The Bottom Line: Wrestlers who deserved to get crowned at WrestleMania and the ones that didn't - Wrestling Forum: WWE, AEW, New Japan, Indy Wrestling, Women of Wrestling Forums

 50Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #1 of 41 (permalink) Old 07-17-2019, 11:20 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,317
Points: 3,290
                     
The Bottom Line: Wrestlers who deserved to get crowned at WrestleMania and the ones that didn't

In this edition of the Bottom Line, we list and discuss the wrestlers who have never been crowned as World champions at Wrestlemania despite being over, and the ones that did but did not deserve it.

Let's begin.

Wrestlers who deserved, but never got crowned:

The Rock --> Wrestlemania 2000 was his time.
CM Punk --> Summer of Punk should have led to him winning the title at WM.

Wrestlers who did not deserve, but got crowned anyway:

Roman Reigns --> He wasn't over to become world champion at any point in his career.
Triple HGH --> Wasn't exactly over when he beat Jericho to get his crowning moment. His reign like all his reigns flopped.
Seth Rollins --> Wasn't over when he was crowned twice at WM (31 and 35). Both of his reigns have flopped.
Tag89 likes this.

Last edited by deadcool; 07-17-2019 at 11:26 AM.
deadcool is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 41 (permalink) Old 07-17-2019, 11:27 AM
Moron
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 1
Points: 3
 
Re: The Bottom Line: Wrestlers who deserved to get crowned at Wrestlemana and the ones that didn't

Asuka should have won at WM34.
Mifune Jackson and Soul_Body like this.
NineInchNails is offline  
post #3 of 41 (permalink) Old 07-17-2019, 11:28 AM
You need to be yourself, you can't be no-one else.
 
UniversalGleam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 6,408
Points: 21,039
                     
Re: The Bottom Line: Wrestlers who deserved to get crowned at Wrestlemana and the ones that didn't

The rock really shouldve defeated HHH in a singles match at mania, it really made the most sense. The resulting fatal four way was nothing short of a mess as big show and mick foley really had no purpose being there (specially mick, the guy was literally retired at the previous PPV).

not only was the match poor but HHH still won.....yeah not good. 2000 was very much rock's year and HHH was ready to be defeated. All I can assume is more of that HHH politicking was going on.

if they really wanted HHH to retain and mick to have his WM main event then maybe they shouldve just done the hell in a cell at mania and retired mick there. keep the rock back for summerslam.
Paladine and Tag89 like this.

"After it all, you'll find out you were always one of us, act like you don't remember, you said we'd live forever, who do you think you're kidding? you were only one of us in time"

KMpxRs_7NT4

You can't give me a reason, I don't need one to shine, You can't give me a feeling 'cause it's already mine

1. Oasis 2. Queen 3. The Cure 4. Angels and Airwaves 5. The Verve

Last edited by UniversalGleam; 07-17-2019 at 11:35 AM.
UniversalGleam is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 41 (permalink) Old 07-17-2019, 11:33 AM
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,380
Points: 6,108
                     
Re: The Bottom Line: Wrestlers who deserved to get crowned at Wrestlemana and the ones that didn't

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadcool View Post
In this edition of the Bottom Line, we list and discuss the wrestlers who have never been crowned as World champions at Wrestlemania despite being over, and the ones that did but did not deserve it.

Let's begin.

Wrestlers who deserved, but never got crowned:

The Rock --> Wrestlemania 2000 was his time.
CM Punk --> Summer of Punk should have led to him winning the title at WM.

Wrestlers who did not deserve, but got crowned anyway:

Roman Reigns --> He wasn't over to become world champion at any point in his career.
Triple HGH --> Wasn't exactly over when he beat Jericho to get his crowning moment. His reign like all his reigns flopped.
Seth Rollins --> Wasn't over when he was crowned twice at WM (31 and 35). Both of his reigns have flopped.
In what world was Rollins not over at WM31? It was one of the biggest pops of all time lol.
HHH was plenty over in his run in 2002. Maybe he cooled off a bit towards mania, but when the build started he was red hot. He was also more over than Jericho at the time, so it's fine.
Bobholly39 is offline  
post #5 of 41 (permalink) Old 07-17-2019, 11:40 AM
AEW ALL OUT 8/31/19
 
A-C-P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: I Hail From Green Bay, WI
Posts: 24,456
Points: 43,934
                     
Re: The Bottom Line: Wrestlers who deserved to get crowned at Wrestlemana and the ones that didn't

CM Punk
alejbr4, Punk_316 and Soul_Body like this.

