If you could change the outcome of one match what would it be & why.....?

First topic message reminder :

Thought about this a few times & I've always thought of The Montreal Screwjob but today I'd probably say Michaels vs Taker @ Mania 26 for the simple fact that Michaels would still be active wrestler today....

Botched finish to the 2000 Royal Rumble so that we didn't have that four way elimination WM main event.

Just had a look at the KOTR brackets from 1995... Wozers Mabel pinned The Taker! & HBK wrestled to a draw against Kama

Brady12 wrote:Just had a look at the KOTR brackets from 1995... Wozers Mabel pinned The Taker! & HBK wrestled to a draw against Kama

I don't think those match outcomes did much harm to the careers of Undertaker or Michaels!

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:

Brady12 wrote:Just had a look at the KOTR brackets from 1995... Wozers Mabel pinned The Taker! & HBK wrestled to a draw against Kama

I don't think those match outcomes did much harm to the careers of Undertaker or Michaels!

True but amazing now to think that actually happened.... Mabel winning King of the Ring??? How did that happen?

What about Vader beating Shawn Michaels at Summerslam for the title? I would have liked the big man to have had a reign and this was probably the best opportunity to put the strap on him.

Another one i thought id throw out there, what do you think of Bret beating Davey Boy at Wembley for the IC Title and turning Bret heel in 1992? How much would that have changed the landscape of the WWF? Could it have led to a heel Bret Hart vs Hulk Hogan fued culminating at Mania 9 instead of the screwy finish we saw? Could Bret have then done a better job at fueding with Lex Luger than Yokozuna did and would Luger have been more successful if Bret wasnt a babyface at the time?

So many questions!

I would have Micheals win the 2010 Royal Rumble to get his WM re-match with Taker, Edge didn't deserve to win that he also wasn't fit and his rushed face turn sucked and at least the World Title Match could have closed the show

Mr H wrote:What about Vader beating Shawn Michaels at Summerslam for the title? I would have liked the big man to have had a reign and this was probably the best opportunity to put the strap on him.

Another one i thought id throw out there, what do you think of Bret beating Davey Boy at Wembley for the IC Title and turning Bret heel in 1992? How much would that have changed the landscape of the WWF? Could it have led to a heel Bret Hart vs Hulk Hogan fued culminating at Mania 9 instead of the screwy finish we saw? Could Bret have then done a better job at fueding with Lex Luger than Yokozuna did and would Luger have been more successful if Bret wasnt a babyface at the time?

So many questions!

Turning Bret Hart heel in 92? Interesting concept but I'm not sure it would of worked back then. Hart was the clean cut averaged sized wrestler that the wwf pinned there hopes on to rebuild there imagine after the steriod scandal I'm not sure how you could of turned him? & what his gimmick would be?

I definitely wouldn't have put Vader over Shawn at SummerSlam, 'the boyhood dream' was a year long storyline that culminated with his dream becoming reality at WM12 and I don't think taking the belt off him so soon was ever likely, however I Wouldn't have booked them together in the first place until Survivor Series

the-gaffer wrote:I definitely wouldn't have put Vader over Shawn at SummerSlam, 'the boyhood dream' was a year long storyline that culminated with his dream becoming reality at WM12 and I don't think taking the belt off him so soon was ever likely, however I Wouldn't have booked them together in the first place until Survivor Series

Completely agree Gaffer

I'd of love to of seen Shawn Michael's win the a world title during my regin in the WWE world; although I only became a fan of Wrestling in 2002.

So my point is i'd of love to change the out come of any of the Shawn Michael's number one contender's matches.

Did you not catch his last World Title reign?

The-gaffer :

I'm afraid not, I got into it all late late 2002, early 2003 :/.

I'm no expert on that period cos I wasn't watching then but wasn't that exactly when shawn's last reign was- late 2002/early 2003?

You just missed his last run then, he won it at Survivor Series and lost it at Armageddon, definitely agree tho that it would have been great to see him win it 1 last time

the-gaffer wrote:You just missed his last run then, he won it at Survivor Series and lost it at Armageddon, definitely agree tho that it would have been great to see him win it 1 last time

I've heard Michaels was offered the title several times by Vince but reject it every time

What sort of human being would reject a world title. What a nice guy. Quote's like these are why he is my favorite of all time.

