Wrestlemania #15: Should It Have Been Vince Vs. Austin?

Rock was a big deal, but should he have been here?Rock wasn’t quite a superstar yet but he was almost there.  That being said, should Vince, Austin’s archnemesis, have been in the main event against him?  Assume that match doesn’t happen at St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, should Vince vs. Austin have been the main event here?

 

I think there’s a very good case to be made for it.  This was without a doubt the feud for the company at this point and I think you could make a very solid argument to put them out there.  Vince could have decent matches when he wanted to and I don’t think you could argue that there wasn’t anything bigger as far as feuds go.

 

Should it have been Vince vs. Austin for the title?

1 comment

  1. Si says:

    Austin vs Vince should have no doubt happened at Wrestlemania, however not for the title, as the match really didn’t need it.

    After the Rumble Austin vs Vince in a cage (like at the event before) was ready made, as well as Mankind being screwed out of the title and searching for the rematch. So instead of having that rematch 6 days later they could easily have used the same storyline of Mankind wanting to be in the main event, but this time searching for his rematch.

    if Wrestlemania is headlined by Austin vs Vince and Rock vs Foley for the title then it prevents the one match card stigma and provides a stronger anchor for everything else.

    I dont feel that Austin vs Rock is that strong, Rock clearly wasn’t anywhere near the austin level at that stage and it was clear that he was just a guy for him to beat to stik it to Vince. at least with Mankind vs Rock we have a level title match, as well as seeing the showdown that had been built up to for 12 months.