Wrestlemania 25 Survey

[Montana]

Just a few questions on WM 25. Not your typical MOTN, cause we all know what that was.


1) Was it a good move, or a bad move having HHH defeat Randy Orton in the main event to Wrestlemania 25?



2) Was Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels 5 stars? And was it the Greatest match in Wrestlemania history?


3) Do you agree with CM Punk winning MITB twice? If not explain who should have won it and Why. I know a handful of people thought Christian was worthy, however he's had his hands full with Jack Swagger. Who would you have picked?

4) Since Austin and Hogan were not availible to wrestle, did the WWE make the right move by putting Jericho against 3 second tier legends? Or should they have quickly scraped the angle, or selected a different legend that can still wrestle.


5) Was it a mistake by keeping the future of the wwe off the PPV? Guys like: Ted Dibiase, Cody Rhodes, Jack Swagger, Evan Bourne, Miz/Morrison, Colons and others.

 

[PeepShow]

1. Bad, obviously

2. Yes it was 5 stars, but no, it was not the best match in WM history.

3. No, he should not have won it twice. Christian is the obvious choice here, but even guys like Shelton, MVP, or even Kofi would have been better choices. The fans clearly did not want Punk to win it. Christian was about to grab the case and got a HUGE pop and then Punk jumped to the ladder, people boo'd the fuck out of him. Follow that up by Kane throwing Christian off, and Punk kicking off Kane, the same thing happened. So it wasn't just Christian, I think people would have been happy with even Kane. The fact is, people either don't care for Punk, think his act is stale, don't have faith in him, or just wanted someone else. I happen to be in every one of those categories. They know his first run with that case and belt was crap, so he better be the first lose, or someone else better take it from him.

4. It should have just been Jericho vs. Steamboat with Flair, Snuka, and Piper in his corner. Hell, you can't tell me they didn't know that Piper could still go like that. If it had just been a 1 on 1 between those two, the match could have possibly got ***1/2 or so. Would have been much better, that's for sure.

5. Yes, of course. The tag title match should have been on there regardless. I mean they spent a good month or two on that feud and had them show up every week to ALL THREE SHOWS (more than any other feud) and they leave them off the card. Not to mention it was the only tag match of the night. Instead they have a Kid Rock concert that went on for about 15 minutes and took the crowd right out of the show, before it basically even got started. As for DiBiase and Rhodes, well they should have had some sort of deal in the main event. IDK how, but they should have. And Swagger/Bourne could have easily been the pre-show match for the title. Such a waste of young talent. Not all that surprised though.

 

[Airfixx]

1) Was it a good move, or a bad move having HHH defeat Randy Orton in the main event to Wrestlemania 25?

Bad. A win for Orton would have sent him sky high, whereas HHH going over was mediocrity ‘personified’ and offered nothing for such a big time event.

That said, I see it as a trade off for last year... Orton retained only to see him lose to the title to HHH at Backlash 08 and I see the same thing happening this year.



2) Was Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels 5 stars? And was it the Greatest match in Wrestlemania history?

Yes & No. Based purely on-in ring work, I still prefer HBK/Angle and it lacked the elevation of a decent storyline such as with Savage/Steamboat or Austin/Bret.


3) Do you agree with CM Punk winning MITB twice? If not explain who should have won it and Why. I know a handful of people thought Christian was worthy, however he's had his hands full with Jack Swagger. Who would you have picked?

LOL @ "a handful of people thought Christian was worthy"....

Considering he was Plan-B last year, as long as they are serious about him this time around I have no problem with it. I always thought Punk was a more likely candidate than Christian; with whom I’m glad WWE appear to be taking a longer-term approach. I thought it could be MVPs year, but considering how they’ve trashed his character, I’m glad they waited.

4) Since Austin and Hogan were not available to wrestle, did the WWE make the right move by putting Jericho against 3 second tier legends? Or should they have quickly scraped the angle, or selected a different legend that can still wrestle.

