|
Post by moondoggie on Apr 4, 2016 1:15:54 GMT -5
I kept hearing people say "Please Don't Jump"
|
|
Emmet Russell
King Koopa
Quieter
The best wrestler on earth.
Posts: 12,526
|
Post by Emmet Russell on Apr 4, 2016 3:08:09 GMT -5
I do appreciate it more now that I know he's okay, but at the time I hated it because it was legit scary and maybe one step too far.
It did add to the story, though. Taker and Shane both sold the moment really well with their facials.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Apr 4, 2016 3:13:34 GMT -5
Can't say I enjoyed the match too much. It was slow and plodding at times. The spots were good though.
I didn't think they'd do a dive off the top but they did and it was great. I'll always mark for Shane.
|
|
|
Post by Thunderbolt on Apr 4, 2016 3:16:40 GMT -5
There was definitely some kind of airbag thing under the table, but it was still a dangerous spot. He could have missed the table or the table could have shifted when Taker rolled off.
Shane's actual big bump of the night was the chokeslam onto the steel steps. Shane took that like a man. And that Last Ride he took looked like it spiked him on the head.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Apr 4, 2016 3:16:58 GMT -5
World's richest yard-tard.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Apr 4, 2016 3:20:17 GMT -5
Was disappointing it went exactly as it does in the various Smackdown vs. Raw games. Leap from cage, miss, opponent casually wins.
|
|
|
Post by ben:friendship frog on Apr 4, 2016 6:30:26 GMT -5
What a way to go for Shane if that's his last run. I was watching in a bar pretty drunk at like 3am so this absolutely blew my mind.
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,727
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Apr 4, 2016 6:44:45 GMT -5
Shane is fearless and I will give him that, but this doesn't do anything for anybody. Imagine being on the full time roster trying to get over your a Hell in a Cell match after this. Oh yeah, you can't have any blood and dives off he cage - those are for the part timers on the big shows.
I guess we could have Austin come out and stun you after your win to pop the crowd.
|
|
|
Post by Society of the Spectacle on Apr 4, 2016 7:30:56 GMT -5
Shane is fearless and I will give him that, but this doesn't do anything for anybody. Imagine being on the full time roster trying to get over your a Hell in a Cell match after this. Oh yeah, you can't have any blood and dives off he cage - those are for the part timers on the big shows. I guess we could have Austin come out and stun you after your win to pop the crowd. Yeah that's my problem too. Don't get me wrong, it was a crazy spot, and Shane is an animal. But if Neville or Ambrose wanted to do a spot like that, I bet it would be grumbled away. And part of me cynically thinks that this was a way for Vince to push the narrative, "Foley fell off the top of the cell? Pssh A McMahon JUMPED off the cell! And the cell was taller!" I know that's typical smark cynicism.... But I mean, where does that leave the everyday roster guys? They aren't as brave as Shane, becuase we'll never see a bump like that again, even if someone like Ambrose was crazy enough to do it. And that's not even touching the fact that a man in his forties who hasn't wrestled a single match in several years was able to take Undertaker to the limit in a Cell match....
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Apr 4, 2016 9:57:28 GMT -5
So Shane had a better HiaC match with Taker than CM Punk did. Damned part-timers. Shane/Taker ran 30 minutes, Punk/Taker lasted 10 minutes. Not even close to comparable. You're trying too hard with this anti-smark gimmick, guy.
|
|
|
Post by TheDarkestKnight on Apr 4, 2016 10:01:32 GMT -5
A status I put up on Facebook summed up my opinion of this spot. "Just remember Shane McMahon is a legit millionaire who doesn't have to do this, yet does. Thank you Shane you mad......" The last word isn't PG so have left it out.