Sounds harsh but the two times Mysterio won the title. I can't take him seriously, and his first title I feel he only got because of how close he was with Eddie

Yeah Brady Vince wanted Shawn to go to SD in early 06 when Batista got injured and offered him the title but Micheals wouldn't work Tuesdays due to his commitment to his church so knocked it back, there is also a rumour that Shawn was asked to carry the title in late 07 when Cena got injured, he knocked that back to because he didn't fancy working houses but agreed to put Orton over to endorse him

Stupid thinking Cena's a 10x Champion.
Michael's is only a 4x Champion.

Micheals only had two credible reigns aswell, his first and third, Micheals didnt want the work load Cena has and thats the reason he only has 4

I would have changed the end of the Umaga match that has been previously mentioned. He was on a monster heel run and would have been a brilliant champ. It would have made more sense for Cena to lose and then beat him again at a later date to make him look like he had finally slain the monster. Not like Cena needed to look like any more of a superman but Umaga was on a roll!

Personally, I would change any match where Masked Kane was screwed out of his chance to hit it big in the WWF/E.

The fact Kane was not put over as a major player was quite honestly one of the biggest mistakes the WWF/E have ever made.

OleH wrote:Personally, I would change any match where Masked Kane was screwed out of his chance to hit it big in the WWF/E.

The fact Kane was not put over as a major player was quite honestly one of the biggest mistakes the WWF/E have ever made.

Why do you think that? Personally I think the masked Kane was in exactly the right place on the card, a role player who could be slotted into main events when needed. I don't agree that he wasn't put over as a major player. He had a huge debut, was involved in main event angles with Austin, Taker, Mankind, DX and the Corporation, and was a big part of the boom period.

You've got to remember that the masked Kane character was part of the most successful period in the company's history. Who should he have leapfrogged on the card? There were very few above him; Austin, Rock, Undertaker, Triple H, Foley, Angle. Was he really better or more marketable than any of those wrestlers? I don't believe he was. I don't think the Kane character was ever going to be the focal point of the promotion, and I think there are very good reasons for that. In fact it's amazing given his limitations that he has lasted so long in the role.

I think that, as good as the character was/is, Glen Jacobs is quite limited as a performer. He has had very few great matches and only blossomed on the mic late in his career. It's highly likely that without the Kane gimmick he'd have never been anything but another big man wrestler. He was born to play Kane. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the Kane character is itself a supporting role.

I think WWE and Jacobs can be extremely happy with the Kane character; I don't think they could have possibly got any more out of it.

I think they could have given Kane a run with the belt when he was demasked. He was getting substansial heat back then and I always remember thinking then, 'now is as good a time as they'll ever have to pull the trigger'. It didn't happen though, and it probably would have made little difference in the long run if it did.

The difference between The WWF and WCW is the fact that WCW would have made a character like Kane the World Champ but would have destroyed it within a year

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:
Why do you think that? Personally I think the masked Kane was in exactly the right place on the card, a role player who could be slotted into main events when needed.

While I admit he was never going to be the lead figure in the company, the fact they trusted him to have good input into the main storylines involving Austin/Undertaker/Mankind, that should have been enough to give him more title runs than he's had.

He won his first and only WWF Championship in a first blood match that didn't serve to put Kane over, it was merely a way Vince could screw Austin. It only took the WWE 12 years to give him another "main" title run after winning the MitB.

I could never understand why a guy with such an awesome character was never put over more. A non-verbal Masked Kane was still much better than alot of the current roster. After they started giving him some emotion it wasn't too bad but then they de-masked him and suddenly all the mystery and the aura went out the window....

... for me anyway.

Does anyone think that 'the masked Kane' would still be around? While I do think Kane from 97-03 was a better character losing the mask opened him up for the longevity he has enjoyed

The Rock beating Austin at WM15 - I read that this match was supposed to be the first of 3 or 4 PPV's main events in a row, Austin was supposed to win at Mania, Rock win at Backlash then Austin win the 3rd match and retain for the summer. But because Rock became so popular they turned Rock face and had him feud with Triple H. I would have had Rock win at WM15, then get cocky the next night on Raw and allow Austin a rematch, which Austin wins. Austin then wins the final match at Backlash, Rock turns face but has that big victory over Austin.

