[%%%%2]

What are some matches where you feel the wrong person won?

1) Edge vs Cena Royal Rumble 2006.

Since 2002, WWE had been working hard to try to make Edge a star. When he finally won the title, it seemed as if they had finally did just that. TV ratings increased and fans were excited. But just 3 weeks after winning the title, Edge lost clean to Cena at Royal Rumble.

Now, losing to Cena was not a problem; the problem was that it was far too soon. Not only should Edge's 1st title reign been longer than 3 weeks, the match with Cena should had been stalled until Wrestlemania.

It was the perfect "face chasing the heel champion" story that Wrestlemania is made for.

2) Wrestlemania X9: Booker T vs HHH

Booker T, whom few expected to fight for the title at Wrestlemania, was a fresh face in a dull main-event scene in 2003. Goldberg didn't arrive yet; HBK vs HHH had been done too many times; and HHH-Steiner didn't fare well in the prior 2 PPVs.

Booker T was essentially a last-resort, though I can't understand why. He had the crowd support and was talented on the mic and in the ring. Had he won, then he would had become a star. It's a shame that he had to wait until 2006 to get his time.

After losing (In a match with a terrible finish), he was tossed into the IC title hunt while HHH started a weak feud with Kevin Nash.



.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: Matches were the wrong guy won

Every HHH and Cena match pretty much.

 

[vanderhevel]

barrett should have won the title at bragging rights.

 

[Thumbinthebum]

Savage/Hogan @ WM5. I would've had Savage go over with Hogan winning the title back at SummerSlam.

2) Wrestlemania X9: Booker T vs HHH

Booker T, whom few expected to fight for the title at Wrestlemania, was a fresh face in a dull main-event scene in 2003. Goldberg didn't arrive yet; HBK vs HHH had been done too many times; and HHH-Steiner didn't fare well in the prior 2 PPVs.

Booker T was essentially a last-resort, though I can't understand why. He had the crowd support and was talented on the mic and in the ring. Had he won, then he would had become a star. It's a shame that he had to wait until 2006 to get his time.

After losing (In a match with a terrible finish), he was tossed into the IC title hunt while HHH started a weak feud with Kevin Nash.

To be fair to WWE they'd already made Booker T a 2 time champion. He won his 4th WCW title on the final Nitro after the buyout because Steiner wasn't coming in and his 5th was won on WWE programming.

 

[Nuski]

What are some matches where you feel the wrong person won?


2) Wrestlemania X9: Booker T vs HHH

Booker T, whom few expected to fight for the title at Wrestlemania, was a fresh face in a dull main-event scene in 2003. Goldberg didn't arrive yet; HBK vs HHH had been done too many times; and HHH-Steiner didn't fare well in the prior 2 PPVs.

Booker T was essentially a last-resort, though I can't understand why. He had the crowd support and was talented on the mic and in the ring. Had he won, then he would had become a star. It's a shame that he had to wait until 2006 to get his time.

After losing (In a match with a terrible finish), he was tossed into the IC title hunt while HHH started a weak feud with Kevin Nash.


.

That one is great. So this.

 

[Oh Lymping Hero!]

HBK v Hogan - HBK should've won by nefarious means.

 

[Cynic]

This list could go on forever, so I'll just go with the major ones that stand out in my mind. Some of them actually don't have as much to do with the winner as they do the manner in which they won:

Starrcade '97: The right guy "won" the main event, but not with the right result. Sting should have beat Hogan clean, with no controversy. It was literally the Match of the Century. It had been building for 2 years. It was to be the defining moment of the entire nWo storyline. They - and by they, of course, I mean Hogan - fucked it up grandly and WCW went into a tailspin it never recovered from basically immediately after that.

Survivor Series '97: Same idea as the last example. There should have been no Screwjob, because Bret should have done his job and put over Michaels clean.

Starrcade '98: Kevin Nash ends Goldberg's streak? Seriously? Goldberg is one of my most personally detested wrestlers ever, but anyone with a functioning brain knows that was a ridiculously terrible and indefensible booking decision.

Raw, April '00: Jericho pinned Triple H (mostly) clean for the WWF Title, only to have to hand the belt back to HHH later in the show. It made sense storyline wise, but Jericho's title win was a complete shock that resulted in arguably the biggest pop ever on Raw. The crowd went apeshit and was obviously in love with the idea of Jericho as champion, which would've been the first time ever for him. Even if it were just until the next PPV, he should have kept the belt.

Great American Bash '05: WWE should have grown some balls, stood up to the idiots at UPN, and put Muhammad Hassan over The Undertaker to make him the #1 contender for the World Title (which was allegedly the original plan). Instead, Taker buried Hassan and we never saw him again. One of the best heels of the decade flushed down the toilet because of some D-level cable network executives. Pathetic.

Vengeance '05: Christian should have won the WWE Title. Actually, he should have won it the next month in a one-on-one match with Cena at SummerSlam, but since that match never happened for some dumb fucking reason, this is close enough.

 

[LeapingLannyPoffo]

Mr. Ass vs Ken Shamrock - King of the Ring 1999

Ken Shamrock should have won that match and the rest of the tournament.

 

[Hiplop]

The ones the Op said are my answers

 

[Jeritron 5000.]

Cena vs. Jericho at Survivor Series 08.