The guy clearly wanted to give fans a Wrestlemania moment and I have had those who don't even watch wrestling ask me at work today about this. Shane always delivers in these scenarios.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Apr 4, 2016 10:06:28 GMT -5
So Shane had a better HiaC match with Taker than CM Punk did. Damned part-timers. Shane/Taker ran 30 minutes, Punk/Taker lasted 10 minutes. Not even close to comparable. You're trying too hard with this anti-smark gimmick, guy. How does me liking Shane equal an anti-smark gimmick? If smark is a thing, I guess I'm that -- I go to indie shows and have my favorites, I spent time on wrestling forums, obviously. If you have to hate a product you watch to be a smark, I guess I don't qualify. I know Punk fans are sensitive, but the fact is that Shane put on a better HiaC match with Taker and to me that's pretty incredible. I'm not saying he's "better" than Punk -- Punk had a lot of great matches in his career, quite obviously, but a guy in his mid-40s who isn't a full-time wrestler puts on a very strong match with a legend when a lot of people going into it thought it would be awful is pretty remarkable to me. Dont' read too much into it.
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Apr 4, 2016 10:06:38 GMT -5
The thing that scared me most was when Shane whacked the back of his head on the corner of the announce table when Taker drove him through the cage wall.
It seemed like one of those little things that could have been REALLY bad
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Apr 4, 2016 10:14:09 GMT -5
It seemed like there was an airbag inside of the table. After the impact, watch the table closely; it slowly collapses as though something is deflating underneath it. I'm not saying that it didn't take guts, or that it wasn't dangerous. But, Mick Foley certainly didn't have an airbag to break his fall. There were smoke and mirrors involved, that's for sure, but it was still an incredible sight and I'm not sure history is going to really care whether one was padded and the other wasn't, if Foley's fall were padded it would have still been a memorable, history making spot. For me it's more a matter of WWE not giving their own full time guys enough highlight reels for me to think it's productive to give a moment like this away to a guy who's had less matches in his lifetime than most guys have in a month who's already had a career of highlight reels, there's just no long term benefit. For Foley it was a career making performance that put a shot in the arm that carried him through the rest of his time active. For Shane McMahon it was a 46 year old man bailing his Dad out of a talent slump. This would be a lot more forgiving if it felt like they were actively trying to make everyone the way they made Shane McMahon tonight but they're not doing a good job in that respect, so Shane's treatment tonight just feels unfair to other guys who deserve better. I don't think a lot of current guys would do that spot or at the least if i'm Vince and somebody pitched that to me I wouldn't let them do it. I'm sure Vince was shitting himself when Shane was up their and as a whole I enjoyed the spot but I really don't want to see someone jump from that height again. I understand what you're saying but as you said this was Shane bailing his father out because of a talent slump and he's crazy enough to make that "Mania moment" something memorable.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Apr 4, 2016 10:21:16 GMT -5
Shane/Taker ran 30 minutes, Punk/Taker lasted 10 minutes. Not even close to comparable. You're trying too hard with this anti-smark gimmick, guy. How does me liking Shane equal an anti-smark gimmick? If smark is a thing, I guess I'm that -- I go to indie shows and have my favorites, I spent time on wrestling forums, obviously. If you have to hate a product you watch to be a smark, I guess I don't qualify. I know Punk fans are sensitive, but the fact is that Shane put on a better HiaC match with Taker and to me that's pretty incredible. I'm not saying he's "better" than Punk -- Punk had a lot of great matches in his career, quite obviously, but a guy in his mid-40s who isn't a full-time wrestler puts on a very strong match with a legend when a lot of people going into it thought it would be awful is pretty remarkable to me. Dont' read too much into it. Nothing wrong with liking Shane, I imagine most people do. I know I do. But what does part-timers and CM Punk have to do with anything? You just sound condescending and antagonistic, trying to get a rise out of people online because you're so "cool". I wouldn't even consider myself much of a CM Punk fan anymore, so that point is irrelevant (and once again you sound condescending and antagonistic). Yes, Shane McMahon had a decent match with Undertaker (I wouldn't call it any better than that but that's my opinion) and yes it was better than Punk's HIAC with Taker, but like I said it's not even comparable. Taker/Shane was a 30-minute back and forth match at WrestleMania. Taker/Punk was a 10-minute glorified squash match at a B-level PPV. Anti-smark was probably not the right thing to call you because as you correctly pointed out, you are a smark. So it's more like a self-hating smark. I say this because it seems in most of your posts you want to take shots at other smarks and explain to them why they're opinions are wrong while everything WWE does is correct. And if you dislike something WWE did, you're a pirating Roman hater who loves CM Punk.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Apr 4, 2016 10:44:47 GMT -5
