Wrestling Forum banner

81 - 96 of 96 Posts

·
Greek God of Knowledge
Joined
·
7,332 Posts
So from 1997 to 2019, they only main-evented a PPV twice....from a creative standpoint they been stuck together since Kane's debut, and yet only 2 main-events. It's funny that you mentioned the breakdown match, they had add Austin into the mix just to generate interest, and the fact that the fans popped with AUstin both of them down and counted to three, which is one of the worst finishes I've ever seen, just prove that people didn't really give a crap about those two facing each other, they just wanted to see Austin.
Edge and Christian never main evented a PPV and had far greater interest and investment put into them as a team. Matt and Jeff never main evented a PPV against one another. Hell, even Shawn Michaels and Triple H, for all of the times they've feuded and had matches together, only main evented five PPV's against each other (and this is counting two triple threat matches where they weren't even the main focus, so three if we want to be technical). Two main events between Taker and Kane is actually pretty impressive all things considered. People who start out as tag team partners generally don't main event against one another, because there's always that one who ends up being the lesser known of the group and/or just doesn't generate the same type of success.

It's not about who close out the show. The main storyline leading up to that PPV was Kane/Austin, it's not even debatable.
Now you're just choosing to change the narrative for your own sake. This simply wasn't the case.

You said for a lot of people Kane/Taker was the biggest match of the show,...not even the biggest Kane/Taker fans believe this.
Okay? And? Where in that statement am I saying that the majority of people thought that? I said a lot of people, and that's true. That's different than majority. But most of the people who were around watching that PPV were much more invested in HBK/Austin. I was never denying this.

Main event = the main storyline

Rock/Hogan was the true main-event of WM 18 because leading up to that event it was a primary focus from a creative standpoint.
And yet it wasn't the main event.

Here we go again.

The same can be said about Austin, he benefited from the nWo's rise in popularity. They literally brought the wrestling industry from death to life. Actually, if it wasn't for Hulk Hogan turning the WWE into a global brand in the 80s, Austin wouldn't be nearly as popular.
Lmao what? Hogan had absolutely nothing to do with Austin's rise in popularity. What he did in the 80s was irrelevant. WWF was on a massive downward spiral before Austin took the reigns. It was nowhere close to what it once was from a popularity standpoint. Austin brought it back to that level. This is just an incredibly bad argument.

If you were to try to apply that to someone like Goldberg, then you'd absolutely have a point. Goldberg benefited greatly from the NWO and a combination of smart booking and great presentation on WCW's part allowed Goldberg to become a huge star at one point. But Austin benefited very little from the NWO.

If getting big in the AE was this easy, then why didn't the other wrestlers rode the "Austin wave", and become as popular as Rock was/is?
Who the hell said it was that easy? All I'm saying is that The Rock benefited greatly from Austin's rise to stardom. He rode the wave of momentum that the WWF had going for them at the time, just like Goldberg did in WCW with the NWO. This can't be argued against.

Now you're saying Andre was bigger than Rock...lol. No one sold out more house shows than Rock did in 2000. Seriously, just stop.
Andre didn't wrestle nearly as many matches on a yearly basis as the Rock did in 2000. This is just a laughably bad argument.

Andre was a well known international star who didn't become famous through competing under a global brand like the WWE. He didn't need it. Again, no matter where he went and no matter who he worked with, he sold out arenas. All people needed to know was Andre would be there and they'd show up in masses. Compare this with the Rock who was working under a global brand that was already insanely popular and had loads of well known wrestlers to work with. Not to mention, Andre had already become a well known pop culture sensation while he was still in wrestling. The Rock wouldn't be able to pull off his level of popularity until AFTER he completely left WWE and transitioned fully to Hollywood. No one is taking away what The Rock did. But it's not possible to compare him to what Andre was able to do, because very few people can say they were able to draw crowds the way he did. Anyone who disagrees has no idea how popular Andre the Giant was.

No one past, present or future ever reached the peak popularity of The Rock 1999-2000. All the f**** drawing records from PPV buys to Arena sellouts to cable ratings to merchandise sales point out to that.
First off this is factually wrong. Second, I don't care what the Rock did. Andre the Giant was still able to climb to pop culture icon status without even needing to be part of a global brand and STILL achieved heights that the Rock never managed to reach until he became a full time hollywood actor.

