Wrestlemania XXXI - The Greatest Show Ever

[Jiji]

I watched X-7 a few months ago and some it has aged poorly. We all love Eddie but that match with Test was a fucking disaster with no heat. There was a lot of fat on the card in order to get everybody their Mania payday. I still think the Austin heel turn could've worked if Rock were not leaving for Hollywood. Poor timing.

[Craig H]

Or if Austin walloped Vince. X-7 for me comes down to the tag title match, HHH vs Undertaker and Austin vs Rock. Everything else was just a load of filler with parts that I hated. I didn't like Test, I especially hated RTC, and the Hardcore title match did nothing for me.

[rzombie1988]

Or if Austin walloped Vince. X-7 for me comes down to the tag title match, HHH vs Undertaker and Austin vs Rock. Everything else was just a load of filler with parts that I hated. I didn't like Test, I especially hated RTC, and the Hardcore title match did nothing for me.

TLC was filler? Angle/Benoit? The McMahon's match? Obviously can't compare with a multi-man midcard ladder match, the battle royale, the diva's match or Taker/Wyatt.

 

I can see why people thought this was the best show ever in the history of wrestling then.

 

I can also see there's no point in discussing any further. I just can't wait for a few years from now when we are talking about best WM's and no one mentions 31.

[StretchMediatedHypertrophy]

Having watched all of it in bits, it was a very solid show but I don't really see Lesnar vs Reigns as an instant classic, HHH vs Sting never really clicked from the goofy entrances to the run-ins to the awkward handshake, Bray vs Taker wasn't great and why is Taker wrestling anyway (a question they gently touch upon on commentary but not enough to make you think they intend to answer the question)? Ladder matches have been done to death (they feature on 2 PPVs a year at least), Rusev vs Cena was a little short and not their best match, and obviously that Rousey segment went on for fucking ever. Best show ever feels like a stretch; it exceeded expectations.

[Brian Fowler]

Or if Austin walloped Vince. X-7 for me comes down to the tag title match, HHH vs Undertaker and Austin vs Rock. Everything else was just a load of filler with parts that I hated. I didn't like Test, I especially hated RTC, and the Hardcore title match did nothing for me.

TLC was filler? Angle/Benoit? The McMahon's match? Obviously can't compare with a multi-man midcard ladder match, the battle royale, the diva's match or Taker/Wyatt.

I can see why people thought this was the best show ever in the history of wrestling then.

I can also see there's no point in discussing any further. I just can't wait for a few years from now when we are talking about best WM's and no one mentions 31.

Psssst. The tag title match is the TLC.

[Craig H]

No, if he wants to be a dick about it, let him. For fucks sake.

[steve]

We should all start claiming it's the best show ever, Spartacus style.

[Craig H]

Also, the fucking battle royale was on a pre-show, nice way of belittling the IC title match by calling it a "multi-man midcard ladder match," and calling out the Divas match.

 

First of all, the Divas match was good. Secondly, the IC ladder match was pretty damn good as well. Third, I didn't setup a pissing contest between the two shows wherein Taker/Bray is the yard stick in measuring quality, catapulting WM 31 over the top.

 

If someone wants to think it's the greatest show of all time, LET THEM! Who fucking cares?!? The majority of others though, really dug the hell out of WM 31 and think it's one the best shows, not THE best show. Goddamn. Why am I even explaining this?

[Niners Fan in CT]

If Rusev/Cena had a more creative finish and Sting/HHH didn't turn into a giant old dudes clusterfuck this very well could have been the best WrestleMania.

[Big Fresh]

Dude, Fresh already admitted he titled the thread while the show was still happening and was super excited. It was harmless hyperbole. Nobody's bothering to defend it being the best show ever because no one literally feels that way.

While I didn't mean for it to happen originally, I was having a lot of fun watching the people who didn't get it and take message boards way too seriously go crazy though...

[AxB]

You know what was a better match than Triple H vs Sting? Bobby Roode vs Sting, Victory Road 2012. And Roode was, at that point, a total Triple H ripoff. So either Sting has gone shit in three years, or Bobby Roode is better at being HHH than HHH is.

[Hooker]

You don't need Wyatt to draw every night.  Did pushed Wyatt sell one ticket?  He's a midcarder.  They're trying to sell 90,000 tickets a year from now and some guy vs Undertaker who has lost 2 in a row just doesn't have that special ring to it.  Again, they only built him up to do this one job.

 

Do you job Cena to Rusev?  Where does Rusev go from there?  Heel vs Heel program with Rollins?  Do you push Cena, your biggest draw and merch seller, further down the card? 

 

Big Show won a jobber battle royal.  Nobody in their right mind should get worked up about that.

