Please do not waste my time with idiotic statements like this. This is all completely a matter of opinion, there are no facts involved in this. It's about the reasoning behind your opinions that I care about, and so far from what I've seen, not a lot of them have made sense.
The Miller Cat fight was not an official match on the card. If you can't even get simple parts like this right why should I take the rest of your post seriously?
And the Taker match was most certainly not a bad match. It wasn't anything special, but they deserve a lot of credit for managing to make the match itself turn out to be decent.
When was I ever denying any of this? I was talking about the wrestling aspect, NOTHING MORE. That is it. You guys can't bring out all this irrelevant bullshit and expect me to think it makes a difference. It doesn't.
WM 17 had a lot of great wrestling, yes, but for as many good matches, they had almost as many bad or worthless matches, the part you cannot deny. The fact you're trying to make excuses for that pretty much shows that you know I am right. The only thing I have convinced myself of is that, when talking about consistency, WM 19 consistently had better wrestling than WM 17 did, and if you deny that, then you don't understand the concept of the word "consistency". And WM 19 definitely had a shit ton of great wrestling, and imo beats out WM 17 as a whole. The atmosphere of course was better, as was the crowd. And yes they had more important matches. But none of that is relevant to what I am trying to say. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you.
Here's what I gathered from your first post:
"WM 19 is more consistent than WM17 and I preferred the matches on 19 more, so therefore, WM19 is the greatest Wrestlemania."
What an absolute load of shit.
Let's say you're right. WM19 did have the more consistent matches, to the point where everything was roughly on par, so to speak. WM17's lowest points were lower, yes. However, its higher points were a LOT higher. So WM19 was more consistent in ring throughout its matches-17 had all of those things I already listed before that it did better than WM19. However, you just kind of ignore that and stick to that idea that because 19 was better in ring, it was overall better, completely ignoring every other department where 17 is better.
Then you say you're confused why people don't think 19 is the best. People then point it out to you-more important matches, the best matches on the card were way better than those on WM19, better hype, better feuds, more spectacle, etc. You then ignore it and say "but WM19 was more consistent!" So what? At the end of the day, the best matches at WM17 were more memorable and overall considered better by most people than anything on 19, and that's what are going to be more remembered.
Its also ignorant of you to say that Lesnar/Angle and Jericho/Michaels had better wrestling than Rock/Austin? Since when is brawling not wrestling? You're looking at these things from a purely technical aspect. You ignore all of the others like emotion, psychology, storytelling, pacing, build up, etc. Austin's character progression in that one WM match alone is one of the greatest in history, with how he gets increasingly savage and paranoid when Rock won't stay down. His facials become wild and its like he's lost his mind, to the point where he finally snaps. Why is that not good wrestling? Telling a story is one of the most basic parts OF wrestling. And the finish worked absolutely fine-Austin snapped, went ape shit on Rock and beat him into oblivion, which set the tone for just how brutal his run as champion would be. No finesse, no eloquence, just pure rage and violence. Amusing that you also call the finish bad, but defend the finish to Brock/Angle where Brock famously fucked up a big spot and then they had to do a random finish on the fly because Brock had a concussion.
I also find it funny that you say Taker/Hunter, which was a great match, was lazy, slow and not innovative at all, and then have the gall to call Taker vs Big Show/A-Train 'decent'.
I also have a hard time hearing your justifications about why Shane vs Vince was crap, but Hogan vs Vince was great storytelling. Guess you weren't watching at the time because Linda kicking Vince in the balls and the entire fight between them was because Vince was cheating on Linda and keeping her in a comatose state while he threw his affairs into her face, and Shane was defending his mother. Hardly a bad story...
At the end of the day, your whole argument is that WM19 was more consistent. That's all well and good, but the best moments of WM17 thoroughly beat out the consistency of WM19, and that's why its considered better. WM19 was overall good throughout. WM17 was bad at some parts and incredible at others. People will remember and be drawn to the incredible over the consistently good any day of the week.