How does me liking Shane equal an anti-smark gimmick? If smark is a thing, I guess I'm that -- I go to indie shows and have my favorites, I spent time on wrestling forums, obviously. If you have to hate a product you watch to be a smark, I guess I don't qualify. I know Punk fans are sensitive, but the fact is that Shane put on a better HiaC match with Taker and to me that's pretty incredible. I'm not saying he's "better" than Punk -- Punk had a lot of great matches in his career, quite obviously, but a guy in his mid-40s who isn't a full-time wrestler puts on a very strong match with a legend when a lot of people going into it thought it would be awful is pretty remarkable to me. Dont' read too much into it. Nothing wrong with liking Shane, I imagine most people do. I know I do. But what does part-timers and CM Punk have to do with anything? You just sound condescending and antagonistic, trying to get a rise out of people online because you're so "cool". I wouldn't even consider myself much of a CM Punk fan anymore, so that point is irrelevant (and once again you sound condescending and antagonistic). Yes, Shane McMahon had a decent match with Undertaker (I wouldn't call it any better than that but that's my opinion) and yes it was better than Punk's HIAC with Taker, but like I said it's not even comparable. Taker/Shane was a 30-minute back and forth match at WrestleMania. Taker/Punk was a 10-minute glorified squash match at a B-level PPV. Anti-smark was probably not the right thing to call you because as you correctly pointed out, you are a smark. So it's more like a self-hating smark. I say this because it seems in most of your posts you want to take shots at other smarks and explain to them why they're opinions are wrong while everything WWE does is correct. And if you dislike something WWE did, you're a pirating Roman hater who loves CM Punk. Sorry if I sound antgonistic. To me it's my backlash at the "I hate WWE and if you don't hate it too you're not a real fan" kind of negativity that I see here. The "part-timer" thing was a throwaway line. Punk's the one who made a big deal about part-timers taking away slots from full-timers. To me, this was a match between two part-timers, so neither of them went over some up-and-coming guy on the roster to take away their shine (which people complain about a lot). I thought it was a great WM moment and a very entertaining match. It was booked imperfectly in the lead-up but I thought the match vindicated it's spot as a major attraction on the card. I don't hate myself. I don't think your opinion is wrong. But I have my own opinions that might run contrary to a lot of others that I see, and I express them too. (I do think, for instance, that when someone who is an Ambrose fan -- I am, loved him since he was Moxley, saw one his last matches live before he signed with WWE and was absolutely thrilled when he signed -- says that Ambrose is ruined forever and can never be taken seriously now that he's lost to Lesnar that it's at the very least an overreaction and at the most melodramatic -- if that person can no longer take Ambrose seriously, it's legit, but if that person is just projecting that now others can never take their favorite guy seriously then I don't see it. I personally believe Ambrose wasn't long-term damaged by the match and that he'll get a great pop tonight and if and when he wins the title we'll find that he does, indeed, still have a lot of people who don't think he was ruined by a single loss to the most powerfully-booked force in WWE history.) I don't think everything WWE does is good. I thought Sasha should have own last night, but I think it will be OK -- now they've set the table for a one-on-one feud with Charlotte, which I look forward to seeing. I thought the main event was boring. I don't think RR is the next "the guy" but I do think WWE is trying to create a new guy and I'm OK with them test-driving him to see if they can make him. I think KO is awesome -- another one of my faves who I traveled many miles more than once to see live in the indies -- and never want to see him lose, but I also like being surprised so giving Ryder a moment in the spotlight is fine by me. And I'd like to see the Wyatt Family booked more like Undertaker and win most of their feuds, but I still enjoy Wyatt's promos and hope that he eventually he will rise to the top. I tend to look at the glass is half full. I am happier when I focus on what's good about something rather than harping on what's not. If I wasn't entertained by WWE, I wouldn't watch. I'd do something else. But I'll be watching tonight and I'll find some things that I enjoy. I hope that's OK.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Apr 4, 2016 10:58:56 GMT -5
So Shane had a better HiaC match with Taker than CM Punk did. Damned part-timers. In the long run, what does it matter if his match was better? He likely won't be returning, or at least won't stick around for a lengthy period. WWE isn't a product based on singular matches but rather a running story and/or commentary. So if Shane has a 4 star match with taker and Punk's is only 3 but continues the story or branches into a new one, then I'll take the latter. I think wwe has surpassed its status of only being about the current product. WWE is now the Disney of wrestling. Disney has a crap ton of new stuff, but they still go back to the "classics." Seeing part timers and one off celeb appearances is just as much a part of the WWE product as current wrestlers are.