I’ll be the first to admit that it panned out way better than expected. IMO WWE dropped a clanger by embarking on this angle without having a legend already ‘in the bag’, but I can understand their insistance as they needed some kind of match like this because of the occasion.

5) Was it a mistake by keeping the future of the wwe off the PPV? Guys like: Ted Dibiase, Cody Rhodes, Jack Swagger, Evan Bourne, Miz/Morrison, Colons and others.

Yes. Especially seeing, as already illustrated, all the guys you mentioned could have easily been included on the show (if not the main card)....

Swagger/Bourne – ECW title dark match
Priceless – Even them getting banned from ringside before the bell would have done the trick, but having had HHH win I can’t understand why they didn’t have them run in only for HHH to overcome that obstical as well.
Miz/Morrison/Colons – They’d already heavily invested time into it, we were at least intended to see the the unification angle as a big deal, on-paper it looked to be the best bet for ring-action on the undercard. Finally, this transpired to be Miz & Morrisons last hurrah as a team and whilst I’d debate whether the Colons categorically did, Mizzorison deserved that spot on the card as, dispite their great work, they’ve barely appeared on PPV since they got together. Tbhonest, given that time constraints are also being widely cited as being responsible for the poor main event, it just reeks of shitty planning and I think that WWE fans deserve better.... Especially for such a monumental event.

 

[MikeRaw]

1) Was it a good move, or a bad move having HHH defeat Randy Orton in the main event to Wrestlemania 25?

Bad, and this is coming from an HHH fan.


2) Was Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels 5 stars? And was it the Greatest match in Wrestlemania history?
No, and no. 4 stars. It's overrated. A classic, and really great, but had a few botches, and overall, not the greatest in WM history.

3) Do you agree with CM Punk winning MITB twice? If not explain who should have won it and Why. I know a handful of people thought Christian was worthy, however he's had his hands full with Jack Swagger. Who would you have picked?
Yes, I do agree. I was hoping Christian would win, but Punk was my other pick, I would've been happy with either one. I hear some people say it's the wrong choice because of how bad his last reign was, but instead, I look at it as a chance to give him a better, proper run.

4) Since Austin and Hogan were not availible to wrestle, did the WWE make the right move by putting Jericho against 3 second tier legends? Or should they have quickly scraped the angle, or selected a different legend that can still wrestle.
No, this was good for two reasons. Firstly, if it was against Austin and Hogan, they wouldn't let Jericho win, so he wouldn't have gotten the win under his belt. These legends made people feel sorry for them, and let Jericho win. Secondly, they were actually close to Mickey Rourke while he was making his movie, so having Jericho be in a rivalry with Flair and Piper and Steamboat allowed the Mickey Rourke involvement.


5) Was it a mistake by keeping the future of the wwe off the PPV? Guys like: Ted Dibiase, Cody Rhodes, Jack Swagger, Evan Bourne, Miz/Morrison, Colons and others.
Not really. If they are indeed the future of the WWE, they'll be on plenty of WrestleMania's in the future. but Wrestlemania is about putting ona show with the best current guys, to entertain the fans, not guys who may be big.__________________

 

[xtremebadass]

1) Was it a good move, or a bad move having HHH defeat Randy Orton in the main event to Wrestlemania 25?
Bad. WTF. Pushing the new talent by having HHH squash Orton (newer talent) at the biggest PPV of the year? No. It's a bad thing.


2) Was Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels 5 stars? And was it the Greatest match in Wrestlemania history?
5 star match, yes. Greatest Match in WrestleMania history? Depends who you talk to.


3) Do you agree with CM Punk winning MITB twice? If not explain who should have won it and Why. I know a handful of people thought Christian was worthy, however he's had his hands full with Jack Swagger. Who would you have picked?
MVP should have won it. They put the man through hell with his losing streak, finally broke it, then gave him the US title. He had killer momentum and the crowd is behind him, but giving it back to Punk is a crime, give someone else a chance JEEZ.

