[RDClip]

WM doesn't feel special to me anymore. You know why? because I know that the World Title matches are just going to repeat at the next PPV.

WM is supposed to be the Superbowl of WWE the season ender. Doesn't it make sense that all feuds should blow off at Wrestlemania? If the WM title match is only part 1 of a 2 or 3 PPV feud then there is nothing special about that match.

Take Hart/HBK WMXII for example. A great story was told there; Bret Hart as the experienced veteran who wants to preserve his legacy, Shawn Michaels as the young challenger who is fighting to make his boyhood dream come true. Great match, great ending. What happens after WM? Bret takes 6 months off while Shawn becomes the guy and defends his title against the bad guys.

Now ask yourself if that fued would have been nearly as good had Hart come out the next night on Raw and got an automatic rematch 1 month later.

Which brings me to my next problem, the free rematch for the former champion. I don't think I was watching when his stupid rule was implemented but it is simply a crutch for unimaginative writers. 'Don't want to come up with a new feud or a good reason why this feud should continue? Free rematch clause'. It's lazy and it's stupid and should be gotten rid of.

I know there are much bigger problems with WWE nowadays, but this is a little push that can help make WM and the Title seem a little more prestiegious.

 

[Emotion Blur]

While I agree that the rematch clause could go, I don't think WM should be the end of every feud. I think feuds should go on as long as they need to. If there's still a lot of momentum from a feud coming out of WM, why shouldn't they continue it? If you conclude everything at WM, you're pretty much putting every year into "seasons" and making everything come off as scripted (yes, I know it is, but it doesn't have to come off that way). Wouldn't it just be too giant of a coincidence, that kayfabe-wise, every single feud ended on the same day?

And WM is supposed to be the Superbowl of wrestling in that it's the most prestigious event, not in that it's supposed to end a season. At least that's how I always thought of it.

 

[RDClip]

While I agree that the rematch clause could go, I don't think WM should be the end of every feud. I think feuds should go on as long as they need to. If there's still a lot of momentum from a feud coming out of WM, why shouldn't they continue it? If you conclude everything at WM, you're pretty much putting every year into "seasons" and making everything come off as scripted (yes, I know it is, but it doesn't have to come off that way). Wouldn't it just be too giant of a coincidence, that kayfabe-wise, every single feud ended on the same day?

And WM is supposed to be the Superbowl of wrestling in that it's the most prestigious event, not in that it's supposed to end a season. At least that's how I always thought of it.

Your post points out a major problem with the WWE; the fact that they don't plan anything out anymore. When I say that all fueds should end at WM, I mean that WM should be the climax of the feud (ie nowhere else to go from there, end on a bang) WWE should plan their feuds so that they build and build until it hits it's zenith at WM.

There is also the problem of feuds going way too long nowadays. Does anyone really want to see Sheamus/Del Rio feud for 6 months straight? As much as I am a fan of Punk and Bryan, their feud went on too long.

 

[Defective]

I agree, the day after WM should be viewed as a fresh start for everybody, never liked Backlash as well.

 

[Emotion Blur]

Your post points out a major problem with the WWE; the fact that they don't plan anything out anymore. When I say that all fueds should end at WM, I mean that WM should be the climax of the feud (ie nowhere else to go from there, end on a bang) WWE should plan their feuds so that they build and build until it hits it's zenith at WM.

There is also the problem of feuds going way too long nowadays. Does anyone really want to see Sheamus/Del Rio feud for 6 months straight? As much as I am a fan of Punk and Bryan, their feud went on too long.

I do think you may be confusing a feud going on for too long with a bad feud going on too long. You're right, nobody wants to see Sheamus/Del Rio in a long feud because nobody wants to see the feud in general (or hell, even one match). Punk/Bryan is a feud that I'm sure most people wanted to see last awhile, but the problem was that people were getting sick of AJ and throwing in Kane for no reason wasn't helping.

Another issue is that WWE is failing on even building up a feud properly, which contributes quite a bit to our ability to handle a long-term feud. The biggest problem is that every week we see the guys in a feud wrestling in some half-assed tag team match which ruins all excitement for the PPV (unless it has some sort of stipulation).

