|
Post by punkish on Dec 28, 2008 13:47:10 GMT -5
Since this was the co-main event, why was this match in the middle of the show? Why didn't they have it right before Hogan/Sid?
I mean, it doesn't make much sense to have this great championship match followed by Tatanka and Rick Martel.
|
|
|
Post by Aceorton on Dec 28, 2008 13:53:22 GMT -5
Answer: Pacing. Look at WM3. Honky vs. Jake and Killer Bees vs. Sheik/Volkoff were done after the Savage-Steamboat match and before Hogan-Andre to give the crowd time to come down a notch and recharge.
Hogan's "possible last match" took precedence over the WWF title as the show-ender, so that meant Savage-Flair got the middle-of-the-show spot to keep Hogan-Sid from having to immediately follow Savage-Flair.
|
|
|
Post by iampappas on Dec 28, 2008 13:57:04 GMT -5
I like having the big matches spread out on a card as opposed to having them go back to back. It lets the crowd not get drained out being into two or three wild matches in a row. I actually think that it makes the match itself seem bigger. Separating it from the main event as opposed to running it right before just gives it a bigger feel for me for whatever reason.
I totally loved having them put Taker/Batista in the middle of the card as opposed to right before Cena/HBK at WM23. It almost breaks up the show in half. Casual fans don't want to sit through 2-2.5 hours straight of midcard matches. Spread out the world title matches more often I say.
|
|
|
Post by indymadman on Dec 28, 2008 14:46:12 GMT -5
I also like the broken up main-events... however, I don't like the World title match being the one in the middle... I'm a huge proponent of the world title meaning EVERYTHING to the company. The only time I'd even excuse a world title not being the main event is if there is a special type match such as elimination chamber etc...
... but then again this is assuming there is only one world title per federation... don't even get me started.
|
|
|
Post by iampappas on Dec 28, 2008 15:23:53 GMT -5
Well, I agree as a rule that if there is one world title in a company, it should be the last match. That's not the case though in the current landscape of the WWE. Exceptions should be made though, like the Rumble for example. The PPV's premise is who gets to challenge for the title down the line as opposed to who's challenging for the title that night. And therefore as a rule, the winner of the Rumble should get the last match at Mania regardless of which world title he's challenging for as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
dizzy
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 477
|
Post by dizzy on Dec 28, 2008 16:00:38 GMT -5
I agree with what's been said, it was done for pacing. The fans would get bored waiting til the end for the two biggest matches.
It was also the same way at the following Pay per view: Summerslam 1992. The Warrior/Savage WWF world title match was mid-card, then the Bulldog/Hitman IC title match was last.
|
|
|
Post by Single H on Dec 28, 2008 17:20:38 GMT -5
Why the title match in the middle of the event though? It would make more sense and be more meaningful to have that last would it not?
|
|
|
Post by iampappas on Dec 28, 2008 17:48:41 GMT -5
I don't necessarily agree with having the last match not be for the big prize, but I can see why they did it.
I think Vince and Hogan really thought that this was it for him after WM8. They both really thought that he would transition into movies and TV quite well or whatever, and an era was coming to an end. Vince knew that pushing WM8 as Hogan's last match would be the focal point of the show, it would be all everyone would talk about. Flair/Savage was a great match, and probably would've headlined any other WrestleMania as the final match, but this was the poster boy of the WWF and the boom of the 80s getting his send off. It might not take precedence in the federation from a kayfabe standpoint, but from a promotional standpoint, it makes sense. Plus, with the Warrior's return at the end, it would've been all the buzz throughout the rest of the night.
Savage/Warrior at SummerSlam would have headlined if it were in the US without a doubt. But, seeing as it did end with controversey and the show was in the UK, it made sense for Bret/Bulldog to go on last. The hometown boy winning the gold in a legendary match, the first time the WWF had done a major PPV outside North America (and the only at this point).
|
|
|
Post by blef on Dec 28, 2008 18:25:57 GMT -5
Why the title match in the middle of the event though? It would make more sense and be more meaningful to have that last would it not? The finishes. While Savage did win the title, the clustersmurf afterwards would not have made a good ending to the PPV. And yeah, Hulk did technically lose his match, but then Warrior came back - and if there'd been a roof on that arena, it would've been blown off when that happened. Even moreso for SSlam 92 - Warrior/Savage ended with a countout and Flair interference, while the British Bulldog won the IC title in Wembley Stadium. Which one made more sense for a PPV finisher?