And LOL to the guy saying that The Rock wont draw as big internationally as Andre did. Rock sold out every single arena in Japan way back in 2002 and sold out 60k strong in Australia in the very same year.
Yeah, now tell me what kind of wrestlers the Rock got to work with, and now compare that with what Andre was working with when he was selling out arenas with independent territories working against unknown names. Now tell me if the Rock would have been able to do that? I rest my case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
and vice-versa?
Mark Calaway (Undertaker) is humble so I doubt he would...or that this ever crossed his mind. As for Rock, he left for Hollywood, but he still has high respect for the business and (as Dwayne Johnson is humble as well) would put Taker over himself based on longevity before and after he got in the business.

In MY opinion, Taker had the better career, but Rock's peak (even before Hollywood) was bigger than any high point of The Undertaker's career.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
719 Posts
I'm not confusing anything at all here. For a lot of people, Kane vs Undertaker was the biggest match of that card heading into the event. This isn't to say that more weren't invested in Austin vs Michaels. They absolutely were. But your logic doesn't work here and its for the very reason I listed.

HHH vs Jericho was the title match, and thus was most likely going to main event. At that point, the world title match not main eventing Wrestlemania only happened twice, so fans were more than likely expecting HHH/Jericho to headline the event (even though I absolutely 100% agree that it shouldn't have).

Not to mention, even if Kane vs Undertaker did end up headlining that show, Austin vs HBK still would have happened. Austin was still a rising star at that point. Fans were going to pay to watch it. So this idea that Kane/Taker would have resulted in the number you suggested is laughable.. There is nothing you can give me that would suggest that to be the case.
I can see an argument with HHH vs Jericho being the main event, I don't agree but it is probably the most often debated main events ever (as in which match was the main event). Ultimately Rock vs Hogan most likely drew more PPV buys. The Live crowd was certainly more into it. But can see argument for both.

I have never heard anyone ever claim that Taker vs Kane was the real main event at WM 14. Especially with Mike Tyson also involved in the main event, I mean that is kind of ridiculous to suggest Taker vs Kane could be argued as the main event. I'm sorry.

You also mentioned that Taker vs Mankind HIC was a big money match in another post. It was not even the main event of that show, it was another match in countless Taker vs Foley matches. It wasn't on a big 4 PPV nor was the main event, and was prior to Foley winning a world title and becoming a true main eventer. Also at a time when WCW was probably still #1 although they weren't much longer.. so yeah while a legendary match and moment and one of my personal favorite matches, it was not even close to a "big money " match
 

·
Greek God of Knowledge
Joined
·
7,332 Posts
I can see an argument with HHH vs Jericho being the main event, I don't agree but it is probably the most often debated main events ever (as in which match was the main event). Ultimately Rock vs Hogan most likely drew more PPV buys. The Live crowd was certainly more into it. But can see argument for both.
I'm not really sure who here is debating that. Pretty much everyone here is in agreement that Hogan/Rock was the bigger match. I am only stating that just because a match isn't the main event match doesn't mean it's not a big money match. Hogan/Rock is a perfect example of that.

I have never heard anyone ever claim that Taker vs Kane was the real main event at WM 14. Especially with Mike Tyson also involved in the main event, I mean that is kind of ridiculous to suggest Taker vs Kane could be argued as the main event. I'm sorry.
Jesus christ.

Where did I ever state that anyone thought that should be the main event? Please show me. There are a lot of people out there at the time who cared more about that match than the main event. That doesn't = it should be the main event. I very rarely find myself being most interested in anything that is in the main event of a PPV these days, that doesn't mean I don't think it should be the main event of said show.

You also mentioned that Taker vs Mankind HIC was a big money match in another post. It was not even the main event of that show
Again, mentioning this means absolutely nothing.

it was another match in countless Taker vs Foley matches. It wasn't on a big 4 PPV nor was the main event, and was prior to Foley winning a world title and becoming a true main eventer.
I guess the Shield vs The Wyatts wasn't an important match because it wasn't the main event and didn't happen on a big four PPV. I guess Shawn Michaels vs Kurt Angle's rematch at Vengeance wasn't a money match because it didn't happen on a big four PPV and didn't main event. Hell why stop there, clearly HHH/Austin Three Stages of Hell wasn't a big money match because it wasn't the main event and it didn't happen at a Big 4 PPV.

