Was WrestleMania 2000 as bad as it looks?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Brad., Jul 19, 2014.

  1. Besides the Benoit/Angle/Jericho triple threat and the tag-team ladder match, that PPV card looks awful, especially for a landmark show. Why was it so bad?
     
  2. Not enough main eventers.

    Kane, Austing, Taker.
     
  3. The video game is top 3 WWE/WCW games all time dude.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Yeah the show sucked. So did the video game
     
  5. [​IMG]
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  6. No Undertaker, no Kane, no Austin. A poorly booked fatal four way match. The ladder match redeemed it as well as the triple threat, but it was not a massive draw by any means. Shortly thereafter, all of the superstars returned (with the exception of Austin who returned circa SS 2000), which is part of why 2000 was considered the best year for the AE.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Very under appreciated WRESTLERS in that PPV. I thought it was good from a technical standpoint. Lacked big names though, yes.
     
  8. WrestleMania 2000 vs WrestleMania XI vs WrestleMania 29

    Which sucked worse?
     
  9. WM XI had LT vs Bam Bam Bigelow. That saved the show for me, and LT did a pretty damn good job to his credit.
     
  10. Yeah, LT was surprisingly pretty slick in the ring.
     
  11. I always hated how they called it Wrestlemania 2000 instead of just Wrestlemania XVI. Replacing the roman numerals with the generic 2000 logo was lame.

    The event itself wasn't really memorable outside of the TLC match between The Dudleyz/Hardyz/Edge and Christian (although they didn't start calling matches between these three 'TLC matches' until Summerslam later in the year, but that's what it was) and the main event, the latter of which was only memorable because it was the first time in Wrestlemania history that the show ended with a heel victorious, but there's definitely been worse Wrestlemanias. 2, 4, 11, 12, 27, 29, etc. If it weren't for the I Quit match and the Chicago Street Fight, I'd name 13 as well.

    A lot of people to this day still criticize the decision to have the heel (Triple H) go over in the main event, but I thought it was brilliant. It made the encounter between The Rock and HHH the following month at Backlash all the more anticipated (and may I just say that the booking of the Backlash 2000 main event is undoubtedly some of the best booking in WWE history.) The grievance on the part of the Rock marks though is that The Great One never got the moment that guys like Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Bret, Michaels, Austin, HHH, Undertaker, Cena, Batista, Bryan all received, which was getting to end Wrestlemania victorious while holding up the WWE Championship. WM16 would have been the perfect place for it.
     
  12. It should have just been a HHH vs. Rock main-event. No need for Foley and Big Show who were both eliminated early on anyway.
     
  13. I didn't mind the four-way, especially since they had to place the Big Show on the card somewhere. Plus, while no one really thought the Big Show had a chance of winning (amusingly enough, he was sent to OVW just a couple of months later because they felt he needed to improve his work... Undertaker even called him 'lazy' in an interview around this time), there were some people back in the day who thought Foley could actually win the championship.

    I don't remember the match being all that exciting, but perhaps it deserves a re-watch.
     
  14. Didnt he? Wait Big Slow was in OVW? WEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLL
     
  15. Yeah... Undertaker missed Streak defense that year due to injury, the rikishi segment literally a huge load of ass. 2000 was another sick year for WWE but not for WM16.
     
  16. HHH won the Main Event.

    It was great, end of disussion
     
  17. You forgot about this guy he was the best part of the event.
    Chester McCheeserton
    [​IMG]
     
  18. The fatal four way was more about the McMahon's each getting their spot on the show.
    The family angle was over so they went through with it.