Jump to content

Report: WWE Looking To Announce WM 29 Main Event Soon


AustinFan

Recommended Posts

Source: The Wrestling Observer Newsletter

 

WWE is looking to announce the main event for WrestleMania 29 possibly on the RAW Supershow the night after WrestleMania 28. WWE officials are expecting the RAW after WrestleMania 28 will be the highest-rated of the year.

 

Right now they are looking at John Cena, The Rock, Steve Austin and The Undertaker as the top guys to build next year around. As far as Austin is concerned, he has not committed to wrestling another match yet but he has been open to a return match if the situation is right.

 

Credit: WrestleZone.com

 

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/251753-report-wwe-looking-to-announce-wm-29-main-event-soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This card is the best card I've seen since WM21. Now they're going to tarnish the integrity of one-time-only Rock v Cena with perhaps a Rock v Cena rematch that they won't be able to build up as well. I expected this to be Taker's last WM, because really, who can his opponent be that can follow HHH and HBK twice, and perhaps make him retire? It can't be done.

 

And Austin. Great. Hopefully vs Punk. Though I'm so tired of them with their fingertips holding onto former stars. Literally 3 of the 4 superstars they've got listed for WM29 should be retired.

 

I get that it's a great way to build an audience, and get some extra money, and give the fans what they want, but all at once isn't gonna help those trying to establish themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they could somehow spin Punk vs Austin, it would be great. Perhaps having Jericho feuding with Punk could already help set that up. Jericho defeated Austin and Rock for the Undisputed title...so maybe Austin weighs in on their feud, and becomes involved himself. They shouldn't announce shit like this, though. Having a plan is great...but announcing a match this early would make it pointless. Allow the match to build itself. That's how pro wrestling works. Sometimes I feel like they don't even try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why keep making matches one year in advance?, They can't control injuries, susepension (well technically they can), deaths or whatever could potentially mess up whatever they plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea, how about let the royal rumble winner fight for the championship in the MAIN EVENT like they're supposed to instead of basing WrestleMania all around the stars of yesterday. The fact that if Taker, Triple H and Rock all walked away from WWE the day after WM they wold be completely *censored*ed is extremely worrying to me. And if you must have these guys at wrestlemania, have them face new guys in passing of the torch matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea, how about let the royal rumble winner fight for the championship in the MAIN EVENT like they're supposed to instead of basing WrestleMania all around the stars of yesterday. The fact that if Taker, Triple H and Rock all walked away from WWE the day after WM they wold be completely *censored*ed is extremely worrying to me. And if you must have these guys at wrestlemania, have them face new guys in passing of the torch matches.

 

Sheamus and Bryan main eventing over Rock/Cena and HHH/Taker? Yeah ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea, how about let the royal rumble winner fight for the championship in the MAIN EVENT like they're supposed to instead of basing WrestleMania all around the stars of yesterday. The fact that if Taker, Triple H and Rock all walked away from WWE the day after WM they wold be completely *censored*ed is extremely worrying to me. And if you must have these guys at wrestlemania, have them face new guys in passing of the torch matches.

 

Sheamus and Bryan main eventing over Rock/Cena and HHH/Taker? Yeah ok.

Yea because it's been booked like it's a wrestlemania opener instead of a World Title match. Call me old fashioned but in my opinion, the World/WWE title should be the most important thing in the WWE bar nothing. It's why Flair refused to go on last at WM24. And besides, I was talking about next year not this year. Obviously a match with 1 years buildup will take priority. Problem is they are making their championships look like shit in the process. Taker/HHH etc may be great for one night, but your titles carry the focus of your product all year round. What's more important to protect?

 

And yea, Sheamus/Bryan seems pretty laughable to go on last, who's faults that? Sheamus and Bryan havn't been made into big enough stars to go on last. Therefore they're using guys of the past (who were made big enough stars back in the day) to sell the show. It's seriously worrying because these guys don't have a lot left in them, so why focus the entire show around them? Their role is to make the new guys look better than them, and that's not being done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

give us this for WrestleMania XXIX

 

Current era Vs Attitude Era

 

The Rock & Stone Cold Steve Austin Vs John Cena & Randy Orton

 

 

Fatal 4 Way Supermacy Match

 

 

Stone Cold Steve Austin Vs The Rock Vs John Cena Vs Undertaker

CM Punk would be picked way before Orton. Punk is better in every way(Mic,ring and sells more shirts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay... this just seems WAY TOO soon for my tastes... It just feels like they are rushing things big time...