 

Whether the main event was booked well is a matter of opinion.  No way should Reigns have won, so at least they did that right.  I would have rather seen Brock win clean, myself, but I did enjoy the cash-in.  My only problem with it is this: the idea was that they were apparently raising the IC and US titles so Cena & Bryan could fill in as headline champs in Lesnar's absence.  Now what?

 

Anyway, we'll just disagree here, but I can't see how these finishes were so horrible.  "Guys I don't like won" =/= bad booking.  All your arguments come off like the CM Punk "they're bringing in part timers to beat the boys who bust their asses year round" complaint. 

Man, I said I don't like Bray Wyatt in both posts and you're honestly trying to play the I'm-upset-because-my-favourite-guys-didn't-win angle on this?

[Go2Sleep]

I couldn't for the life of me imagine saying 31 was better than 30, but it was worlds better than 27-29 so it definitely stands out in recent years.

 

Rollins/Orton is getting slept on. I know Orton's stock is really low, the angle was boring, and the result of the main event made it virtually insignificant, but in a vacuum, this match was really good. It's pretty much the ideal result of the "3-hour Raw formula" that's become the norm over the last several years. Great pace, nice counters, very little down time, and minimal overkill. Though it may be an indictment of modern WWE that only one finisher kickout for each guy is considered toned down, but I digress. When Orton's motivated and paired with a top worker, it's hard to go wrong. The camera angle for Rollins' first dive was probably the best angle in the history of suicide dives and the finish is video package material forever.

 

Reigns/Lesnar was pretty amazing. Brock just knows how to bring it, and Roman was perfect as the overmatched tough guy. Even though that Rock promo dragged, it worked to this match's benefit because it was limited to just the essentials. Too much more time and either the beating becomes tedious and Roman's comeback looks silly, Roman gets more offense and undermines the story, or Rollins' cash-in drags out and he looks like a dope who got lucky instead of a genius cashing in at exactly the right time. There was zero fat on this one and it was Kobashi/Hansen stiff. The cash-in worked to solve the conundrum of keeping everyone strong, and it was completely in line with Rollins' character. I don't know how anyone could say it was a bad finish, except for people's brains defaulting to "run-in = bad."

[Spontaneous]

You know what was a better match than Triple H vs Sting? Bobby Roode vs Sting, Victory Road 2012. And Roode was, at that point, a total Triple H ripoff. So either Sting has gone shit in three years, or Bobby Roode is better at being HHH than HHH is.

Sting was pretty rough those last few years in TNA. Granted, he didn't have much to work with but the guy is old. He should have done the Wrestlemania 27 gig. This was fun but it was fueled by nostalgia. That said, I much preferred this match to anything he did in TNA.

[Ramsey]

I couldn't for the life of me imagine saying 31 was better than 30, but it was worlds better than 27-29 so it definitely stands out in recent years.

 

Rollins/Orton is getting slept on. I know Orton's stock is really low, the angle was boring, and the result of the main event made it virtually insignificant, but in a vacuum, this match was really good. It's pretty much the ideal result of the "3-hour Raw formula" that's become the norm over the last several years. Great pace, nice counters, very little down time, and minimal overkill. Though it may be an indictment of modern WWE that only one finisher kickout for each guy is considered toned down, but I digress. When Orton's motivated and paired with a top worker, it's hard to go wrong. The finish is video package material forever.

 

Reigns/Lesnar was pretty amazing. Brock just knows how to bring it, and Roman was perfect as the overmatched tough guy. Even though that Rock promo dragged, it worked to this match's benefit because it was limited to just the essentials. Too much more time and either the beating becomes tedious and Roman's comeback looks silly, Roman gets more offense and undermines the story, or Rollins' cash-in drags out and he looks like a dope who got lucky instead of a genius cashing in at exactly the right time. There was zero fat on this one and it was Kobashi/Hansen stiff. The cash-in worked to solve the conundrum of keeping everyone strong, and it was completely in line with Rollins' character. I don't know how anyone could say it was a bad finish, except for people's brains defaulting to "run-in = bad."

I will admit, my only problem with the end of the main was caused by EXACTLY what you said here. My brain defaulted to "run in = bad." I re-watched the match again last night and it's better o the second viewing AND the run-in didn't bug me as much. Fucking tremendous match.

[Cristobal]

I don't get people bitching about the finish, especially given the alternatives.

First, it was the best finish possible for Roman, as it leaves how the match would have ended in doubt without another Royal Rumble instance where he's got to celebrate while everyone is booing him.

Second, it's the best way to get it off of Brock, which is something they needed to do, without harming his beast mystique.

Lastly, it gives Rollins, the top full-time heel wrestler the company has, a needed boost.

I'm still not sold on Roman as ready to be the guy, or even capable of being so, but honestly that match was booked damn near perfectly. It played to everyone's strengths, downplayed or outright eliminated their weaknesses, and set the stage for the next year.

[DMN]

For the record, WrestleMania X8 is better than X7, because Hogan/Rock is better than anything the previous year and Arn Anderson got to spinebuster The Undertaker.

For reals, though, I've never bought X7 as the best show ever ever. It's kinda like Final Fantasy 7, great for its time, but highly overrated now. XXX was a two match (and one shocking moment) show, but it was better. I enjoyed 31 more, though, for what it's worth. X8 is probably legitimately my favorite Mania, though.

[Lamp, broken circa 1988]

watching CMLL pretty regularly has really helped me appreciate good fuck finishes, given the preposterous number of lousy fuck finishes on CMLL shows. Rollins cashing in was a good one.

 

that's about all the opinion I have on the show. It was fine, which was better than I expected. An excellent class in making lemonade.

[Big Fresh]

Bray should have went over for reasons that have little to do with Bray (even though I still love him).

I gotta assume WM32 will be 'Taker's retirement (probably against Sting). And I think it's more interesting to have Undertaker on a Wrestlemania LOSING streak then to have him at this place where it's "he had the longest win streak ever, then he lost, but then he won one again..."

[glfpunk]

Bray should have went over for reasons that have little to do with Bray (even though I still love him).

 

 

Why? What are the reasons? I'm only recently back into this but Bray doesn't seem that interesting to me.  And his matches don't seem to flow that well either for me personally. 

[JohnnyJ]

My only complaint about the finish of the main is the match was so good I didn't want it to end. I only get that feeling a handful of times all year.

[Big Fresh]

Bray should have went over for reasons that have little to do with Bray (even though I still love him).

Why? What are the reasons? I'm only recently back into this but Bray doesn't seem that interesting to me. And his matches don't seem to flow that well either for me personally.

Because I love his promos and I love his matches. No reason to overcomplicate things.

Though they fucked up big time by getting rid of the Family.

[Burgundy LaRue]

If Bray is supposed to become this generation's demon/sack man, he has to be booked as such at some point. 

[Brysynner]

Has WWE always used the same archetypes for their wrestlers and I never noticed?

 

Rollins = Edge the opportunist who only wins when the odds are stacked super high in his favor

Reigns = Cena, the superman who almost never loses

Wyatt = Undertaker, the supernatural creepy dude who doesn't care about titles

Ambrose = Foley, the unstable wildman who is strangely loveable but loses more then he wins

Bryan = Steamboat, the superb technical wrestler who is just outside the top title picture

[Greggulator]

Wrestling is a soap opera. And soap operas and serials throughout time have interlapping stories. One saga ends and immediately becomes another.

My favorite matches are the ones that do that interplay really well. One of the best examples of this is the Raven/Richards vs. Pitbulls match in ECW. Say what you want about how well ECW holds up, but the story of this match was just amazing. Raven and his flunky initially set out to defend the titles against the new bad asses. But then Raven tries to cheat his way to victory by knocking out the ref (with a poisoned rag!), and all hell breaks out. It ends with Tommy Dreamer coming out to settle the score, Big Dick Dudley using a chokeslam, Bill Alfonso lifting the ban on the chokeslam, and 911 finally spiking Alfonso's head off the mat and the Pitbulls taking the straps.

That's like four storylines told in one match.

One of my favorite matches of the past few years was the Raw where The Dust Brothers took the titles from The Shield. The Rhodes boys had been tormented by The Authority for months. So was The Big Show, who was forced to punch out one of his heroes in Dusty Rhodes to save his career. And The Authority's ultimate beef was with Daniel Bryan and the YES! Movement. This match ends with the recently freed Big Show slugging one of The Shield (I think Roman?), leading to Dustin and Cody winning the straps and the crowd all doing the YES! chant.

The Reigns/Lesnar match didn't have THAT many stories told at once. But that's what good run-ins do: They overlap different stories. The Beast Lesnar took on the insurgent new hero who everyone doubts. Roman made yet another comeback for the ages and the score was even.

But the story of the past few months was Seth Rollins' slow plot towards grabbing the title and power. He engineered The Shield's rise and cut their throats at the right opportunity. And he then wormed his way to becoming The Authority's man, jettisoned Orton from that position, and struck at the exact right time -- and like what someone said earlier, he tried the same sort of thing against Lesnar before but messed up the timing. This time, he figured out the puzzle and did it on the biggest possible stage.

So the Rollins story of FY 2015 (his ascent to the undeserved top position) was the one that was finished. And it was told really friggin' well over the course of the past year. It maybe wasn't the masterpiece of Daniel Bryan last year, but it's really close. It's sort of like Marlo in Season 3 of The Wire, doing everything he can to wear the crown.

It took a sleazy run-in to do that, but that's the point of the whole story.