"The Wrong Guy Went Over"

[air_raid]

Wyatt going over would have devalued Lesnar's win immediately and made Lesnar a weaker character without him being even near the match.

 

I find the notion that the character that Brock Lesnar has become could be weakened by something happening that has fuck all to do with him, on the day of WrestleMania 31, absolutely hilarious.

 

 

Without wishing to repeat myself from before the show, I completely disagree. When Brock Lesnar enters the ring at WrestleMania, nothing that happens in Undertaker's match underneath could possibly diminish the aura of the remorseless, indomitable ass-kicker, the "beast incarnate," the completely unstoppable Brock Lesnar. It's not JUST that he ended The Streak, but the journey since, whereby he completely annihilated John Cena and then came through THAT triple threat match at the Rumble, basically establishing himself as the baddest bastard in the history of the title. Had the now-beatable-at-Mania Taker been pinned clean as you like by Wyatt underneath, it would not have magically retconned what Lesnar did at Mania XXX to something less than one of the biggest achievements in company history, and as he proceeded to smash into Roman Reigns, nobody would have sat there thinking "he's weaker now Undertaker lost to Bray" and it boggles my mind that it's even a perceived thought process.

 

The only person that Undertaker losing to Wyatt would have hurt would have been Undertaker, as it would have sent the message that "OK... he's truly looking past it now" - if that's the story they wanted to tell, which it obviously wasn't.

 

EDIT -

 

Looking at what a star attraction Lesnar has became ever since he started smashing fuck out of guys like Taker and Cena last year, it really makes those losses to Cena and Triple H when he came in look pretty dumb.

 

No, it means during his time back he's gradually gotten better and better. What's this sudden fascination with something that's happening now retconning the relevant importance/believability of stuff that happened a year or two ago?? Characters and athletes change as they develop, stories progress FORWARDS, not backwards. Cena beating Lesnar at Extreme Rules especially was FINE and acceptable then, which is what matters.

[Carbomb]

Also, Lesnar losing to Cena at Extreme Rules, as so many on here said at the time, did not damage him in the slightest. He came out of that match looking like the biggest monster going at the time - no-one, not even Umaga or Khali, had ever done that to Cena before. And Cena's win looked more like a lucky escape for him, handed to him by Lesnar's complacency and carelessness, rather than because Lesnar wasn't better than him.

 

My one's a bit vague and maybe few will agree, but I really didn't think Tatanka's undefeated streak should've been fed to Ludvig Borga. Maybe it was how it was done, but it didn't feel like a big deal; thus far, Tatanka had really only beaten midcarders (the newly-turned Michaels was a good win, but he was still new in that position at the time), so I felt it made him look like he'd finally been exposed as a young lad punching above his weight, coming unstuck against a big bloke who was a bit menacing, but in himself didn't seem like all that as he too hadn't really beaten anyone of note.

[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.

 

 

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.

Fair enough, but having Owen in the match against Diesel or even another heel in a similar position on card would have freed Bret up for the Rumble and would have maybe made the Rumble match a lot better than it ended up being.

[Tommy!]

That first Brock vs Cena match, with the build to it, just about blew my cock off.

Brock looked like an absolute monster in that match at that time, and both left that match better than they were before.

 

It was a thing of joy to watch at the time, and left space for Brock to grow into the absolute dominant hoss he was the last twelve months.

[air_raid]

My one's a bit vague and maybe few will agree, but I really didn't think Tatanka's undefeated streak should've been fed to Ludvig Borga. Maybe it was how it was done, but it didn't feel like a big deal; thus far, Tatanka had really only beaten midcarders (the newly-turned Michaels was a good win, but he was still new in that position at the time), so I felt it made him look like he'd finally been exposed as a young lad punching above his weight, coming unstuck against a big bloke who was a bit menacing, but in himself didn't seem like all that as he too hadn't really beaten anyone of note.

 

It's a tricky one, really. I think they'd realized that Tatanka had peaked and the "top babyface" ranks were overflowing in that you could have Bret or Luger main event any city you like, the upper midcard/Intercontinental title division was Razor's to rule over, and you had the Undertaker floating around who could either sit in a midcard match (winning) or face Yokozuna (bullshit finish) any night of the week too. It's almost as if they realized that they were never going to go all the way with Tatanka, so the best thing to do would be to use that impressive unbeaten run - in terms of duration, at least - to make some heel look awesome, which they did with Borga, because they wanted him to look brutal right from the off so they could throw him into the main event in the Luger towns.

 

I think you're being harsh on the credibility of Tatanka's run. He'd come through a run with Intercontinental champ Shawn Michaels, a televised match with the similarly-unbeaten Narcissist at King of the Ring, and a feud with Bam Bam with his "unbeaten" tag intact. If you think he should have gone through some better heels, at the time, short of Yokozuna himself, they hadn't really had any. That's kind of what led them to feeding him to Borga in the end, ironically.

 

Yeah, they COULD have gone further with Tatanka given the investment in him to that point. But they had two choices - go all the way with him, or use him to try and make someone else. And the babyfaces ahead of him in the queue were better.

[Carbomb]

That's so odd - I just don't remember the Lex feud at all. Now you mention the Bam Bam one though, I do remember it. Maybe it was just the nature of his loss to Borga, or perhaps Borga's abilities were too limited to make it seem like a big win. I don't know, it just felt flat and anti-climactic at the time.

[lanky316]

 

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.