A-C-P is offline  
post #6 of 41 (permalink) Old 07-17-2019, 12:43 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,317
Points: 3,290
                     
Re: The Bottom Line: Wrestlers who deserved to get crowned at Wrestlemana and the ones that didn't

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobholly39 View Post
In what world was Rollins not over at WM31? It was one of the biggest pops of all time lol.
HHH was plenty over in his run in 2002. Maybe he cooled off a bit towards mania, but when the build started he was red hot. He was also more over than Jericho at the time, so it's fine.
It had more to do with the fact that a cashin was happening as opposed to Rollins winning it. First of all that entire finish was lame. Just because you interrupt a match and try to cash in does not make it an automatic triple threat where you can also pin the other challenger to win the title. It was horse sh** writing just because Vince did not want Lesnar pinned.

Triple HGH got one pop in Jan 2002 and suddenly this myth of him being a superstar occurred. He was overshadowed by Hogan (as well as most of the upper card), and if his title win was so great, why did he lose it in the next PPV?
Tag89 likes this.
deadcool is offline  
post #7 of 41 (permalink) Old 07-17-2019, 12:52 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,582
Points: 4,755
                     
Re: The Bottom Line: Wrestlers who deserved to get crowned at WrestleMania and the ones that didn't

HHH was my over at that time. Rock/Hogan was just the preferred Main Event and sucked all the juice out of the building.

Rollins was over both times. Calling his reigns flops? Which World Champion has a good run in the last decade? All you can hope for is that that have some good matches during the reign, the booking is likely to always to be shit.
bmack086 is offline  
post #8 of 41 (permalink) Old 07-17-2019, 01:01 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,380
Points: 6,108
                     
Re: The Bottom Line: Wrestlers who deserved to get crowned at Wrestlemana and the ones that didn't

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadcool View Post
It had more to do with the fact that a cashin was happening as opposed to Rollins winning it. First of all that entire finish was lame. Just because you interrupt a match and try to cash in does not make it an automatic triple threat where you can also pin the other challenger to win the title. It was horse sh** writing just because Vince did not want Lesnar pinned.

Triple HGH got one pop in Jan 2002 and suddenly this myth of him being a superstar occurred. He was overshadowed by Hogan (as well as most of the upper card), and if his title win was so great, why did he lose it in the next PPV?
You're changing subjects with HHH. You asked who deserved to get crowed at mania and who didn't. HHH - deserved it. His return pop was great, demand for him was there, fans were behind him, there was even a potential great story to tell with Steph and Jericho to HHH.

It doesn't mean his reign was great - but was he deserving of winning at mania? Yes.

Rollins - of course the cash in it self helped. But you have to give credit to the guy getting the pop. Clearly it was MASSIVELY over with the mania crowd (and the wwe 'universe' in general). Rollins was the one to do it and so he gets the credit/merit. It was a great moment.

Also - I disagree with you and The Rock in the OP. It's not that he didn't deserve to be crowed champion at mania - it's more about the fact that i don't think it takes anything away from his career. The Rock may have the most/biggest mania moments out of anyone - you barely even stop to think that he didn't actually win the title at mania. I don't think it matters all that much. He had the title before mania 2000, and after, and it doesn't bug me that he didn't win it at mania.

CM Punk getting crowned at mania - the timing was always off. He was in the midst or his long reign when he fought Jericho - was he supposed to lose ahead of time just so he could win at mania? And at WM29 - i would have been fine doing Punk/Cena/Rock in a triple threat - but I also don't think Punk should have won the title. He either walks in as champ and defends it (win or lose) - or he goes in as a challenger (rematch clause after Rock beats him) in a triple threat - and have Cena win (to get his win back). CM Punk is missing an actual mania main event - but 'winning the title' isn't really an issue.