 

And if the storylines don't work, then they will have to swallow their pride and work it a different way.

 

Just not a fan of telling us a YEAR in advance what the matches are going to be... because it kills the idea of 'waiting to see how things develop'...

 

Of course, in the age of the Internet, the idea of keeping things secret is pretty damn hard now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it have to be announced a year in advance? I understand wanting buildup, which is needed for many matches, but a year? I honestly stopped caring about Cena/Rock after Cena started feuding with R-Truth. Start to promote the main event around Survivor Series, maybe dropping hints until the Royal Rumble, before straight up giving it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea, how about let the royal rumble winner fight for the championship in the MAIN EVENT like they're supposed to instead of basing WrestleMania all around the stars of yesterday. The fact that if Taker, Triple H and Rock all walked away from WWE the day after WM they wold be completely *censored*ed is extremely worrying to me. And if you must have these guys at wrestlemania, have them face new guys in passing of the torch matches.

 

Sheamus and Bryan main eventing over Rock/Cena and HHH/Taker? Yeah ok.

Yea because it's been booked like it's a wrestlemania opener instead of a World Title match. Call me old fashioned but in my opinion, the World/WWE title should be the most important thing in the WWE bar nothing. It's why Flair refused to go on last at WM24. And besides, I was talking about next year not this year. Obviously a match with 1 years buildup will take priority. Problem is they are making their championships look like shit in the process. Taker/HHH etc may be great for one night, but your titles carry the focus of your product all year round. What's more important to protect?

 

And yea, Sheamus/Bryan seems pretty laughable to go on last, who's faults that? Sheamus and Bryan havn't been made into big enough stars to go on last. Therefore they're using guys of the past (who were made big enough stars back in the day) to sell the show. It's seriously worrying because these guys don't have a lot left in them, so why focus the entire show around them? Their role is to make the new guys look better than them, and that's not being done.

You know, I'd have a far easier time agreeing with you if I actually knew what it was you were trying to say. Personally, it sounds like you're just complaining for the sake of it. One minute, you're saying that the "superstars of yesterday" shouldn't be in the spotlight, then you say they should be in the title matches as "passing the torch", then you say that the younger superstars need their moment to shine, then you're saying that the younger guys carrying the belts look like shit. It just seems like you don't even know what you're saying.

 

I feel like a lot of confusion all around comes from the fact no one really agrees on what Wrestlemania is supposed to mean. I feel like too many people view Mania as a chance to prove one's self "on the biggest stage of them all" so people think "oh, new stars should just go over older stars at Mania". I don't see Wrestlemania as an opportunity for a younger superstar to make a name for themselves. When younger guys are put over older guys, It's not because they've proven themselves AT Mania, it's because they work their asses off all year round to GET TO Wrestlemania. The WWE chooses the superstars that they trust most to put on a good show, and sell the show.

 

If a favorite superstar didn't get on the Mania card, it's simple: They didn't work as hard, or impress people backstage enough to be trusted to be put on the card. People can whine all they want, and say "omg but he has such potential and he's just so talented in the ring and blahblahblah" but at the end of day, you don't perform well all-year round, you don't get on the card.

 

How is Punk vs. Jericho not a "passing the torch" match? Punk proved throughout the year that he was capable of drawing, selling, and putting on an entertaining match so they gave him the WWE Title. He was in a huge feud with the biggest superstar of today and now, he's in a feud with a seasoned vet who will most likely put him over. Hell, Punk doesn't even need to win to be put over. That's another source of confusion among the IWC, I feel. Too many people think "Oh, if you lose here and there, you're in the doghouse" or "oh, why did he lose that match? -Insert the opponent here- is such a jerk for not putting him over". If Jericho does win and get the title, it'll only be after one hell of a match that keeps everyone on the edge of their seat. Jericho's a seasoned veteran with many talents and credentials so if he does get the title, it won't be denying a younger guy the passing of the torch, it'll just be a prolonging of a storyline.

 

Smackdown is, and has been for a while, the show for "newer" talent to shine. The fact that two relatively newer superstars are fighting for the WHC doesn't mean that the title has lost prestige or that it doesn't mean anything anymore. In fact, it means the opposite. How often does WWE trust two newer guys to main event a show at Mania? Not very often. The WWE finally found two superstars they have HUGE faith in to be top guys in the future.