Randy Orton beating Hulk Hogan at Summerslam - Yes Hogan WAS big, but he should not have come back and won the title, not beat Orton. Having one of your future stars losing to a WAY past it LEGEND on a big PPV is stupid. Some may say Rock v Cena falls into this bracket, but The Rock is still in damn good shape and can wrestle, Hogan was awful at this point.

CM Punk beating Triple H at Night Of Champions - What purpose did this serve having Triple H defeat CM Punk, who was as hot as anything at this point? Punk should have won, end of. Triple H winning did nothing for either guy.

Guest wrote:

Hero wrote:Jerry Lawler v Stevie Richards at No Way Out resulting in Kat joining Right to Censor.
Unhappy days

I'll never forgive Jerry for marrying her.......

i have such a cruel joke for this, but id get absolutely destroyed for saying it

I see this thread has been given a bump.
I've had a scan of it and can't see it mentioned so I'll offer Lex Luger vs Yokozuna at Summerslam 93.

Forgetting the WWE propaganda towards Lex Luger, in 1993 they needed a new hero. Lex Luger was the man chosen to replace Hogan as the All American hero. An entire summer build up and he wins by countout. I think that was a mistake. Yokozuna didn't need to hold that belt for near a year, and should've been used as a transitional champion to get over the new star Hogan didn't want to job to.

They ran with Bret, who as fantastic as he was, just wasn't (in 1993) Hogan, Warrior or Macho Man. WWF had an opportunity to push Hart, Luger, Mr Perfect, and jeez, even Tatanka as the top faces of "The New Generation" but kinda dropped the ball.

I would have had HHH beat Taker last year at WM to end the streak.

Something inside me says that whatever happens next year, Taker is just getting too old and could not put on a decent showing......

Kid Vicious wrote:I see this thread has been given a bump.
I've had a scan of it and can't see it mentioned so I'll offer Lex Luger vs Yokozuna at Summerslam 93.

Forgetting the WWE propaganda towards Lex Luger, in 1993 they needed a new hero. Lex Luger was the man chosen to replace Hogan as the All American hero. An entire summer build up and he wins by countout. I think that was a mistake. Yokozuna didn't need to hold that belt for near a year, and should've been used as a transitional champion to get over the new star Hogan didn't want to job to.

They ran with Bret, who as fantastic as he was, just wasn't (in 1993) Hogan, Warrior or Macho Man. WWF had an opportunity to push Hart, Luger, Mr Perfect, and jeez, even Tatanka as the top faces of "The New Generation" but kinda dropped the ball.

I'd agree with that. The whole celebration after the match with balloons and confetti coming down would have been appropriate if Luger had won the title, but to do it after a countout victory was bizarre. They should have put the strap on him, even if it was only for a few months, his WWF career bombed because of it.

Bret Hart beating Sid in the Cage Match Just before Wrestlemania 13 on Raw for the title
Just to give the Hart vs Austin Submission Match a little bit of an extra edge

I'd have had Brock beat Goldberg at WM20.

While Brock was leaving on very bad terms, he was still a product of the WWE and I feel it always made sense for him to go over. They had invested an awful lot in him over the 2 years previous, and this match was more than likely in their mind during his rise. He was still young, and Vince was always going to bring him back one day, and all would be forgiven.

I can understand that it was a difficult situation as both were having their last match, but for me, Goldberg should have never got that win.

With Luger, it could be argued that not only did his WWF career bomb, but WWF also. 1995 was an awful year. Mainly because they didn't elevate enough guys. Similar to what they're doing now.

They ran with Hart and Nash for almost 2 years. Crazy. I have no problem with either being champ, but they didn't have to let Luger rot in a tag team. They could've had Owen Hart, Razor Ramon, British Bulldog, Undertaker and Sid legitimately knocking on the door during that time, but they blew it. They wasted the WCW guys that came in and then wondered why they were stuck with the likes of 123 Kid, Bob Holly and Barry Horowitz on the card of a main event.