|
|
|
Post by Urfarkendarf on Apr 4, 2016 11:14:22 GMT -5
I can't see how anyone can consider this "match" as better than the Punk match. I'm not even a Punk fan saying that (respect his wrestling sure, like, no), but as a wrestling match Shane/Taker was horseshit. It was literally a one spot match. Granted, the fall off the cell is legitimately amazing and most guys wouldn't even consider doing it, but the lead up to that was a plodding bore. The booking of Shane prior to the coast to coast was of this seemingly Bret Hart-like technician who realistically should never been able to have kept it as close as it seemingly was and was completely contrary to every single one of Shane's matches in his career. Seriously, go watch the retrospective on his in-ring career they have on the Network and watch this match again. Once they left the cage, obviously the match took on a whole new aura and no one will care about the rest of the match going forward because the fall off the cage will be an iconic moment, so in that respect it was a success, but unlike Taker/Foley which from the minute the match began was engrossing, Taker/Shane was a crappily paced borefest made memorable by an absolutely insane stunt by a 46 year old non-wrestler who deserve lauding just for attempting but I don't care if I ever see the match in its entirety again.
Shane deserves every bit of praise for coming off the cell so I agree with the sentiment of the OP, but without that bump its arguably one of the worst cell matches in history and the worst match on the entire show besides the main.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2016 11:42:37 GMT -5
There were smoke and mirrors involved, that's for sure, but it was still an incredible sight and I'm not sure history is going to really care whether one was padded and the other wasn't, if Foley's fall were padded it would have still been a memorable, history making spot. For me it's more a matter of WWE not giving their own full time guys enough highlight reels for me to think it's productive to give a moment like this away to a guy who's had less matches in his lifetime than most guys have in a month who's already had a career of highlight reels, there's just no long term benefit. For Foley it was a career making performance that put a shot in the arm that carried him through the rest of his time active. For Shane McMahon it was a 46 year old man bailing his Dad out of a talent slump. This would be a lot more forgiving if it felt like they were actively trying to make everyone the way they made Shane McMahon tonight but they're not doing a good job in that respect, so Shane's treatment tonight just feels unfair to other guys who deserve better. I don't think a lot of current guys would do that spot or at the least if i'm Vince and somebody pitched that to me I wouldn't let them do it. I'm sure Vince was shitting himself when Shane was up their and as a whole I enjoyed the spot but I really don't want to see someone jump from that height again. I understand what you're saying but as you said this was Shane bailing his father out because of a talent slump and he's crazy enough to make that "Mania moment" something memorable. I definitely get that that specific spot was something only someone like Shane would do. The problem I have is that if you're going to go so over the top with Shane McMahon of all people in 2016 why isn't that effort going towards other guys? Not necessarily "let someone else tempt fate and jump off something" but even in relative terms, Bray Wyatt has a match with the Undertaker last year, in a feud where Undertaker doesn't even show up for a second of it, only last ten minutes and the basic premise of it is "can you believe Bray even asked for this?" There was no attempt to make Bray look like an equal, they even made sure that Bray at the end of the match feared the Undertaker. Same thing with Dean Ambrose this year, they talk up his guts for even doing it, but there was no moment in that match that I felt was poised to make Dean Ambrose, as much as it was to assert that Brock Lesnar is the unstoppable force. Meanwhile, millionaire part time son goes 30 minutes with the Undertaker whose remaining shelf life in the WWE is limited and in my eyes would be better spent trying to make guys who could use it. There were guys on this show that WWE could have put a little extra effort towards making them look like stars (New Day, Ambrose, Owens/Zayn/Ziggler/Miz's work in the last few months warranted something a little more personal) but they didn't. In my eyes New Day coming out of a cereal box and being at their over the top best is