Triple Threats at Mania

Tommy Platinum · 03-12-2009, 10:06 AM

In recent years we have started to see quite a few triple threat matches with the title on the line at Wrestlemania. From Benoit/HHH/Michaels at WMXX, to Angle/Rey/Orton at WM22, to Cena/HHH/Orton last year, and finally this year's World Heavyweight Title match of Edge/Cena/Big Show. Do you enjoy seeing triple threat WORLD TITLE matches at Wrestlemania, or do you believe that Wrestlemania World Title matches should always be one on one, as it has more of a traditional big match feel to it?

horrorfan_1986 · 03-12-2009, 01:48 PM

Unless the main event scene on a brand is so obviously a three man field and that a one-on-one match isn't big enough, I don't want to see a Triple Threat match for the title at 'Mania. Save the match for a B show like Backlash.

The last time I felt as if a Triple Threat was doable was with The Rock vs Steve Austin vs Triple H. That would of been a huge Mania main event. The ideal time would of to book it for Wrestlemania 17. Now, would it have been as good as what we got? Probably not.

Even though it produced a great match, Wrestlemania 20 didn't need to feature Shawn Michaels in the match. Benoit winning the big one for the first time in the WWE, it would of been big no matter what. Doing Triple Threats is a risky move for creditability. What if Benoit had made Michaels submit to win the belt? Okay, congratulations, you're the champion, but you didn't beat the champion. Thus, there's little credibility in that title win. That's the main thing that SD did wrong at WM 22.

For this year, it seems like the Triple Threat is being done, not because there's three equal main eventers, but because it's a match we haven't seen. And lets face it, Edge vs The Big Show isn't WM main event worthy. Cena's sole purpose in the match is to give it a little more importance.

Basically, matches like Randy Savage vs The Ultimate Warrior vs Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart vs Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker or Triple H vs The Rock vs Steve Austin is worthy of Wrestlemania, but outside of those matches, I don't want to see it.

whynotsteak · 03-12-2009, 04:33 PM

Well, Triple Threat are use for pushing an upper midcard talent in a way. If we just do one on one in WM, then obviously for the next WM, we cant use that same 2 person: they're trying to save the best for last.
In WM25, if they just do Edge Vs. Cena, they cant really go beyond that because Edge Vs. Cena has happened many times on TV and the storyline for it cannot move up anymore...everything is covered. By adding Big Show, they can make up a new storyline and Show also adds an element of surprise and uncertainty to the Match at WM.

horrorfan_1986 · 03-12-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whynotsteak
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, Triple Threat are use for pushing an upper midcard talent in a way. If we just do one on one in WM, then obviously for the next WM, we cant use that same 2 person: they're trying to save the best for last.
In WM25, if they just do Edge Vs. Cena, they cant really go beyond that because Edge Vs. Cena has happened many times on TV and the storyline for it cannot move up anymore...everything is covered. By adding Big Show, they can make up a new storyline and Show also adds an element of surprise and uncertainty to the Match at WM.

But there's been very little build for a Cena vs Edge match. Having an one month build for a Mania main event is nonsense. At the same time, Show vs Edge has had the build, but it's not a match that's main event worthy. So basically, we just have a thrown together match in hopes that it's "Big" enough.

This Wrestlemania is a perfect example for how badly the WWE needs new stars. None of these guys are really new to the main event. The Big Show has been the part time main eventer since he came in the WWE. There's nothing wrong with repeating main events at Wrestlemania (I don't think anyone was complaining about Rock vs Austin II), but when they face each other all during the year, Mania just doesn't feel as important.

Tommy Platinum · 03-12-2009, 05:34 PM

I agree with Jim in general, but I feel an important point to make is that it is very different doing a triple threat title match now compared to before the brand extension. We are always guaranteed a one on one World Title match even if the other belt is defended in a triple threat, so it is not quite the same as when there was only one World Title, and that was THE title match. It had to be one on one back then. That is one of the reasons I hate Wrestlemania 16.

I think Triple Threats can be fun and entertaining and I am not too against them as Mania World Title matches, because they can produce great matches eg Wrestlemania XX. However, for me Wrestlemania is about big one on one matches, so obviously I would prefer not to see them.

horrorfan_1986 · 03-12-2009, 05:55 PM

Wrestlemania 16 is a product of what Steaky was talking about. Vince wanted to keep the Hunter and Rock feud going until the summer. However, if you gave the belt to Rock in the first match, can you really keep a feud going? By having Hunter screw Rock at the biggest show of the year, even after Rock won the belt at Backlash, the feud didn't feel finished. For that purpose, I don't think WM 16 was that bad. I would of preferred to have Rock vs Hunter though. With Jericho and Benoit, Rock would of had a few challengers before continuing the Hunter feud later in the year.

R-Truth · 03-19-2009, 11:22 PM

I am not a big fan of wwe 3-ways,So i dont like this at all.

They should just have a one on one match no 3-Ways.

Triple Threats at Mania

This is a discussion on Triple Threats at Mania within the WWE Pay Per View forums, part of the Wrestling Forums category; In recent years we have started to see quite a few triple threat matches with the title on the line ...