 

What most people don't get isn't that Wrestlemania isn't a place to put people over. Everyone gets put over at Mania because, well, because they made it to Wrestlemania.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea, how about let the royal rumble winner fight for the championship in the MAIN EVENT like they're supposed to instead of basing WrestleMania all around the stars of yesterday. The fact that if Taker, Triple H and Rock all walked away from WWE the day after WM they wold be completely *censored*ed is extremely worrying to me. And if you must have these guys at wrestlemania, have them face new guys in passing of the torch matches.

 

Sheamus and Bryan main eventing over Rock/Cena and HHH/Taker? Yeah ok.

Yea because it's been booked like it's a wrestlemania opener instead of a World Title match. Call me old fashioned but in my opinion, the World/WWE title should be the most important thing in the WWE bar nothing. It's why Flair refused to go on last at WM24. And besides, I was talking about next year not this year. Obviously a match with 1 years buildup will take priority. Problem is they are making their championships look like shit in the process. Taker/HHH etc may be great for one night, but your titles carry the focus of your product all year round. What's more important to protect?

 

And yea, Sheamus/Bryan seems pretty laughable to go on last, who's faults that? Sheamus and Bryan havn't been made into big enough stars to go on last. Therefore they're using guys of the past (who were made big enough stars back in the day) to sell the show. It's seriously worrying because these guys don't have a lot left in them, so why focus the entire show around them? Their role is to make the new guys look better than them, and that's not being done.

You know, I'd have a far easier time agreeing with you if I actually knew what it was you were trying to say. Personally, it sounds like you're just complaining for the sake of it. One minute, you're saying that the "superstars of yesterday" shouldn't be in the spotlight, then you say they should be in the title matches as "passing the torch", then you say that the younger superstars need their moment to shine, then you're saying that the younger guys carrying the belts look like shit. It just seems like you don't even know what you're saying.

 

I feel like a lot of confusion all around comes from the fact no one really agrees on what Wrestlemania is supposed to mean. I feel like too many people view Mania as a chance to prove one's self "on the biggest stage of them all" so people think "oh, new stars should just go over older stars at Mania". I don't see Wrestlemania as an opportunity for a younger superstar to make a name for themselves. When younger guys are put over older guys, It's not because they've proven themselves AT Mania, it's because they work their asses off all year round to GET TO Wrestlemania. The WWE chooses the superstars that they trust most to put on a good show, and sell the show.

 

If a favorite superstar didn't get on the Mania card, it's simple: They didn't work as hard, or impress people backstage enough to be trusted to be put on the card. People can whine all they want, and say "omg but he has such potential and he's just so talented in the ring and blahblahblah" but at the end of day, you don't perform well all-year round, you don't get on the card.

 

How is Punk vs. Jericho not a "passing the torch" match? Punk proved throughout the year that he was capable of drawing, selling, and putting on an entertaining match so they gave him the WWE Title. He was in a huge feud with the biggest superstar of today and now, he's in a feud with a seasoned vet who will most likely put him over. Hell, Punk doesn't even need to win to be put over. That's another source of confusion among the IWC, I feel. Too many people think "Oh, if you lose here and there, you're in the doghouse" or "oh, why did he lose that match? -Insert the opponent here- is such a jerk for not putting him over". If Jericho does win and get the title, it'll only be after one hell of a match that keeps everyone on the edge of their seat. Jericho's a seasoned veteran with many talents and credentials so if he does get the title, it won't be denying a younger guy the passing of the torch, it'll just be a prolonging of a storyline.

 

Smackdown is, and has been for a while, the show for "newer" talent to shine. The fact that two relatively newer superstars are fighting for the WHC doesn't mean that the title has lost prestige or that it doesn't mean anything anymore. In fact, it means the opposite. How often does WWE trust two newer guys to main event a show at Mania? Not very often. The WWE finally found two superstars they have HUGE faith in to be top guys in the future.

 

What most people don't get isn't that Wrestlemania isn't a place to put people over. Everyone gets put over at Mania because, well, because they made it to Wrestlemania.