4) Since Austin and Hogan were not availible to wrestle, did the WWE make the right move by putting Jericho against 3 second tier legends? Or should they have quickly scraped the angle, or selected a different legend that can still wrestle.
Could have easily brought back Batista to defend the legends.

5) Was it a mistake by keeping the future of the wwe off the PPV? Guys like: Ted Dibiase, Cody Rhodes, Jack Swagger, Evan Bourne, Miz/Morrison, Colons and others.
Yes. It's a crime that Swagger and Bourne were left off. Miz and Morrison were on the PPV, they weren't left off, they just decided not to show that match. Ted and Cody...no...they shouldn't be anywhere near Mania yet.

 

[Airfixx]

^^^Correction the tag match was NOT on the PPV.

(Dark match means, what, 70,000 got to see it rather than XX-Million via PAY PER VIEW.)

 

[THE Renegade Diesel]

1) Was it a good move, or a bad move having HHH defeat Randy Orton in the main event to Wrestlemania 25?
Everyone would have rather Orton win, but it all depends on the booking. I honestly did believe WM XXV was Orton's night to reign supreme, guess not. Next year better be the year.


2) Was Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels 5 stars? And was it the Greatest match in Wrestlemania history?
Five stars? Ehh, I'd have to finish watching the whole match to say honestly. Greatest match, I wont say far from it, but most likely not close to it.


3) Do you agree with CM Punk winning MITB twice? If not explain who should have won it and Why. I know a handful of people thought Christian was worthy, however he's had his hands full with Jack Swagger. Who would you have picked?
Christian, the whole Swagger storyline would have easily been scrapped when he was drafted away from ECW, and it would have given him a much needed push. I so don't agree with handing CM Punk the MITB as now this can mean that for the first time ever, the MITB challenger loses against the champion.


4) Since Austin and Hogan were not availible to wrestle, did the WWE make the right move by putting Jericho against 3 second tier legends? Or should they have quickly scraped the angle, or selected a different legend that can still wrestle.

I would have rather had one first tier wrestler, but the 3 second tier wrestlers did a good job. Especially Steamboat. Carried the match imo.

5) Was it a mistake by keeping the future of the wwe off the PPV? Guys like: Ted Dibiase, Cody Rhodes, Jack Swagger, Evan Bourne, Miz/Morrison, Colons and others.

Obviously, especially the tag team match. Its a title match for one, and would have been much more beneficial then a Kidd Rock performance.

 

[Airfixx]

2) Was Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels 5 stars? And was it the Greatest match in Wrestlemania history?
Five stars? Ehh, I'd have to finish watching the whole match to say honestly. Greatest match, I wont say far from it, but most likely not close to it.

With all due respect, fuck your opinion if you haven't even watched the match.

3) Do you agree with CM Punk winning MITB twice? If not explain who should have won it and Why. I know a handful of people thought Christian was worthy, however he's had his hands full with Jack Swagger. Who would you have picked?
Christian, the whole Swagger storyline would have easily been scrapped when he was drafted away from ECW, and it would have given him a much needed push. I so don't agree with handing CM Punk the MITB as now this can mean that for the first time ever, the MITB challenger loses against the champion.

That's plain Blue. Just cos Christian didn't win MITB, you say Punk is destined to fail in his title shot?

Or is it Punk's being Mr. MITB which dictates he'll lose?

...And if he does, so what??? It only guerantees a title shit not a title reign.

So, tell me, did you watch the MITB match or are you just spewing more random bullshit on that too? ...and BTW, Christian is STILL on ECW at this juncture.

 

[Next Big Thing]

1) Was it a good move, or a bad move having HHH defeat Randy Orton in the main event to Wrestlemania 25?
With the storyline and all the events leading up to Mania, it made sense for the face to win. Honestly this is a tough question to answer though. I think it depends more on what happens in the coming weeks, but so far the loss really hasn’t hurt Orton at all. With Triple H still wanting to get his hands on Orton, they’re making it seem like their WM match really didn’t even mean anything.