This logic doesn't work. If you want to claim that the match wasn't a big money one because the buy rates for that PPV were bad then fine, show me the numbers (because apparently wiki doesn't have them). The Hell in a Cell match was the most built up match at the time, I'm not going to continue repeating myself on that matter.

Also at a time when WCW was probably still #1 although they weren't much longer.. so yeah while a legendary match and moment and one of my personal favorite matches, it was not even close to a "big money " match
At that time WWF had the lead in the ratings war. The Raw following KOTR saw them come out on top again, then Nitro took the lead the following week after Goldberg became WCW Champion. Then WWF took the lead back for four weeks until the Ultimate Warrior was brought to WCW and they held the lead for six weeks.

And that Raw following KOTR by the way? It drew a 5.4 rating, which was up from the previous episode which drew a 4.3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
I would consider his Wrestlemania match with Kane, as well as the Hell in a Cell match with Mankind to be big money matches.



WCW was hardly a local wrestling company by the time they got Hogan. But I do agree.



Okay? Good for him. Andre was still a bigger draw than him.
Why are you being a condescending prick to everyone who disagrees with you? Your points are your opinions masqueraded as facts and most of them are laughably misguided.

Is there an ignore button for people like this guy?

Nvm.. Found it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
My god, what the fuck did I just read?

Imagine thinking that Undertaker vs Kane at Wrestlemania 14 was, "for alot of people", the biggest match of the show. Would be intrigued to know who those people are?

Imagine suggesting that The Rock's popularity during the Attitude Era was a product of Austin's rise to the top. Then I guess Austin being the top guy was a product of Vince McMahon being the evil boss, right?

Imagine entertaining the idea that Mankind vs Undertaker at the KOTR was a bigger money match/attraction than the main-event implying Stone Cold who was at the height of his peak.

Thing is, nobody paid to see Taker/Foley as it was basically a continuation of the Hell in a Cell match between Austin/Taker/Kane/Mankind on Raw, two weeks prior the PPV. It was a throwaway match with little to no anticipation going into the PPV and it ended up being iconic because of Foley's crazy bumps.
 

·
Greek God of Knowledge
Joined
·
7,332 Posts
Why are you being a condescending prick to everyone who disagrees with you? Your points are are your opinions masqueraded as facts and most of them are laughably misguided.

Is there an ignore button for people like this guy?

Nvm.. Found it.
Lmao the way I replied was no different from how they were replying. Don't try to pretend this has anything to do with you disagreeing with what I'm saying. Also learn what facts are. Clearly your definition of it is "misguided".

My god, what the fuck did I just read?

Imagine thinking that Undertaker vs Kane at Wrestlemania 14 was, "for alot of people", the biggest match of the show. Would be intrigued to know who those people are?
People who weren't as into Austin as they were the story involving Undertaker. I love this idea that everyone who watched was universally only completely interested in Austin/HBK. Don't worry, maybe you'll learn more when you grow up one day and realize people have different viewpoints of wrestling.

Imagine suggesting that The Rock's popularity during the Attitude Era was a product of Austin's rise to the top. Then I guess Austin being the top guy was a product of Vince McMahon being the evil boss, right?
First off, you mean the feud that doesn't even officially begin until AFTER Austin's rise to the top? Yeah imagine thinking that's a valid argument. Second, yes, the Rock's popularity was a product of Austin's rise to stardom. If it wasn't for Austin needing to step aside due to injuries, The Rock never would have climbed the heights that he did. Austin was always the true top guy, and all the Rock did was benefit from him being on the sidelines.

Imagine entertaining the idea that Mankind vs Undertaker at the KOTR was a bigger money match/attraction than the main-event implying Stone Cold who was at the height of his peak.

Thing is, nobody paid to see Taker/Foley as it was basically a continuation of the Hell in a Cell match between Austin/Taker/Kane/Mankind on Raw, two weeks prior the PPV. It was a throwaway match with little to no anticipation going into the PPV and it ended up being iconic because of Foley's crazy bumps.
Nobody paid to see Taker/Foley.

