What if the Undertaker was already 20-0?

[ShortOrderCook]

It's probably the best example of a WrestleMania overall, yeah. But it's a misconception that the whole thing was amazing. It's disappointment all round* until the absolute revelation of the McMahons match which changed the whole game and was just pure WrestleMania. It just got better and better from there which makes everyone forget Tazz was actually there wrestling in his trackpants. Part of it's beauty is how it built and built to a blistering finale really. A pretty perfectly paced and structured card. WrestleMania VIII could have been a contender if the matches had a slightly different order.

 

*(Angle-Benoit was alright actually considering their issue had only just started).

 

I think WrestleMania XIV is pretty strong.

[PowerButchi]

Yeah, XIV is super solid. Having the LOD return to kick things off was a brilliant idea in order to get it started really hot.

[Kaz Hayashi]

I watched WM 13 again the other week, and fuck me, that was shit. As far as WM goes anyway.

 

Agreed that 14 is a very good effort indeed, i also quite liked 12, i remember being very excited to see Zuna, Jake and Ahmed on the same team and remember being blown away at how big (and unable) Yoko had become. Loved Piper smashing goldy and was obviously on the edge of my seat to see the return of warrior, especially after king had mentioned he had put 20 stone on, obviously the thought of it lasted longer than the actual match.

 

But in general, i liked it. i agree though, 14 is boss

[PunkStep]

WM13 did have that Hart/Austin match, unfortunately it had one of the lesser main events. But that was Michaels' fault, to be fair.

[boshealecta]

I cant quite remember what happened after Royal Rumble 2000 but does anyone think they were heading for a Rock vs Big Show vs Triple H vs Kane Wrestlemania main event?

 

Its quite odd to have Cactus Jack retire at the PPV before Wrestlemania 2000 and then appear again, but I never thought much of it until watching Royal Rumble 2000 again

 

Kane was eliminated by X Pac who had already been eliminated but the refs didnt see it. Was this just to further the X Pac Kane feud do we think or could it of been to say Kane technically didnt lose the Rumble, as the whole Wrestlemania main event was the fact that Big Shows feet didnt touch the floor first etc and some debate over who won so both Rock and Big Show were put in the main event. Was the plan to have Kane as well as he had a claim to say he wasnt eliminated and did they put Foley in because of how well the feud with Triple H had gone down?

 

Just a thought?

[IANdrewDiceClay]

No. It was meant to be Jericho, but they didnt think he had it in him, so brought back Foley (who had done huge business the last two PPVs). Jericho was even on the Billboards and posters.

 

Following the TV at the time, Kane was so far out of the picture. He was still deep in a feud with X-Pac which wasnt looking like ending anytime soon. I do wonder, though, that in 12 years time, people will be saying "I wonder if they were thinking about adding Kane to the Cena vs Rock match in 2012?"

[air_raid]

No. It was meant to be Jericho, but they didnt think he had it in him,

 

Jobs to Gangrel, Godfather and Viscera and a lengthy nonsensical feud/alliance with Chyna will do that.

[PowerButchi]

To be fair, I think Jericho being really really crap for the first 6-9 months of his tenure did that to him as well. He was the fucking shits until Bob Holly took him in hand and taught him how to do it WWF style.