Discussion in 'PPV's & Specials' started by Rain, Jul 14, 2013.

  1. WHC

  2. WWE

  1. Wich match was better?
  2. Dude, it's not even worth a poll because it's really no contest, lol.
  3. for personal reasons WWE. Orton won me the betting. The WHC had better spots.
  4. I actually liked the WWE one more.. other than the outcome (which I liked so thats a plus for me) IDK why so many people hated the match.. had so many good spots IMO. RVD high off the ladder.. DB and Sheamus with the crowd shouting NO NO NO instead of counting.. Heyman turning on Punk.. Orton's killer RKO high off the ladder.. etc etc
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Lol, it's not that people hated it, it was really good, I guess most are just mad Bryan didn't win or just prefer WHC match.
  6. Take out Bryan not winning and WHC was still better. All-star one just had more big names - obviously
  7. hater. DOnt cry.
  8. I question your judgement if you really think WWE MITb was better than WHC on quality alone.
  9. no i liked the spots, i literally said the only reason was because orton won me my predictions.
  10. Then I don't understand your reply.
  11. WHC title was better. Good spots, Rhodes was on fire at the end, great ending.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. which one?

  13. I WOULD say the WHC MITB match was more unpredictable than the WWE MITB match but I guess that would be wrong considering who didn't win the latter lol.

    I have to say the WWE one, just because there were more important players involved, and really, what did the WHC MITB offer that the WWE one didn't even in terms of memorable spots or moments? Heyman turning on Punk>Ambrose falling on a bunch of people.

    I think Sandow winning did please me more than Orton, especially since it means a talent I like (both in-ring and character wise) is getting a push and so is Cody Rhodes it seems, but overall, I was still more emotionally involved in the WWE one. It just felt overall more important, being an All-Stars match and the final match of the card and for a shot at the WWE Title, a belt more prestigious than the WHC.
  14. When you said don't cry. I said even if DB would have won WHC still would have been better essentially.
  15. oh this? yeah my reply was just to be a dick. Wasnt the first time, wont be the last
  16. Well it would be better if it was relevant to the discussion at hand. Free advice there, next time it'll cost ya.
  17. OH HELL NO!
  18. WWE MITB. Because of the outcome haha. ;))

  19. But it was just dull IMO. I'm not judging it on the guys who are involved, just how much I enjoyed the match, and the WWE one was just really dull for the first 20 minutes or so. It was roughly double the length of the SD one, and yet there was as much memorable spots in the SD one as there was in the Raw. Plus at least the SD one had some original stuff, there's nothing that exciting about another shitty ladder snapping in half spot as well as the frogsplash, which just about everyone and their dog could have predicted.

    The SD one was free flowing, unpredictable and exciting from start to finish, the Raw one wasn't any of those things IMO.

    Oh and sorry Rain, I didn't mean to steal the comma gimmick you used to have.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Umm, I don't, have it, anymore? When did, that happen?

    Haha the WHC one was better for the exact same reason you posted. It felt like WWE told the "all stars" not to take any big spots since they don't want them injured, whereas all those mid-card guys are expendable :haha:. Interesting that 3 people had to go to the medical facility after the Raw one (Punk and RVD for stitches, Sheamus for arm injury). Haven't heard of any injuries in the Smackdown one.
    • Like Like x 1