Wrestlemania 23: Batista/Undertaker or Cena/Michaels?
This is a discussion on Wrestlemania 23: Batista/Undertaker or Cena/Michaels? within the General Pro Wrestling : Classic & General forums, part of the Wrestling Forums category; When I watched WM23, I remember thinking Taker/Batista was okay, but not great, and that HBK/Cena was absolutely awesome.
So ...
Welcome to Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forums
Hello and Welcome to WrestlingClique - Wrestling Forums!
We are the premier wrestling forum and your source for wrestling news and rumors, wrestling divas, wrestling gifs, sports discussion, e-feds, writing and more. Wrestling fans participate in active discussion on all the major wrestling leagues and events including WWE, ECW & TNA pay per view events, live wrestling streams, wrestling video games, collectibles, and other wrestling related products and services.
You're currently viewing our site as an unregistered guest which means you are limited to most discussions and features.
Take a few minutes to browse around, and if you like what you see, Register a free account to gain access to :
Richer content, access forums that are not viewable by the public.
Complete access to post topics, respond to polls, communicate privately (PM), take part contests, arcade, photo sharing, networking, groups.
Create your personal profile and bio
Meet and Chat Live with other members who share similar interests
Registration is simple and fast. Won't take you more than a minute and of course it's completely free.
So Join our Community today!
Re: Wrestlemania 23: Batista/Undertaker or Cena/Michaels?
Batista vs. Taker all the way.
I found the Cena/HBK fued to have zero chemistry and I'm honestly baffled when people give it any praise. I felt that every match they had was boring and pointless. The fact that their one hour Raw match gets even more praise than their shorter (and therefore more bareable matches) leaves me totally clueless as to what some people seek for in a wrestling match.
Batista vs. Taker was almost completely dreaded by everyone I spoke to about it before 'Mania. While we all agreed the build was great, we had resigned ourselves to the fact the match would suck. What it delivered was one of the best 'Mania "main events" I've every seen (quite possibly due to my low expectations) followed by a brilliant fued, that never disappointed me once after my expectations had been raised. Cena and Michaels did none of that.
__________________
You mess with Piper, you'll end up either bald or dead.
I found the Cena/HBK fued to have zero chemistry and I'm honestly baffled when people give it any praise. I felt that every match they had was boring and pointless. The fact that their one hour Raw match gets even more praise than their shorter (and therefore more bareable matches) leaves me totally clueless as to what some people seek for in a wrestling match.
Batista vs. Taker was almost completely dreaded by everyone I spoke to about it before 'Mania. While we all agreed the build was great, we had resigned ourselves to the fact the match would suck. What it delivered was one of the best 'Mania "main events" I've every seen (quite possibly due to my low expectations) followed by a brilliant fued, that never disappointed me once after my expectations had been raised. Cena and Michaels did none of that.
I think you might be the first person I've ever encountered who didn't like the RAW match (apart from idiot 16 year old Cena haters).
I'm not sure what you mean about lack of chemistry. I have heard a lot of criticism for the Mania match as well as praise, but the RAW match is almost universally considered to be a MOTYC for 2007 and I don't really see any problems with it. It flowed well, it was exciting, it had a lot of memorable moments and it had some pretty great psychology playing off their Wrestlemania encounter and Cena's STFU victory.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Wow, really? I would say Cena is one of the few people to consistantly get good matches out of Michaels.
Really. I wouldn't have typed all that to troll, that'd be stupid. :-P
I just didn't feel either man was giving their all in the matches, the promo's were lacklustre from where I sat, and I had no reason to pull for either guy. I simply didn't get emotionally invested. With Batista vs. Taker I was emotionally invested all the way.
I think you might be the first person I've ever encountered who didn't like the RAW match (apart from idiot 16 year old Cena haters).
I'm not sure what you mean about lack of chemistry. I have heard a lot of criticism for the Mania match as well as praise, but the RAW match is almost universally considered to be a MOTYC for 2007 and I don't really see any problems with it. It flowed well, it was exciting, it had a lot of memorable moments and it had some pretty great psychology playing off their Wrestlemania encounter and Cena's STFU victory.
I didn't just not like it, I was bored by it. I was watching it with my then flatmate and he was bored by it to. It was impressive that they went around sixty minutes, but other than that I couldn't see the upside of it. I bored out of my mind by the whole fued, and didn't feel like the pair gelled well together in ring or on the mic (that's what I mean by lack of chemistry). It literally felt like two guys turned up to their day jobs, did the bare minimum to get by and went home, every single time they were together. They phoned it in, in my opinion, is what I guess I'm trying to say, and the reaction they got from many was beyond me and my flatmate. I was completely in awe of the praise placed on both men for what was the most boring match I'd seen out of either of them. It was as if going sixty minutes automatically grants you a five star rating... Or whatever.
But fair enough if you guys like it. Each to their own. Haha!! To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
/rant
__________________
You mess with Piper, you'll end up either bald or dead.
Re: Wrestlemania 23: Batista/Undertaker or Cena/Michaels?
lol fair enough, but for the record I didn't enjoy it because it was long. The length worked though. It showed that even without the title on the line, the two were willing to go through all that to try to prove they were the better man. It also showed that Cena could be beaten, even it takes 50 mins lol.
But yeah you're entitled to your opinion.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
For the record, I wasn't saying the fued or the angle was good, because I agree the booking of it all was pretty dull and uninspiring.
That too. I agree that the feud itself did feel thrown together following Triple H's injury and I would agree that the promos wern't particularly great. I was just talking about the match.
I did like some moments in the feud as far as booking is concerned though, such as the Michaels Sweet Chin Music on Cena just before Mania. I also liked the way Cena won so luckily at Backlash. But yeah the feud was nothing special. The whole tag champs thing was awful.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
lol fair enough, but for the record I didn't enjoy it because it was long.
Sorry, I wasn't refering simply to you guys here. More to the guys on the forum I was on before here, who seemed to love it cos it was long. I like long matches, and in fact prefer them to shorter ones, but I just wasn't gripped by the Cena/HBK match, or the fued at all.
Linear Mode