2) Was Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels 5 stars? And was it the Greatest match in Wrestlemania history?
It was borderline 5 stars IMO. No, it wasn’t the greatest match in Wrestlemania history.

3) Do you agree with CM Punk winning MITB twice? If not explain who should have won it and Why. I know a handful of people thought Christian was worthy, however he's had his hands full with Jack Swagger. Who would you have picked?
I don’t like CM Punk one bit, but I’m fine with having him win. On one hand I would say Christian should have won, but it seems like they are going to let him be the face of ECW this year, probably similar to what Matt Hardy did last year, and then move him to SD! Or Raw next year. So I’m ok with what they are having Christian do, and the other 6 guys that were in the match aren’t world title material at this time, at least in my eyes. So Punk winning was an ok move then.

4) Since Austin and Hogan were not availible to wrestle, did the WWE make the right move by putting Jericho against 3 second tier legends? Or should they have quickly scraped the angle, or selected a different legend that can still wrestle.
I really don’t like calling these guys second tier legends, especially Piper. Putting that aside, they made the right move by having this match. Being the 25th Wrestlemania, I’m glad they were able to add in some guys from the past. The match obviously wasn’t great, but they didn’t give it so much time that the fans got bored either. Being a Ricky Steamboat fan, I’m just really glad that a lot of people got a chance to see him and he was finally able to get some of the praise he deserves.


5) Was it a mistake by keeping the future of the wwe off the PPV? Guys like: Ted Dibiase, Cody Rhodes, Jack Swagger, Evan Bourne, Miz/Morrison, Colons and others.
Not really. Someone in this thread already mentioned it, these guys will get to compete at plenty of Wrestlemania’s. The only match that maybe should have been on the show was the tag match, but considering the fact that the PPV used its entire 4 hours, where would you have even put the match? None of the matches should have been cut down or taken out. I know people are saying that the Kid Rock performance is where that match should have gone, but that’s just unrealistic. His performance didn’t last long enough to have 2 entrances and a full match.

 

[Airfixx]

The only match that maybe should have been on the show was the tag match, but considering the fact that the PPV used its entire 4 hours, where would you have even put the match? None of the matches should have been cut down or taken out. I know people are saying that the Kid Rock performance is where that match should have gone, but that’s just unrealistic. His performance didn’t last long enough to have 2 entrances and a full match.

As I stated earlier, they pulled the tag match prior to the event starting - They must have thought they could have fit it all in to begin with or they'd have never booked and promoted the match... What changed?

Surely you just juggle the match times so that all the matches fit onto the card? ...Steal a minute from each match, spare us or shorten the beatdown on Flair (we'd already seen him take a far worse beating on Raw), trim Kid Rock by 5mins from there you've got just shy of 15mins and all you need to do is get the guys to the ring.


When I think back on the card, I'm left wondering where all the time went... No backstage or interview segments, No tag match, Jeff/Matt was suprisingly short as were the 2 big title matches.


Did HBK/Taker run for like an hour and a half or sumthin'? : P

 

[Next Big Thing]

As I stated earlier, they pulled the tag match prior to the event starting - They must have thought they could have fit it all in to begin with or they'd have never booked and promoted the match... What changed?

Surely you just juggle the match times so that all the matches fit onto the card? ...Steal a minute from each match, spare us or shorten the beatdown on Flair (we'd already seen him take a far worse beating on Raw), trim Kid Rock by 5mins from there you've got just shy of 15mins and all you need to do is get the guys to the ring.


When I think back on the card, I'm left wondering where all the time went... No backstage or interview segments, No tag match, Jeff/Matt was suprisingly short as were the 2 big title matches.


Did HBK/Taker run for like an hour and a half or sumthin'? : P

You basically answered why cutting match times wouldn’t work near the end of your post. The two title matches and the Hardy/Hardy match were already a bit short. So they should have cut more? The Triple H/Orton match had a pretty anti climatic ending, there is no denying that. Given the fact that they used the entire 4 hours, I think that they had planned on having the match go a few more minutes, but were forced to end it because of time constraints.