That wins for me. Luger should have won the belt that day. Everything was geared towards that. It's a shame the way his WWF career went after that, especially after Wrestlemania X

 

 

At the age of about 8 it is what I label as my first "wtf booking" moment looking back. The way they executed it was so poor that even back then it jarred me. The big heroic champion celebrating with a group of faces as the red, white and blue balloons fell from the sky... Except, he isn't the champion. He's so busy posing and celebrating a bodyslam over a big guy, impressive feat though it was, that it cost him the title. From that point on as a kid there was no way I could buy into him again. I think, need to get round to rewatching that run on the Network, that was similar with the general audiences as well. He "went over" in so much as winning the match but I think overall it hindered more than it helped.

[The Crystal Maze]

It is always Sting. I get he's clearly a humble guy but that loss to Triple H was stupid. Not needed at all, and although Sting was probably happy to put Triple H over, it was the wrong decision. Left a sour taste in my mouth.

 

Sting has always done what he's told though, so I knew going in he would probably end up losing. But what a dumb move. Putting over Magnus is one thing, but Triple H? What a joke.

[DoinkBrah]

It is always Sting. I get he's clearly a humble guy but that loss to Triple H was stupid. Not needed at all, and although Sting was probably happy to put Triple H over, it was the wrong decision. Left a sour taste in my mouth.

 

Sting has always done what he's told though, so I knew going in he would probably end up losing. But what a dumb move. Putting over Magnus is one thing, but Triple H? What a joke.

 

Why though?  What benefit does either man get from winning? Neither man is full time, neither needs wins and won't be damaged by losses considering they've pretty much done it all.  The match and feud was simply a nostalgia piece.  Not designed for anything more than a novelty match at Wrestlemania.  No long term feud or story, nothing.

[Bus Surfer]

Wyatt going over would have devalued Lesnar's win immediately and made Lesnar a weaker character without him being even near the match.

 

 

 

To me, Wyatt going over Taker would have just reinforced the beating Lesnar gave him a year earlier. Taker just isn't the same man. It takes nothing away from Lesnar, because Brock has been booked so strongly since he ended the streak.

 

Wyatt could have really done with the Win at Mania, and it would have made next year's Undertaker match (and likely retirement) even more interesting.

[CTXRussomark]

Nah, if Wyatt beat Taker my immediate thought would be Lesnar beat him when he was already washed up. It wouldn't really have affected Lesnar at this point as he's already had the benefit from it and come out the other side, but it definitely would have made his win seem way less impressive in my eyes. And Wyatt would have been defeating someone who was washed up last year. At least this way Taker goes into next year strong.

[Bus Surfer]

If they had gone down my route of thinking, going into Mania, they could have built the Wyatt Taker match around the fact that Taker wasn't the same after last years mauling. Thus protecting Lesnar (not that he needed it imo)

 

Wyatt beating Taker gives him something to crow about and it keeps the heat on him that he beat up a man whose past it.

[Juan Manforce]

Randy Orton should have beaten the Undertaker at WrestleMania 21. The Undertaker is probably my all time favourite wrestler, and a large part of what makes him so legendary is how long the streak lasted, but I honestly don't think you can say any of his Mania matches after the Orton one even needed the streak. Mark Henry wants to end Taker's legacy in the casket match. Batista and Edge are title matches. The first Michaels match could've been set up any old way, and make the second one a simple career vs career match. Triple H wants revenge for his friend, then the next year you don't have to change a thing. The CM Punk match, the streak was meaningless, it seems like they only booked that to placate Punk since he wasn't in the title match. By the time it comes around to the Lesnar match, Taker's still enough of a presence that Brock destroying him has almost the same impact, they'd have been able to book him as the same force he's been this past year just without Heyman's spiel. At WM21, the streak wasn't at the level it got to in the end. They didn't want to have someone who couldn't handle the heat associated with it for a few years until Brock came along, but the heat wouldn't have been so bad back then. Sure, the streak wasn't as legendary at that point either but having the Legend Killer end it would have completely made Orton. There's the obvious questions like how Randy's ego would have been affected, or if Taker would have stuck around for as long had the streak ended earlier. Maybe it wouldn't have been the right call, we'll never know, but for the good it would have done Orton at what would likely have been little damage to Taker's legacy, I think the wrong guy went over in this case.

[tiger_rick]

 

It is always Sting. I get he's clearly a humble guy but that loss to Triple H was stupid. Not needed at all, and although Sting was probably happy to put Triple H over, it was the wrong decision. Left a sour taste in my mouth.

 

Sting has always done what he's told though, so I knew going in he would probably end up losing. But what a dumb move. Putting over Magnus is one thing, but Triple H? What a joke.

 

Why though?  What benefit does either man get from winning? Neither man is full time, neither needs wins and won't be damaged by losses considering they've pretty much done it all.  The match and feud was simply a nostalgia piece.  Not designed for anything more than a novelty match at Wrestlemania.  No long term feud or story, nothing.

 

I think that's right. We can have a preferred winner but I don't think there is any real reason as to why either should have won. Losing lessens the drawing power of either slightly for another match. I'd say if you were being objective, Trips probably has more matches left in him so if you're going to weaken anyone, you'd go with Sting. Even then if you promoted a Sting/Taker, Sting/Cena, Sting/Rock or something, it'd still do alright.

[air_raid]

Randy Orton should have beaten the Undertaker at WrestleMania 21.

 

I agree, "The Streak" wasn't really a thing at the time, beating the Undertaker would have been the ideal rehabilitation for the newly-turned Orton. To be honest, I've always assumed he would have, if he didn't need to get the shoulder surgery after Mania.