a moment that couldn't overcome them losing and being treated like dipshits afterwards. If I were in charge and our creative committee somehow concocted this crazy stunt show match I would definitely want to take a step back and ask myself what else we got going on in this show because I wouldn't want this Wrestlemania to survive on being the show that my 45 year old Son nearly killed himself on, and thank God for the Women's match because I don't think anyone else really gained anything substantive. Roman won but he's hated. Ryder got the title but we've been conditioned to expect little from him and I hope I'm wrong but I'm positive he'll be back where he was in a month, Baron Corbin won a trophy that hasn't done anyone any good in a real clunker of a match.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Apr 4, 2016 12:05:09 GMT -5
I don't think a lot of current guys would do that spot or at the least if i'm Vince and somebody pitched that to me I wouldn't let them do it. I'm sure Vince was shitting himself when Shane was up their and as a whole I enjoyed the spot but I really don't want to see someone jump from that height again. I understand what you're saying but as you said this was Shane bailing his father out because of a talent slump and he's crazy enough to make that "Mania moment" something memorable. I definitely get that that specific spot was something only someone like Shane would do. The problem I have is that if you're going to go so over the top with Shane McMahon of all people in 2016 why isn't that effort going towards other guys? Not necessarily "let someone else tempt fate and jump off something" but even in relative terms, Bray Wyatt has a match with the Undertaker last year, in a feud where Undertaker doesn't even show up for a second of it, only last ten minutes and the basic premise of it is "can you believe Bray even asked for this?" There was no attempt to make Bray look like an equal, they even made sure that Bray at the end of the match feared the Undertaker. Same thing with Dean Ambrose this year, they talk up his guts for even doing it, but there was no moment in that match that I felt was poised to make Dean Ambrose, as much as it was to assert that Brock Lesnar is the unstoppable force. Meanwhile, millionaire part time son goes 30 minutes with the Undertaker whose remaining shelf life in the WWE is limited and in my eyes would be better spent trying to make guys who could use it. There were guys on this show that WWE could have put a little extra effort towards making them look like stars (New Day, Ambrose, Owens/Zayn/Ziggler/Miz's work in the last few months warranted something a little more personal) but they didn't. In my eyes New Day coming out of a cereal box and being at their over the top best is a moment that couldn't overcome them losing and being treated like dipshits afterwards. If I were in charge and our creative committee somehow concocted this crazy stunt show match I would definitely want to take a step back and ask myself what else we got going on in this show because I wouldn't want this Wrestlemania to survive on being the show that my 45 year old Son nearly killed himself on, and thank God for the Women's match because I don't think anyone else really gained anything substantive. Roman won but he's hated. Ryder got the title but we've been conditioned to expect little from him and I hope I'm wrong but I'm positive he'll be back where he was in a month, Baron Corbin won a trophy that hasn't done anyone any good in a real clunker of a match. We agree on that. I do think it isn't the best plan to have Shane go toe to toe with Taker. My biggest gripe about that match was that it should of been a car crash and we got Shane basically taking Taker one on one without Shenanigans. This Mania was underwhelming because of the whole thing going into it. Like I said in the Mania thread i'm not as caught up in the results as it's Mania and entertainment value is high. However, this felt like WWE going through the motions and it was more of a jumbled mess than it should be. How Dean/Brock only goes 12 minutes or so is beyond me in a show that was over 6 hours. Thank god for the womens match. Also as I said in the thread the one good thing for Roman is that he's finally getting the ball and running with it. There is no more cutting his legs short or trying to plan around a "Mania moment" for him. Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn stock rose this weekend. The women have a new focus in what could be a renaissance of great womens wrestling in WWE. Small take aways in a big show but hopefully good building blocks
|
|