is the fact that all of the WWE’s top stars have already fueded with each other. At WM 26 Cena and Batista wrestled each other and it seemed like the first time we had a huge showdown since maybe Lesnar and Angle, however, they had a match on Raw to make Cena the #1 contender, and the match wasnt even the true main event. Also they had a huge match at SS a few years earlier. For Cena and Miz, they’ve had a few fueds prior to WM 27, and no matter how hard they tried, it just didnt come close to epic. For WM 25 HHH, vs Orton… I dont even want to talk about it.

    In the days of the Mega Showdown, it seemed like the guys in the main event never squared off aaginst each other until WM, they would tease it, and maybe have a few physical confrontation. Could you Imagine Hogan having to wrestle Savage, or Warrior at SNME just to get a match with him at WM?

    While I do enjoy the new format of WM, and eventhough this sounnds like a mega rant, its not, I just miss the days of seeing the Showdown to end all showdowns, and Seeing guys like Hogan, Hart and Austin, staring down Andre, Savage, Warrior, Shawn and The Rock, about to begin a match for the ages.

    [Reply]

  3. Wayne says:

    The nostalgia in me would prefer Wrestlemania the way it used to be (circa 85-92), however, since Mania 17, I prefer them to be megashows, having a stacked card with a nicely built main event.

    [Reply]

  4. Stormy says:

    There is one fundamental flaw with the whole 1 super-mega-Main Events and a bunch of other matches thing.

    What happens if the one super-mega-match turns out to be shit? What happens is that the entire PPV becomes shit. With the multiple Main Events, if one doesn’t work as well, there are others to carry the load.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply