"The Wrong Guy Went Over"

[Liam O'Rourke]

For this weeks podcast, we're going to be looking at matches that, for whatever reason, stand out as having the wrong outcome, and would like to get some feedback and hypothetical discussion going on examples that always stood out to you. 

So, what is the one match you always think about and say "_______ should have won", and why? It can be a case where the guy who lost should have won because it was a critical time for the character or they could have gone in an interesting future direction, or it can be where the guy that won had no business getting the victory for one reason or another. The more explanation for your choice, the better.

As always, the best examples will be read on the show and you'll be namedropped accordingly, but interested to see which different matches stand out for different people on this one.

 

EDIT - The podcast discussing matches where The Wrong Guy Went Over, including many of the examples below, is now online at the following link: http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/play/nqmshk/SCGRadio36-TheWrongGuyWentOver.mp3

[matbro1984]

Booker T at Wrestlemania 19 immediately came to mind. Losing killed all his momentum, the storyline demanded he win, it deflated the crowd, and Triple H waited about half an hour between the match winning Pedigree and actually pinning him. Retaining the belt did nothing for HHH who was already a headline star, but that match could have made Booker T at the time.

[Callum1993]

For me Ryback should have gone over Punk for the title in the Hell in a Cell in 2012. I know they had plans all along to have Punk drop the belt to The Rock to transition it back onto Cena but I think they missed a big opportunity to create a fresh new star in Ryback.

[HarmonicGenerator]

For me Ryback should have gone over Punk for the title in the Hell in a Cell in 2012. I know they had plans all along to have Punk drop the belt to The Rock to transition it back onto Cena but I think they missed a big opportunity to create a fresh new star in Ryback.

 

I think with Ryback it's more a case of 'The Wrong Guy Was Put In The Match In The First Place'. I know he was gathering momentum but if it was going to affect the long-term plan they shouldn't have put him in the position where they'd either lose all that momentum, or scupper their long-term plan.

[PSF]

Owen Hart should have gone over Bret in the Cage at Summerslam 1994 They were putting the belt on Diesel anyway and we could have avoided the Hart/Backlund bore fest at Survivor Series. I've said before about Owen should have took the title instead of Backlund and having him hold the title for a month or so would have been fun. Him coming to the ring announced as a "Slammy Award winning former WWF Champion" would have fitted him perfectly.

[tiger_rick]

SummerSlam 2003. Goldberg looked like an absolute star in WWE for the first and only time. He should have gone over Triple H. The roof would have blown off, Goldberg would have gathered momentum and a rematch would have done good business. Instead, they tried to be too clever and the eventual title win was anti-climatic.

[epo1984]

First of all, I love your show.  Listen to it every week, and last weeks show on pet peeves was incredibly funny.  Trying to stifle laughter while listening when alone on the train I would imagine looks as awkward as it feels.

 

Anywho, I get the feeling a lot of these will be related to Triple H going over, so I tried to think outside the box.  I would have said Rock should have gone over Austin at Wrestlemania 17 (or X-Seven) but I'm not sure that result could change given the Rock was leaving to film movies for a few months.

 

I'm going to be controversial, and say that the wrong person has gone over in the last 2 of 'Taker's WM matches.  I'm not sure what, if anything, Brock Lesnar needed from beating the Undertaker at wrestlemania 30.  Yes it was shocking, and it gave Heyman a catchphrase for a year, BUT, Heyman could have created a catchphrase and aura about Lesnar without that.  I think Wyatt would have gained massively from going over the Undertaker at this year's WM.  They could have MADE Wyatt with a victory over the Undertaker. Even if I couldn't change WM30 result, Wyatt could still have gained significantly from beating the Undertaker this year, and then next year's Wrestlemania would have even more intrigue should the Undertaker compete, because then we'd be talking about a different kind of Wrestlemania streak for the phenom and if he can stop the rot!