I know it was Cena's return. I know it was in his home state. I know there was a tonne of fanfare. But having someone return from an injury and beat the World Heavyweight Champion right off the bat just wound me up - oh, no-one else could take the belt, but a fresh-from-injury John Cena could.

That's probably a personal opinion though, rather than a real gripe, but it always comes to mind with questions like this.

 

[Thumbinthebum]

Raw, April '00: Jericho pinned Triple H (mostly) clean for the WWF Title, only to have to hand the belt back to HHH later in the show. It made sense storyline wise, but Jericho's title win was a complete shock that resulted in arguably the biggest pop ever on Raw. The crowd went apeshit and was obviously in love with the idea of Jericho as champion, which would've been the first time ever for him. Even if it were just until the next PPV, he should have kept the belt.

I sort of agree. The reversal of the decision was god, what needed to happen was a Jericho victory later. It didn't even need to be part of the initial feud, I would've been more than happy for Chris to have to wait a couple of years, just as long as the match was kept alive in people's momories.

 

[Cynic]

Mr. Ass vs Ken Shamrock - King of the Ring 1999

Ken Shamrock should have won that match and the rest of the tournament.

Shamrock won the year before. What would have been point in winning again when he didn't do anything with it the first time around? He was actually way worse off in '99 than he'd been the year prior.

There really was no good choice in that tournament when you look back at the bracket. Gunn winning looks stupid in hindsight but it made sense at the time. He looked like a star, but he ended up being a flop. It happens.

 

[%%%%2]

Here's another:

3) Summerslam 2003 Elimination Chamber Match

In Goldberg's tenure, the Elimination Chamber match at Summerslam 03 is often considered his greatest moment. WWE finally managed to capture the dominance that Goldberg had in WCW, with him eliminating HBK, Jericho, and Orton. WWE fans, who were often booing Goldberg during RAW events, now began chanting his name.

A title win here would had been a wonderful moment. Imagine the crowd's eruption had he hit the Jackhammer and pin HHH 1-2-3 in the chamber that night.

Unfortunately, WWE wanted HHH's dreadful, year-long title reign to continue.

Goldberg won the belt on the next PPV in a forgettable singles match with HHH. The crowd would never embrace him again like they did in the Elimination Chamber match.

HBK v Hogan - HBK should've won by nefarious means.

I was initially going to mention this match, but I realized that Hogan winning was correct.

In a legend vs legend match, the bigger legend should win.

Though more talented, HBK is not as big as Hulk Hogan is. Hogan has been around longer, has a larger fan-base, and made far more money.

Hogan winning was the right move.

 

[XPac99]

Jericho shouldve kept the belt in 2000 ? Was that not the week before Backlash ?

 

[TriplePunk]

Cena vs HHH, almost all of them, especially the matches @ WM...

Already mentioned the match Booker T vs Triple H, they should have given Booker a push with a title reign!

 

[Cynic]

Jericho shouldve kept the belt in 2000 ? Was that not the week before Backlash ?

Hell if I remember, it was a decade ago. :lmao I thought it was later in the year than that, but the YouTube video says April, so I really have no idea. But I can distinctly remember watching the match live.

 

[Whake]

King of the Ring Finals 1998: The Rock should have defeated Ken Shamrock. Would've made 1998 the Rock's year with being leader of the Nation, RR finalist, IC title run, KOTR, and then top of it off by becoming the Corporate WWF Champion at Survivor Series. Shamrock was a waste. He cut the worst promo against Triple H a week later. Like bad enough to make one of Morrison's look legendary. I guarantee Vince knew right then and there that he fucked that decision up.

Anyway, bottom line is: Looking back at history, it would've given KOTR more credibility by adding another name of someone who went on to become a world champion, rather than someone who went on to become a jobber-to-the-Tito's.

 

[BOX5]

all matches mvp lost to fatt hardy, mvp not getting a legit run at the world title, vader against hbk i mean after the monsoon angle vader would have been a made man, yell

 

[TripleG]

The most recent one in WWE that angered me was last year's Hell in a Cell match between Taker & Punk.

I don't care what you tell me. There is no way in holy hell that happens. Punk was the hottest thing in the company, and to get a heel that interesting & strong creatively is a hard thing to achieve. Punk should have held the title until Mania. No question about it.

You can say whatever you want about Taker, but at this point, he's an injury prone & unreliable relic of the past. It did absolutely no good to have Taker win that title, and to me, it destroyed the greatest that Smackdown had achieved last year. The negative impact of Taker's victory was felt almost immediately as whatever storyline plan they had seemed to go out the window and it just became a "Taker defends the title" once a month format, which got very dull, very quick.

Undertaker is a legend. There is no denying that, but they had an opportunity to make Punk & elite main event superstar & they chucked away (and the greatness of the entire brand along with it) for the sake of furthering the legacy of someone who doesn't have much of a future anymore.

 

[TheLuchador129]

Gangrel vs X Pac from Royal Rumble 1999.

Gangrel was a talented worker with an awesome gimmick who should have won the European title in this match. At one point the ref actually DID count to three on X Pac but it was an obvious botch because the match continued on like X Pac had kicked out. If Gangrel could have won it may have catapulted him into a solid mid card position, instead he jobbed to D-Lo Brown for the next couple of months and was released. Shame really....