That Ever Growing, Sinking Feeling of What If....Part 1
by, 02-13-2014 at 09:08 AM (793 Views)
What if? Probably two of the most used words in the arsenal of a Pro Wrestling fan. And of course, opinion is infinite, everyone has their likes and dislikes and everyone has their own idea of what a perfect program would be; the perfect rivalry and the ultimate payoff. It's part of what makes Wrestling so great. That once the show ends you are still able to talk about it, to discuss what COULD have happened or what SHOULD have happened. Even what MIGHT happen. It is an imagination engine.
Some ideas can be exaggerated or on the verge of being impossible. And of course there is always the backstage politics that occur and would prevent most ideas from coming to fruition, but that's no fun is it? That just puts a dampener on dream matches or ideal rivalries. It's great to debate about these things. To share ideas with others and to hear their thoughts and their own personal notions on what would be great for wrestling.
Concerning WWE, there are many circumstances that come to mind and there are probably hundreds that don't. But one in particular that i believe the WWE dropped the ball on was their delivery on the card of Wrestlemania 29. Let's face it, despite amazing buy-rates which, yes, the WWE's main priority is, the past 3 Wrestlemania "extravaganzas" have been very lackluster. Matches with no proper build, focusing on maybe 3 matches and disregarding the rest. The latest installment was very guilty of that. And as a big WWE fan i stick through the product when it isn't exactly going the way i would like. Because it would be entirely illogical to cater to just me; unimportant me. The question "What if?" springs to mind when thinking about Wrestlemania 29.
I mean, let's have a quick review of Wrestlemania 29. Can you think of a stand out match? Probably Taker vs Punk springs to mind? Granted HHH and Lesnar tried hard, but one great match? That is awful. Compare that to Wrestlemania 17; Angle vs Benoit, Shane vs Vince, TLC, Austin vs Rock, HHH vs Taker, even Raven vs Show vs Kane was great. That's the caliber Wrestlemania should have to stand up to. Not just buy rates.
Now i could come up with a whole new card, but that would be crazy and there would be too many obstacles to justify that. But there is at least one big decision the WWE failed to capitalize on and there are millions of fans who where thinking the exact same thing; The Streak vs Punk's WWE championship Reign. What if Punk vs Taker was the main event? What if it was for the WWE championship? Now it was staring WWE in the face, screaming at them. This match was always going to be great, but imagine having the title on the line? Now there are a lot of things that would have had to change for this to happen, but surely creativity is a priority in WWE, there must have been some other option than to have a "once in a lifetime match" AGAIN? It was lazy booking to have Rock vs Cena for the WWE Championship. The sudden booking of Punk vs Taker was lazy. As it was for Ryback vs Henry, Jericho vs Fandango, Swagger vs Del Rio, Hell No vs Ziggler and Big E, Big Show's integration into the feud with The Shield. It was all lazy and it didn't need to be:
Royal Rumble 2013: Cena still wins Rumble, But Punk defeats The Rock with help from the Shield; Vince wouldn't have had stipulation in place
Elimination Chamber 2013: Punk goads Cena into having his championship match at Elimination Chamber. Again The Shield help Punk.
RAW after Chamber: Punk brags about how he will surpass 500 days as champion as Wrestlemania comes calling. Out comes Taker.
The Rock and Cena could look for redemption against the Shield at Mania. That way we wouldn't have had to sit through another boring main event and would have been a massive boost to the Shield.
I get that The Rock is a superstar, he's known worldwide, but did him and Cena need to have the Championship match? Did they need to have main event....again? No and i guarantee that Punk vs Taker would have been even better than it was had these things occurred. They still could have had Rock vs Cena 2, just without the title and without the main event. What difference would it have made; it was always going to be boring. The first time proved that.
One argument would be that Taker wouldn't have been able to hold title after (inevitably) beating Punk. Well that's where the Shield come in on the next night on RAW giving Punk back the title in his rematch. It may seem far fetched to some, but he was able to fight the Shield and Ambrose and even get himself put through a table, i'm sure he would have agreed to keep his streak in tact and lose the title the next night. Cena then could have went on to beat Punk for title Extreme Rules...The Punk could have been written off with an injury allowing him to rest. He could have returned to start program with Lesnar like he did. Would Punk be as aggravated today if that would have happened? I doubt it. He would have had that main event he craves so much. That would have been ticked off and he would be at ease i think.
Of course it is very naive to bring all these scenarios forward and try and dictate what should have happened, but that's the wonder of "What if?"