I think in WWE history the biggest "must win" title moments at mania they generally did right:

- Daniel Bryan WM30. Very well done (took them a while to get there - but the end result, amazing)
- Becky Lynch this past year was well done
- Austin won at WM14, great way
- HBK boyhood dream WM12
- Bret Hart WM10
- Cena & Batista at WM21
- Warrior @ WM6
- Hogan at WM5 (this one is less important, a bit like I was saying with The Rock, as he's already a multiple time champion, but he did 'win' one here)
Bobholly39 is offline  
post #9 of 41 (permalink) Old 07-17-2019, 01:05 PM
 
validreasoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 10,436
Points: 16,976
                     
Jericho was a comedy subservient heel so had no business going over at 18. He was ultimate transitional champion. Only difference there is Rock and Hogan should have mainevented.

Rock should have gone over HHH clean at Mania 2000. Didn't need the other two, didn't need the McMahons. Then should have held title for year as Angles reign was pointless especially given he wasn't even booked for Mania a week out.

Reigns wasn't over with vocal hardcore male fans but he was over with other segments like older viewers, kids, women etc. Him not winning vs HHH at Mania 32 would have been a little silly. Storyline should have been changed though to reigns entering as champion.

Benoit probably shouldn't have won at Wrestlemania 20. He wasn't over at that level and was midcard on SD just a few months earlier. Saying Rollins isn't over at that level yet he has been positioned as a top guy since first day he became singles guy in June 2014 not losing on free tv regularly like Benoit was in early mid 2003.

Austin at 13, Undertaker shouldn't have. Savage at 5, Hogan didn't need it and could have extended feud for next year, killed Savages momentum. Bret at 9, Hogan didn't need it. LT certainly didn't need it at 11 (if you count that crowning).

Miz should not have won at 27, nothing was gained and like Jericho at 18 he was just comic relief transitional champion, Orton winning at 33 was pointless, Lesnar winning at 34 was pointless

Last edited by validreasoning; 07-17-2019 at 01:07 PM.
validreasoning is offline  
post #10 of 41 (permalink) Old 07-17-2019, 01:47 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 308
Points: 0
         
Deserved:

THE ROCK at WM 2000 (16):

Austin was out hurt long term yet the company did not skip a beat and even widened the gap between them and WCW to an insurmountable margin with him out. Who was the top attraction and almost as big as him during that time? Rock. This should have been a 1 on 1 between Rock and HHH with Rock going over. You could have done everything you did at Backlash the following month here. Rock was over enough and deserved the crowning moment here.

RANDY ORTON at WM 25:

The best stretch of Orton's career was from his return in late 2008 until this event. His Road to Wrestlemania by attacking the McMahons and raising the ire of Triple H after giving Stephanie an RKO was gold. They ruined the whole build up by having HHH go over here. Orton should have won. To make matters worse. the match sucked and had no juice because The McMahons and Legacy should have interfered. Also, anything following HBK vs. Taker was going to fall short anyway. Even if it meant the match not going on last or even with it going on last as it did, Orton should have won.

CM PUNK at WM 27:

Yeah, even with Miz being in the Main Event and technically winning the match and with it being all about Cena and Rock, Punk should have been the guy here instead of Miz. Punk getting the title here from Cena (as opposed to Miz retaining it) would have elevated him coming out of it. The Spring and Summer of Punk could have made another star equal or greater to Cena as opposed to what we got where Punk got to become champ, but was clearly second banana to Cena.

Did not deserve:

TRIPLE H: WM 2000 (16), WM 18, WM 25:

At 16, Rock was the star in Austin's absence and should have been crowned. At 18, HHH got a great pop in January when he returned, but was not over enough as a face to have the last match on a card that had Hogan vs. Rock. Plus, HHH is a better heel. At 25, Orton was over, interesting (yes, back then he was) and poised to be the next big star, but HHH retaining and standing tall (to a reaction where you could almost hear crickets) took all his steam away. Orton's later run was bad.

HULK HOGAN at Wrestlemania 9:

It was Bret Hart's time. Hogan did not need to be champ. Hart should have gotten a win over Hulk or Randy Savage here crowning him the face of the New Generation. Hulk could have fought and beat Yokozuna elsewhere on the card if Hulk didn't want to do the job.

Last edited by cai1981; 07-17-2019 at 04:45 PM.
cai1981 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome