WWE Hell In A Cell 2014 Pre Show && PPV Thread *Spoilers* **no stream requests**

leggo

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

I wouldn't mind, as much, a crap PPV finish in one month, but two or more in a row is awful. Last year was even worse with 3 in a row. Bryan/Orton fast count in September, Bryan/Orton no contest at Battleground, Shawn Michaels superkicks Bryan at HiaC.

It's almost like there's a pattern of some sort here... :pac::p

DM_7

Lord TSC wrote: »

I guess this is the point we disagree on then.

After the PPV, Ambrose isn't in a position to challange for a title, or even look for a feud with Cena or Orton. He's been moved into a feud with someone who has been floundering badly, and who he'll likely be stuck in midcard with for the next few months. He dedicated months to beating Rollins and still fell short. No way is he a bigger star after last night and after that result.

After the PPV Ambrose wasn't going to challenge for a title or be in any other feud that the Wyatt one. If the plan was have him facing Brock at Survivor Series then yes obviously he had to win. Thats not what was going to happen, so he didn't need a win and Rollins didn't need to lose.

I disagree that he dedicated months to beating Rollins by pinfall, he dedicated months to getting his hands on him and beating him up and anyone that watched the match can see he actually did that.

I would be surprised if people generally don't care more about Ambrose now and don't hate Wyatt more after last nights show.

Lord TSC wrote: »

A loss for Rollins wouldn't have done him much harm; as a heel, he could attack the likes of a Kofi, Ryder or someone on that level, destroy them on Raw and BAM! Heel heat restored. It also would have given them a clean break from each other and provided a climax to their story.

A loss because of interference doesn't do Ambrose much harm either.

You cann't believe that kind of action would do anything for Rollins. That would do nothing for him as nobody cares about those guys, if they did Alberto Del Rio would be the greatest heel in history.

Rjd2

DM_7 wrote: »

After the PPV Ambrose wasn't going to challenge for a title or be in any other feud that the Wyatt one. If the plan was have him facing Brock at Survivor Series then yes obviously he had to win. Thats not what was going to happen, so he didn't need a win and Rollins didn't need to lose.

I disagree that he dedicated months to beating Rollins by pinfall, he dedicated months to getting his hands on him and beating him up and anyone that watched the match can see he actually did that.

I would be surprised if people generally don't care more about Ambrose now and don't hate Wyatt more after last nights show.




A loss because of interference doesn't do Ambrose much harm either.

You cann't believe that kind of action would do anything for Rollins. That would do nothing for him as nobody cares about those guys, if they did Alberto Del Rio would be the greatest heel in history.

So basically even stevens in case someone may lose some heat then?


How can anybody become a star with such lazy swerve obsessed booking?


No wonder they are so reliant on Cena.

DM_7

Rjd2 wrote: »

So basically even stevens in case someone may lose some heat then?

Nope

I explained why in this case I thought it made sense for Rollins to not lose, Ambrose get screwed and positioned in a new feud.

IMO in this case Ambrose got more benefit from losing than winning, Rollins got more from winning than losing and Wyatt got more from screwing Ambrose out of a match over a post match beat down.

Sirsok

Anyone think Cenas performance was awful last night? Really lazy selling of the offence, very predictable sequence of moves and counters. I know that is one of his many flaws that get repeated by the IWC but I thought he was just ****in awful. Him v lesner for the fourth time sucks ... I like lesner but I'd like to see him go up against a craftier opponent

rovert

Amazing if true from Scott Keith:

Try this one on: Ambrose/Rollins from Sunday is the third WWE PPV singles main event ever where both wrestlers were in their 20s.

The first two? Taker/Taker and Taker/Yoko, both 1994.

Moneymaker

rovert wrote: »

Amazing if true from Scott Keith:

Rock and HHH in 2000?

Maybe Trips had just turned 30 or 31 but pretty close.

Rock/Lesnar Summerslam 2002?

rossie1977

Moneymaker wrote: »

Rock and HHH in 2000?

Maybe Trips had just turned 30 or 31 but pretty close.

Rock/Lesnar Summerslam 2002?

rock was 30 at summerslam 2002. hhh turned 30 in july 1999

Ageyev

Closest I can think of is Brock Lesnar (24) vs Edge (29) headlining Rebellion 2002 but technically Heyman was involved in the match making it a handicap 2-on-1. It was also an internationally PPV.

You can find shows where someone had just turned 30 or where the WWE title match didn't close the show eg. Lesnar vs Cena (both aged 25) at Backlash 2003.

Concannon7

rovert wrote: »

Amazing if true from Scott Keith:

Also just read it was the first PPV main event where both competitors were born after the first Wrestlemania.