Re: Why did everybody hate wrestlemania 29 so much?
Because it sucked.
Cena/Rock and Brock/HHH, for what they were billed as, were terrible matches and felt as if the two participants had no chemistry between them whatsoever. Besides that, no wanted wanted to see Cena regain the title for the umpteenth time, and Triple H's win over Brock was completely unnecessary and shouldn't have happened, especially considering how Brock was then chosen to END THE STREAK the following year.
Punk/Taker, in all fairness, was a good match but no one really believed Punk was going to win. Besides that, Punk could've held the WWE Championship and put it up against The Streak, but instead his 434-day title reign went to Rock, only to be dropped back to Cena.
Del Rio/Swagger was thrown together about a month prior and felt more worthy of a SmackDown main event than a WrestleMania title match. Besides that neither man really needed the world title, in my opinion. (See below)
Fandango/Jericho was ridiculous and to this day Fandango going over is still one of the most ridiculous booking decisions I've ever seen. "Oh but Fandango was over and people were chanting his entrance theme the night after." Where is he now? Jericho, the veteran, should have gone over one MILLION percent, although the match shouldn't have happened in the first place. IMO, Ziggler should've cashed in on Del Rio BEFORE WrestleMania, which could've led to Ziggler/Jericho for the belt in a SummerSlam rematch. At least that match would've had some background to it; the Fandango/Jericho affair was purely for Vince McMahon's personal, petty entertainment.
Team Hell No vs. Ziggler & Langston was another SmackDown worthy match, as opposed to a WrestleMania.
Ryback NEEDED to go over Mark Henry, and instead got beat in less than ten minutes. WWE had a hot babyface on their hands and instead, for some reason, didn't put him over.
The Shield going over Show/Orton/Sheamus was actually a good decision, but wasn't enough to save the show.