 

I agree that putting over doesn't always mean winning over someone but in this case, Punk should go over Jericho. One, Jericho is leaving soon anyway. Two, they are pushing Punk to be one of the new faces of WWE so he should win his first match as the guy he is now to cement that. Jericho shouldn't win the title imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea, how about let the royal rumble winner fight for the championship in the MAIN EVENT like they're supposed to instead of basing WrestleMania all around the stars of yesterday. The fact that if Taker, Triple H and Rock all walked away from WWE the day after WM they wold be completely *censored*ed is extremely worrying to me. And if you must have these guys at wrestlemania, have them face new guys in passing of the torch matches.

 

Sheamus and Bryan main eventing over Rock/Cena and HHH/Taker? Yeah ok.

Yea because it's been booked like it's a wrestlemania opener instead of a World Title match. Call me old fashioned but in my opinion, the World/WWE title should be the most important thing in the WWE bar nothing. It's why Flair refused to go on last at WM24. And besides, I was talking about next year not this year. Obviously a match with 1 years buildup will take priority. Problem is they are making their championships look like shit in the process. Taker/HHH etc may be great for one night, but your titles carry the focus of your product all year round. What's more important to protect?

 

And yea, Sheamus/Bryan seems pretty laughable to go on last, who's faults that? Sheamus and Bryan havn't been made into big enough stars to go on last. Therefore they're using guys of the past (who were made big enough stars back in the day) to sell the show. It's seriously worrying because these guys don't have a lot left in them, so why focus the entire show around them? Their role is to make the new guys look better than them, and that's not being done.

You know, I'd have a far easier time agreeing with you if I actually knew what it was you were trying to say. Personally, it sounds like you're just complaining for the sake of it. One minute, you're saying that the "superstars of yesterday" shouldn't be in the spotlight, then you say they should be in the title matches as "passing the torch", then you say that the younger superstars need their moment to shine, then you're saying that the younger guys carrying the belts look like shit. It just seems like you don't even know what you're saying.

 

I feel like a lot of confusion all around comes from the fact no one really agrees on what Wrestlemania is supposed to mean. I feel like too many people view Mania as a chance to prove one's self "on the biggest stage of them all" so people think "oh, new stars should just go over older stars at Mania". I don't see Wrestlemania as an opportunity for a younger superstar to make a name for themselves. When younger guys are put over older guys, It's not because they've proven themselves AT Mania, it's because they work their asses off all year round to GET TO Wrestlemania. The WWE chooses the superstars that they trust most to put on a good show, and sell the show.

 

If a favorite superstar didn't get on the Mania card, it's simple: They didn't work as hard, or impress people backstage enough to be trusted to be put on the card. People can whine all they want, and say "omg but he has such potential and he's just so talented in the ring and blahblahblah" but at the end of day, you don't perform well all-year round, you don't get on the card.

 

How is Punk vs. Jericho not a "passing the torch" match? Punk proved throughout the year that he was capable of drawing, selling, and putting on an entertaining match so they gave him the WWE Title. He was in a huge feud with the biggest superstar of today and now, he's in a feud with a seasoned vet who will most likely put him over. Hell, Punk doesn't even need to win to be put over. That's another source of confusion among the IWC, I feel. Too many people think "Oh, if you lose here and there, you're in the doghouse" or "oh, why did he lose that match? -Insert the opponent here- is such a jerk for not putting him over". If Jericho does win and get the title, it'll only be after one hell of a match that keeps everyone on the edge of their seat. Jericho's a seasoned veteran with many talents and credentials so if he does get the title, it won't be denying a younger guy the passing of the torch, it'll just be a prolonging of a storyline.

 

Smackdown is, and has been for a while, the show for "newer" talent to shine. The fact that two relatively newer superstars are fighting for the WHC doesn't mean that the title has lost prestige or that it doesn't mean anything anymore. In fact, it means the opposite. How often does WWE trust two newer guys to main event a show at Mania? Not very often. The WWE finally found two superstars they have HUGE faith in to be top guys in the future.

 

What most people don't get isn't that Wrestlemania isn't a place to put people over. Everyone gets put over at Mania because, well, because they made it to Wrestlemania.

 

I agree that putting over doesn't always mean winning over someone but in this case, Punk should go over Jericho. One, Jericho is leaving soon anyway. Two, they are pushing Punk to be one of the new faces of WWE so he should win his first match as the guy he is now to cement that. Jericho shouldn't win the title imo.

I wasn't saying that I believe Jericho should win the title. I'm all for Punk winning. I was just saying IF Punk doesn't retain, then I'm certain it wwouldn't mean Punk wasn't put over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...