It’s so easy to sit here and say cut each match, but the problem is that can take away from the matches. We seen at WM22 when they tried to put to many matches on the card, you end up with one of your biggest matches not getting the time it deserves. In that case it was the WHC match, which only got around 9 minutes.

If they were going to cut the ppv anywhere, then the Kid Rock performance could have been cut a few minutes, and the Taker/HBK match could have been cut back about 5 minutes. Looking back on it, it makes a lot more sense and I’m sure there are far more people that would have rather watched a 30 minute match between HBK/Taker than cutting that match down and probably taking away from how good the match was, just to watch a 7-10 minute tag match. And to answer your question about how long the HBK/Taker match went, the match itself was right around 30 minutes and with their intros it took up about 40 minutes of the ppv.

 

[Airfixx]

You basically answered why cutting match times wouldn’t work near the end of your post. The two title matches and the Hardy/Hardy match were already a bit short. So they should have cut more? The Triple H/Orton match had a pretty anti climatic ending, there is no denying that. Given the fact that they used the entire 4 hours, I think that they had planned on having the match go a few more minutes, but were forced to end it because of time constraints.

It’s so easy to sit here and say cut each match, but the problem is that can take away from the matches. We seen at WM22 when they tried to put to many matches on the card, you end up with one of your biggest matches not getting the time it deserves. In that case it was the WHC match, which only got around 9 minutes.

If they were going to cut the ppv anywhere, then the Kid Rock performance could have been cut a few minutes, and the Taker/HBK match could have been cut back about 5 minutes. Looking back on it, it makes a lot more sense and I’m sure there are far more people that would have rather watched a 30 minute match between HBK/Taker than cutting that match down and probably taking away from how good the match was, just to watch a 7-10 minute tag match. And to answer your question about how long the HBK/Taker match went, the match itself was right around 30 minutes and with their intros it took up about 40 minutes of the ppv.

You missed my point.... Ultimately, I call it bad planning by WWE as illustrated by the fact that even with a squash, they not only 'had' to take one of the more promising matches off of the card, but they STILL managed to shortchange us on at least 2 of the other matches as well.


I honestly don't know how or by what PPV is governed, but is there anything that would have stopped WWE broadcasting a PPV that's longer than 4hours if they'd chosen to in advance?

 

[JimmyD]

1) Very, very bad. It made Orton look weak and did nothing for Triple H.

2) I'd give it 5 stars, but to say anything is the "Greatest of all Time" is almost always ludicrous. Half of what makes a match great is your personal stance towards the men involved. If that match had been Bryan Danielson vs Austin Aries I wouldn't have given a shit, as it was I loved it. So yes, a great match and certainly one of the best WWE matches in recent memory, but it was not the greatest match of all time.

3) It seems as though Punk needs to win a title through grafting rather than somewhat kneejerk MITB opportunities. Give him a big run up to the title and the fans will get with him. As such I would rather have seen Kane (Yeah I know I'm a Kane mark, so what?) or MVP win it as the former deserves a title run before he retires (even if he has refused one in the past) and the latter is getting on in years and needs to get onto the main event scene soon if he's ever going to at all.

4) They had Steamboat - who proved he can still work, and Snuka & Piper were out of it quickly enough that they didn't detract from the match to much. I thought the angle was decent and wouldn't have changed anything, plus, it gave Jericho something to do while he was waiting for a chance at a world title.

5) I would say that, of the young guys, The Colons vs Miz/Morrison was the only match I would have wanted to see. I love Jack Swagger but I'd rather he polish himself as a performer, so that when his 'Wrestlemania Moment' comes it's memorable. As for Bourne, DiBiase and Rhodes: there's an awful lot of potential there, but at the moment that's all it is: potential. Rhodes and DiBiase in particular have done (or been given, depending on your point of view) nothing to make them even slightly over, and Bourne has only just started making a name for himself.