Paid Members air_raid Posted April 8 Paid Members Share Posted April 8 1 minute ago, Hannibal Scorch said: The right guy was also there at Wrestlemania 39. In fact, you have to ask yourself why now in that case. Is it because they had to pivot? Because what did another year of Reigns as champ give us? A few forgotten defences and the Rock returning to face him and due to fan reaction, swapping sides. It almost feels the extra year wait did nothing much for Cody (don’t tell me the reaction last night was any better than what he’d have received last year). Yes. They didn't put the belt on Cody at Mania 39 because the plan hadn't been for the match to happen at all, so they didn't plan for Cody to win it. They had planned for Rock vs Reigns because Rocky had turned it down for 38, because he wanted to do it in "LA/Hollywood" at 39 instead. They had to change to Reigns vs A. N. Other when Rock told them he wasn't going to be ready in time. The wait certainly did a lot for us in terms of what the two-nighter and build up with Rock involved has given us, but in terms of for Cody, he gets to say he won the belt at Mania XL rather than just "at WrestleMania" - in other words a serious landmark show which will be considered arguably the biggest Mania of all time* until Mania L comes around. * I mean, it's wrong, it's clearly Mania 17. But that's what they'll say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gaffer Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 5 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said: Because what did another year of Reigns as champ give us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted April 8 Paid Members Share Posted April 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarlettChad Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 (edited) It wouldn't have been as satisfying if he beat Roman at 39. XL is the landmark. They broke the streak too. Every ten years,, 20, 30, it was a triple threat match. Not 40. Not a complaint at all. Just interesting observation.  Edited April 8 by TheScarlettChad I'm a berk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted April 8 Paid Members Share Posted April 8 The last year's been a testing ground for just how popular Rhodes actually is. He stayed as such all the way through. Whatever doubts anybody may or may not have had last year should have been put to bed through the last year and him staying hot, and if nothing else for that superb feud and trilogy of matches with Brock Lesnar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gaffer Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 I think it's just an easy assumption from an outside perspective that the big hook of WrestleMania writes itself every year and that it's in a position to pretty much automatically sell itself with the company on autopilot. In reality you aren't banking your billions on that, and you're not going back to your board and investors with an "It'll be fine, it's WrestleMania." It's like those finishers in the old Smackdown games. You only get a limited number of them. They carved out another year of monster business without having to use their Cody finisher. It's a conservative move from a business perspective, for sure, but that's WWE. We just have the good fortune of having them do that now with programs that are actually gratifying to watch. I'd get used to it. From a longevity perspective, stretching your top level program to two WrestleManias is probably the way this stuff's going to be done for the foreseeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBacon Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 Also with Roman, you have a "generational" star, so why wouldn't you have stretched out his run on top? Without the last year, last night's fantastic main event doesn't happen in the manner it did, so in hindsight it was worth it I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted April 8 Paid Members Share Posted April 8 3 minutes ago, The Gaffer said: I'd get used to it. From a longevity perspective, stretching your top level program to two WrestleManias is probably the way this stuff's going to be done for the foreseeable. I still hear people's arguments that two nights is too much. It is a lot. But the way I see it is that it's WrestleMania. It's the biggest wrestling show of the year and one of the biggest live events of any kind of the year. It *should* be a weekend of stuff, with a Hall of Fame and an NXT show and a Smackdown. I think next year they just need to work a bit harder on the matches across the card, they were bailed out a bit by almost every match and angle delivering something good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted April 8 Paid Members Share Posted April 8 7 minutes ago, The Gaffer said: It's like those finishers in the old Smackdown games. You only get a limited number of them. Unlike in the actual McIntyre-Rollins match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted April 8 Paid Members Share Posted April 8 12 minutes ago, SuperBacon said: But surely "their audience" is everyone in here that watched this weekends event and watches WWE (aka the cunts) Unless you mean the live audience? Their audience is everyone who enjoys it. It's the people on here who like it but discuss it's good points and it's flaws as we always have done, the people on the X who have always lapped up any old shit, the ones who don't watch it except all the PPVs and most Smackdowns and the many people who just watch it, buy tickets and like it. It is a generalisation, as I said, but from years of watching and following, I'm absolutely certain this isn't an audience who will ever be disappointed or disapproving of being given more on top of more on top of more. On the point about the predictability. The "chaos" was predictable. I'm not a prolific absorber of wrestling news or opinion beyond here, a podcast and a few bits I see on X-Twitter. Even I saw predictions of every single thing that happened (except Seth Rollins coming out dressed as The Shield so fair play to them, it seems that was one idea no-one wanted!). The only unpredictable thing that could have happened was Cody being crowned on his own. I'm absolutely certain too, that if that had happened we'd have seen complaints on social media that it wasn't enough or whatever. Personally, though, I still think it's more meaningful to have Cody win on his own in a straight battle. No asterisks or shenanigans. I think you do all the extras when you haven't got the right cards in your hand. They did and it didn't need it. Just an observation. I'm not arguing with that fact that people are happy with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted April 8 Paid Members Share Posted April 8 8 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said: I still hear people's arguments that two nights is too much. It is a lot. But the way I see it is that it's WrestleMania. It's the biggest wrestling show of the year and one of the biggest live events of any kind of the year. It *should* be a weekend of stuff, with a Hall of Fame and an NXT show and a Smackdown. I think next year they just need to work a bit harder on the matches across the card, they were bailed out a bit by almost every match and angle delivering something good. Even without watching, it sounds so, so much easier than the 6/7 hours the one-nighters were feeling like before they went this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King of Old School Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 Cody winning was best for business. Incredible Main Event. When is Cody/Rock happening? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 52 minutes ago, Nick James said: Roman sliding the table back under the ring was a fantastic bit of heel work. Tremendous. I have been waiting for *YEARS* for someone to do that. (Has anyone else done it that I'm not aware of?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted April 8 Paid Members Share Posted April 8 I don't disagree with you at all Tigger_R but what I would say is, and maybe I'm giving them more credit than they deserve, but over his title reign it has been proven that Roman can't be beaten in a straight battle. The only way to beat Roman was to out shenanigan him, and they did so in such a way that Cody was the only one who really touched Roman, bar the AA from the Boston Baldspot Bandit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted April 8 Paid Members Share Posted April 8 2 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said: I don't disagree with you at all Tigger_R but what I would say is, and maybe I'm giving them more credit than they deserve, but over his title reign it has been proven that Roman can't be beaten in a straight battle. That's more reason to have Cody do it, surely? Fuck, am I Jim Cornette? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.