[epo1984]

Sorry - duplicate post

[Bosco Blick]

I'm not sure what, if anything, Brock Lesnar needed from beating the Undertaker at wrestlemania 30.  Yes it was shocking, and it gave Heyman a catchphrase for a year, BUT, Heyman could have created a catchphrase and aura about Lesnar without that.

 

Beating the Undertaker has made him the 'unbeatable' beast that he should have been on his initial return before they gave Cena and Triple H victories over him.

 

In the long run it should completely make the next guy who beats Lesnar clean.

[epo1984]

 

I'm not sure what, if anything, Brock Lesnar needed from beating the Undertaker at wrestlemania 30.  Yes it was shocking, and it gave Heyman a catchphrase for a year, BUT, Heyman could have created a catchphrase and aura about Lesnar without that.

 

Beating the Undertaker has made him the 'unbeatable' beast that he should have been on his initial return before they gave Cena and Triple H victories over him.

 

In the long run it should completely make the next guy who beats Lesnar clean.

I both agree and disagree with your statement.

 

For me, the thing that made him the unstoppable beast was the Summerslam main event with Cena.  But yes, the next guy that beats Brock clean will be "made"!

[Bosco Blick]

I both agree and disagree with your statement.

 

 

 

 

For me, the thing that made him the unstoppable beast was the Summerslam main event with Cena.  But yes, the next guy that beats Brock clean will be "made"!

 

 

The only reason that he was able to go and smash Cena all over the gaff was because in his previous match he had ended the streak.

 

Ending the streak elevated him to a point where no one in the WWE has been for years.

 

He's going into title matches and delivering his finisher within 30 seconds and not even going for the pin. It's quite amazing.

[john_siv]

Kurt Angle should have gone over HHH at Unforgiven 2000.  It was the climax of the three way love triangle with the two of them and Stephanie McMahon.  All roads seemed to lead to Steph turning on Hunter and joining Kurt, but the match was a borefest which saw HHH go over clean.  Seemed a very odd outcome at a time when WWE could do no wrong, but history shows it was at that time that Steph got the pen - first big sign of Steph and HHH booking for their own benefit.

[TheShowOff]

Luger at Summerslam 1993 is the obvious one for me. Granted he did go over, but he didn't really. Brings home the point that the way you win is more important than the statement of a victory. 

[air_raid]

Owen Hart should have gone over Bret in the Cage at Summerslam 1994 They were putting the belt on Diesel anyway and we could have avoided the Hart/Backlund bore fest at Survivor Series. I've said before about Owen should have took the title instead of Backlund and having him hold the title for a month or so would have been fun. Him coming to the ring announced as a "Slammy Award winning former WWF Champion" would have fitted him perfectly.

 

What they did at Survivors was to set Bret up as the challenger for D's first PPV title defence at the Rumble, with a legitimate gripe as to how he lost the belt. It doesn't work as well if Bret loses the belt five months earlier.

[Pinc]

I'm going to be controversial, and say that the wrong person has gone over in the last 2 of 'Taker's WM matches.  I'm not sure what, if anything, Brock Lesnar needed from beating the Undertaker at wrestlemania 30.  Yes it was shocking, and it gave Heyman a catchphrase for a year, BUT, Heyman could have created a catchphrase and aura about Lesnar without that.  I think Wyatt would have gained massively from going over the Undertaker at this year's WM.  They could have MADE Wyatt with a victory over the Undertaker. Even if I couldn't change WM30 result, Wyatt could still have gained significantly from beating the Undertaker this year, and then next year's Wrestlemania would have even more intrigue should the Undertaker compete, because then we'd be talking about a different kind of Wrestlemania streak for the phenom and if he can stop the rot!

 

I can see the argument for putting Wyatt over this year, though I'm not quite convinced by it, but I couldn't disagree more about Lesnar last year. Lesnar is now the most over act they've had since Austin turned heel. I don't think there's been a more effective single job in wrestling since Goldberg went over Hogan in the Georgia Dome. The squashing of Cena at SummerSlam was a brilliant follow-up but wouldn't have even happened without Brock ending the streak, and wouldn't have been as effective if it had.