 

[@MrDrewFoley]

I don't know whether I'd want everything to end and start again because then it's as predictable as rain in an English summer, however, I see your point.

If they could build some feuds up to end at Wrestlemania that would be good. They couldn't even really end once in a lifetime. There needs to be a mix. I think they need to build towards the big 4 (WM, SummerSlam, Survivor Series, RR) to end storylines, although I suppose that becomes predictable as well.

I may be influenced by the match I'm currently watching. Owen Hart V Bret Hart at Summerslam (94?) Nothing at this years Summerslam even comes close to how fantastic this match is. I'm watching while listening to music and I'm just enthralled.

It's a fine balancing act which is probably not right at the moment, and is almost impossible to get right

You know what we need in wrestling? Competition.

It's one of the few areas of life where competition really works

 

[Loader230]

Thats not possible in this era because they have to continue those feuds for backslash or extreme rules.

 

[the modern myth]

Really? I always liked the fact that the storylines carried over a little bit from Wrestlemania. Take the Chris Benoit / Triple H / Shawn Michaels triple threat from 2004. Benoit's submission win over Triple H at Wrestlemania was a brilliant way of proving that Benoit was the rightful champion (he got the victory over the champion, rather than the third wheel). The storyline moved onto the rematch at Backlash, where Benoit got the win over Shawn Michaels in the triple threat (getting an emotional win over Canada's least favourite wrestler). Over the two (very different) matches they told two very different stories. It worked brilliantly.

The same with JBL vs John Cena at Wrestlemania. The match was kind of shit and non-eventful. Kayfabe wise, JBL had under-estimated John Cena and been beaten. Having been champion so long, JBL was rightfully owed a rematch. The fans wanted to see it because, for all his heelish antics, JBL hadn't really recieved the comeuppance that he deserved in their Wrestlemania match. The storyline needed a bigger pay off. The Judgment Day rematch was easily the better match, and easily the best match of John Cena's first reign (as far as I'm concerned).

Or, go back even further, to Wrestlemania 15. The Rock and Austin were both phenomenally popular at the time, and their Wrestlemania match was a pretty big deal. People weren't satisfied with just that one match; they wanted to see more of The Rock vs Steve Austin, so they dragged the storyline out some more. I think it makes sense to give the fans what they want, and if there is a market for rematches (for the sake of the fans or for the sake of storyline progression) I say go for it.

 

[nevereveragainu]

Mania should be the seasons end every year

the same way that January is for pro darts

 

[TempestH]

Sheamus & Del Rio is a feud that drags on too long, but to be fair, Del Rio keeps legitimately earning these title matches by winning #1 Contender matches over and over again.

 

[Loader230]

Sheamus & Del Rio is a feud that drags on too long, but to be fair, Del Rio keeps legitimately earning these title matches by winning #1 Contender matches over and over again.

It would be much more interesting if wrestlers can trade victories.

 

[FITZ]

This is kind of a tricky situation for WWE. With 5 hours of TV every week a feud has to have more than one match. So either they have to have Wrestlemania rematches or they have to have a rematch at Wrestlemania. The problem with a feud really ending at Mania is they like to advertise a first time ever match at Wrestlemania. Their are drawbacks to each side really. I would like to see them get some kind of mix in. If there's a blood feud or something that should be ending at Wrestlemania. If it's the Rumble winner getting his title shot than that match kind of has to be the start of series of matches between the two.

 

[StLSaint_75]

Your post points out a major problem with the WWE; the fact that they don't plan anything out anymore. When I say that all fueds should end at WM, I mean that WM should be the climax of the feud (ie nowhere else to go from there, end on a bang) WWE should plan their feuds so that they build and build until it hits it's zenith at WM.

There is also the problem of feuds going way too long nowadays. Does anyone really want to see Sheamus/Del Rio feud for 6 months straight? As much as I am a fan of Punk and Bryan, their feud went on too long.

but this would be like saying every feud should start and end at the same time. Its not like ok CM Punk and John Cena will feud for 2 months; Daniel Bryan and Kane will feud for two months; Sheamus and Del Rio will feud for two months and they will all end at night of Champions so we can do 3 feuds each for every one of them before Wrestlemania.