If there were still smilies on this site I would be bombarding you with them. This is such an idiotic statement to make that it doesn't even merit a genuine response. To the ignore list you go, don't waste my time again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
People who weren't as into Austin as they were the story involving Undertaker. I love this idea that everyone who watched was universally only completely interested in Austin/HBK. Don't worry, maybe you'll learn more when you grow up one day and realize people have different viewpoints of wrestling.
How is having more interest into a storyline means it should be labelled as the main-event? Should I consider Shawn Michaels vs Kurt Angle at Wrestlemania 21 the main-event because I had more interest for that match than Batista vs Triple H?

It'd be dumb to think so, cause it doesn't change the fact that HHH/Batista was objectively the main-event and the bigger match of the show.

First off, you mean the feud that doesn't even officially begin until AFTER Austin's rise to the top? Yeah imagine thinking that's a valid argument. Second, yes, the Rock's popularity was a product of Austin's rise to stardom. If it wasn't for Austin needing to step aside due to injuries, The Rock never would have climbed the heights that he did. Austin was always the true top guy, and all the Rock did was benefit from him being on the sidelines.
Austin’s popularity reached a new height the night he stunned Vince McMahon on RAW at MSG. Official or not, it doesn't matter

Secondly, the idea that The Rock became the top guy "only because" Austin was sidelined is revisionist history at its best. Rock was already surpassing Austin in popularity by mid/late 1999, it’s been proved/documented thousand of times. So you’re either delusional or lacking of knowledges in that regard, which is pretty ironic for someone who’s calling himself « The Greek God of Knowledge ».

Also, Rock got over by himself with the Nation first & dealt with a shitty booking for the majority of his career. He didn’t need an all-time great in Bret Hart, a worldwide boxing superstar in Tyson & the best heel character in WWE history to reach the next level. Not taking anything away from Austin, but suggesting that Rock's rise to superstardom was a product of Austin’s popularity is one of the dumbest take I’ve ever heard.

Nobody paid to see Taker/Foley.

If there were still smilies on this site I would be bombarding you with them. This is such an idiotic statement to make that it doesn't even merit a genuine response. To the ignore list you go, don't waste my time again.
Obviously you can’t give a genuine response, cause there’s absolutely no legit argument possible to back up the idea of Undertaker/Mankind being a bigger money match/attraction than Austin/Kane for the WWF title.

Only makes sense you don’t wanna waste your time pushing such a terrible statement, cause there’s absolutely no case to be made.

Even if you tried to push that idea furthermore, you’d be embarrassing yourself even more. But hey, go ahead, I’m always up for a good laugh !;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
Once in a life time > Twice in a life time > End of an Era > Punk match

(not in terms of in-ring work, but there's a reason why Rocks matches were main-events)
This has nothing to do with what I said.

What I said is that in the Road to wrestlemania 28 and 29, Taker's segment used to be the highest rated segments of the show, even when Rock and Taker were in the same show, Taker's segments drew higher ratings than Rock's.

Again this is a fact, if you don't believe me go check the ratings of the road to wrestlemania 28 and 29.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,301 Posts
There are some shows where the main event can be debated, particularly when it is double main event or a World Title match or some kind of final match of the evening. Undertaker-Kane at Mania XIV was not a main event by any stretch. Second biggest match on the show from a booking standpoint? Perhaps, but this isn't Rock-Hogan or Hogan-McMahon. Diesel and Shawn were allowed to piggyback off the media involvement of LT in terms of how their match was promoted but I don't recall any such luxury being afforded to Taker-Kane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
In the Road to Wrestlemania 28 and 29, Taker's segment were the highest rated segments of the show, even higher than Rock's

When Taker and The Rock were in the same show, Taker's segments used to draw more ratings than The Rock's segments, this is a fact.
No they didn’t .. This for example is is from the Road to Wrestlemania 29, the 3rd year of the Rock/Cena feud and on Taker’s return