|
|
|
Post by horsemen4ever on Dec 28, 2008 18:49:29 GMT -5
Plus it gives more time for some great Heenan post match commentary after his charge or "meal ticket" lost the title and all the money that goes with it.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyk9 on Dec 28, 2008 19:13:16 GMT -5
WWE learned their lesson from SummerSlam 1990, if you notice the crowd is dead during The Warrior/Rude cage match, putting it right after Hogan and Earthquake was a mistake, you need to put in filler, less important matches to calm the crowd down and give them oppertunities to use the restroom/conncession stands
|
|
|
Post by blef on Dec 28, 2008 20:45:33 GMT -5
Plus it gives more time for some great Heenan post match commentary after his charge or "meal ticket" lost the title and all the money that goes with it. I remember at the end of the Martel/Tatanka match, which came right after the Savage/Flair match......Heenan took Martel's loss like he'd just lost his grandmother, on top of just losing his house.
|
|
dizzy
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 477
|
Post by dizzy on Dec 28, 2008 23:55:21 GMT -5
And yeah, Hulk did technically lose his match- No, Hogan defeated Sid Justice by Disqualification in that match. Actually, the dome was closed on the Hoosier Dome during Wrestlemania VIII.
|
|
CM Dazz
King Koopa
Chuck
Posts: 10,475
|
Post by CM Dazz on Dec 29, 2008 0:28:56 GMT -5
I like having the big matches spread out on a card as opposed to having them go back to back. It lets the crowd not get drained out being into two or three wild matches in a row. I actually think that it makes the match itself seem bigger. Separating it from the main event as opposed to running it right before just gives it a bigger feel for me for whatever reason. I totally loved having them put Taker/Batista in the middle of the card as opposed to right before Cena/HBK at WM23. It almost breaks up the show in half. Casual fans don't want to sit through 2-2.5 hours straight of midcard matches. Spread out the world title matches more often I say. This, plus piss breaks
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Dec 29, 2008 0:31:27 GMT -5
Because WM VIII was gonna be Hogan's "retirement" and his match was promoted as the main event. The title match was marked as secondary the whole time
|
|
|
Post by tmc1982 on Dec 29, 2008 1:26:01 GMT -5
And yeah, Hulk did technically lose his match- No, Hogan defeated Sid Justice by Disqualification in that match.Actually, the dome was closed on the Hoosier Dome during Wrestlemania VIII. Sid kicked out of the dreaded leg drop of doom because Papa Shango missed his cue. Thus, Hogan wound up getting disqualified because Harvey Whippleman interfered. The rumor that I heard for the longest time was that the real reason behind Sid kicking out was because he was going to get fired for failing a drug test (and had "nothing else to lose").
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 29, 2008 1:29:15 GMT -5
I'm not really a big fan of it's placement on the card either. I understood their motivation, but at the same time it seemed disrespectful to the WWF Title. Triple H vs. Booker T at WrestleMania XIX reminded me of this. I know there was a WWE Title match in the main event, but Triple H/Booker T was followed by several other matches before the main event.
|
|
|
Post by Threadkiller [Classic] on Dec 29, 2008 1:53:59 GMT -5
No, Hogan defeated Sid Justice by Disqualification in that match.Actually, the dome was closed on the Hoosier Dome during Wrestlemania VIII. Sid kicked out of the dreaded leg drop of doom because Papa Shango missed his cue. Thus, Hogan wound up getting disqualified because Harvey Whippleman interfered. The rumor that I heard for the longest time was that the real reason behind Sid kicking out was because he was going to get fired for failing a drug test (and had "nothing else to lose"). But Whippleman was Sid's manager, so wouldn't his interference have gotten Sid disqualified? I seem to remember, as a kid, being disappointed and wondering why Hogan didn't beat him clean.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Dec 29, 2008 13:48:28 GMT -5
* The post-match brawl in Flair v Savage wasn't a great ending to a PPV * It was supposed to be Hogan's last match * Ultimate Warrior was coming back
I see no problem with the placement of the WWF title match in the middle of the card.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Dec 29, 2008 13:50:34 GMT -5
I'm not really a big fan of it's placement on the card either. I understood their motivation, but at the same time it seemed disrespectful to the WWF Title. Triple H vs. Booker T at WrestleMania XIX reminded me of this. I know there was a WWE Title match in the main event, but Triple H/Booker T was followed by several other matches before the main event. As for Booker/HHH it was the less important the other feature bouts on that card such as Hogan/Vince and Lesnar/Angle. There was no way you could end the show with Trips with his super pedigree of doom and the crowd sitting there wondering WTF happened.
|
|