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
No, he wasn't. He doesn't come close to matching Andre's popularity in the 70s. Andre was an international sensation capable of selling out entire arenas on his own around the world. He wasn't tied to any one brand, he WAS the brand. The Rock benefited from Austin's rise in popularity and had a strong supporting cast to help him. And even then, his popularity outside the US doesn't come anywhere close to Andres.
That last part is a stretch. Not gonna counterclaim any of Andre’s argument, as he was Andre. However, I’m from outside the US and basically everyone from my generation growing up knew who The Rock was. Rock did main events in sold out in the UK, Australia, and Japan back in 2002

Now keep in mind that the guy has been a megastar ever since 1999, during maybe the most popular wrestling period of the National TV era. Now he’s had 21 years of his stardom growing at an exponential growth, because let’s face it he never stopped being a pop culture icon even after retiring from pro wrestling. Think about that, 21 years non stop of popularity snowballing. So to say that he isn’t as popular as Andre, or even close to, is a very huge stretch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
That last part is a stretch. Not gonna counterclaim any of Andre’s argument, as he was Andre. However, I’m from outside the US and basically everyone from my generation growing up knew who The Rock was. Rock did main events in sold out in the UK, Australia, and Japan back in 2002

Now keep in mind that the guy has been a megastar ever since 1999, during maybe the most popular wrestling period of the National TV era. Now he’s had 21 years of his stardom growing at an exponential growth, because let’s face it he never stopped being a pop culture icon even after retiring from pro wrestling. Think about that, 21 years non stop of popularity snowballing. So to say that he isn’t as popular as Andre, or even close to, is a very huge stretch.
Even though you're 110% right, you shouldn't disagree with him, you'll hurt his ego and you'll find you're way on his "ignore list".
 

·
Greek God of Knowledge
Joined
·
7,332 Posts
That last part is a stretch. Not gonna counterclaim any of Andre’s argument, as he was Andre. However, I’m from outside the US and basically everyone from my generation growing up knew who The Rock was. Rock did main events in sold out in the UK, Australia, and Japan back in 2002

Now keep in mind that the guy has been a megastar ever since 1999, during maybe the most popular wrestling period of the National TV era. Now he’s had 21 years of his stardom growing at an exponential growth, because let’s face it he never stopped being a pop culture icon even after retiring from pro wrestling. Think about that, 21 years non stop of popularity snowballing. So to say that he isn’t as popular as Andre, or even close to, is a very huge stretch.
Are you saying right NOW? Because right now yes, The Rock is most certainly above Andre. I am talking about when they were wrestling. I am saying that even at the Rock's peak in wrestling, which we all know is 2000, he doesn't touch Andre's popularity at his peak. Andre in 80s you can argue he was at his peak, but I wouldn't even put the Rock above 70s Andre either.

There are some shows where the main event can be debated, particularly when it is double main event or a World Title match or some kind of final match of the evening. Undertaker-Kane at Mania XIV was not a main event by any stretch. Second biggest match on the show from a booking standpoint? Perhaps, but this isn't Rock-Hogan or Hogan-McMahon. Diesel and Shawn were allowed to piggyback off the media involvement of LT in terms of how their match was promoted but I don't recall any such luxury being afforded to Taker-Kane.
If people are going to continue to show a clear lack of basic understanding of what I was saying then I'm not going to continue to bother with this particular topic. I never once said Taker/Kane was worthy of being the main event of that show. There's no point in continuing when you guys are fundamentally failing to grasp something so simple.

Now with all that said, I do have to admit to being wrong on one thing. I did go back and watch the Raw's leading up to King of the Ring 1998. My argument was that Taker/Mankind was built up as the bigger match and the main match of the card even though it didn't main event...and I was totally wrong. I honestly remembered Mankind/Taker having more build up and attention given to it, but it really didn't. I guess my memory of that build up was very flawed. So in that regard, I will rightfully take my L and move on with my day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
My goodness this thread is still going? I doubt either Taker or the Rock have even thought about this. Who cares? This is like a "my dad can beat up your dad" thread.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter #96
My goodness this thread is still going? I doubt either Taker or the Rock have even thought about this. Who cares? This is like a "my dad can beat up your dad" thread.
Well, I'm sure The Rock knows he is bigger star, but Undertaker probably consider himself to be bigger legend but not a bigger star.
 
81 - 96 of 96 Posts
Top