My thoughts on Brock vs Goldberg... I'd have kept it as is. I'm not sure, but at the time they knew Brock was 100% gone but there was a ball hair of hope Goldberg would stay. Maybe he hinted that to get the win. Either way, after the monster push Brock got, the least he could've done was go out on a loss. I'd have jobbed him out to a midcarder.

AntLord wrote:I would have had HHH beat Taker last year at WM to end the streak.

Something inside me says that whatever happens next year, Taker is just getting too old and could not put on a decent showing......

i disagree about hhh taking the streak, ant. but i do think it should be ended. wwe needs a new, big star, as you could argue only orton and cena are the current, active legends. and theyve been around for so long now, i cant see cena lasting much longer, he always seems to be injured. punk is obv the main man atm and will be for a while and imo doesnt need to beat taker. the 3 guys who atm are youngish and breaking out are ziggler, sheamus and ryback. behind them are the likes of rhodes and sandow.

I personally think the only person I might like to see take the streak out of them would be Ryback, it would be a travesty to give the streak to Shaemus or Sandow!!

Perhaps Ryback could take it, then start a streak of his own?!?!?

a mania streak? would he be around for 20 years? depends what happens with him in the coming months. but who else is there really?

Brock v Goldberg with Austin as referee should have been absolute box office. The build up from the Rumble was done well but the fact both guys were leaving, and the fact everyone in the crowd knew about it just completely sucked the life out of the match. Lesnar got some crazy heat during the match and you could tell it visibly annoyed him when he flipped the finger at the crowd and swore at Goldberg. Its a shame, the match should and could have been great.

I disagree about HHH taking the streak too. It should have been Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania 26. 100% against a youngster taking the streak.

I think whoever does take the streak should begin another streak. It has been a higlight of WM for so long, WM wouldn't be the same without a streak match!!

I really don't like the idea of Undertaker losing his streak to anyone. He has been one of the greatest characters and performers of all time yet when you compare his title history to the likes of Flair, HHH, Rock and John Cena he pales in comparison. His Wrestlemania streak is what he will be remembered for and I think he should keep it.
So with that, I dislike the idea of someone taking his streak and then starting their own streak even more as I think it really takes away from what Undertaker has built over these last couple of decades.

And if Undertaker loses his streak to whoever is flavour of the month (lets say Ryback) and that guy decides to pull a Brock on the WWE, it's 20 years down the pan.

He should keep the streak.
But he should also retire. It's one thing having Shawn Michaels and Mark Calloway having a shindig in their underpants for old times sake, but it doesn't work when a young, super fit, peak conditioned trained "fighter" can't beat a 50 year old semi-retired has-been.

If you could absolutely guarantee that ending the streak would be a sure-fire hit - whether it's creating a new, permanent main eventer or as part of a John Cena heel turn or whatever - then I'd be all for it.


Trouble is, there's no certainty that the whole thing won't fall flat so that's why I think it should stay in tact. WWE need all the big money draws they can get at this point, and the streak has arguably become the main event of Wrestlemania each year.

but H, why would michaels of needed to take the streak? hes already cemented his legacy and will always be known as being mr wrestlemania. undertaker would just be known as the guy who did well at mania but in the end lost to michaels

Wasn't there an idea bouncing around the forum awhile ago about Tyler Black taking the streak then he becomes the new Taker?

VDT wrote:Wasn't there an idea bouncing around the forum awhile ago about Tyler Black taking the streak then he becomes the new Taker?

Wasn't that an idea for Brimstone? Pretty sure it was Brimstone who came up with it too.

No one should take The Streak IMO its just such a constant feel good moment for WM. I like the idea of it being 'passed' to someone, a protege given that role, but its hard to make that convincing. The match should be used as a great way to get second level guys (Ziggler, Bryan, Barrett and Sheamus) exposure to huge feuds, especially as defeat wont hurt them and there is that chance that we could see the upcoming star who takes it (I honestly think its more likely a Bryan type guy would beat Taker than a Lesnar).

If someone is to take the Streak it should be the kind of person you'd expect to be loyal, and one who has proven such whilst still being relatively young. Bryan and Ziggler come to mind, whilst Punk could use it as part of his legacy in a way that wouldnt stink like it would with Cena.


To this topic: In recent memory I'd definitely have put Punk over HHH last year and Lesnar over Cena this year, both were matches that ended in desperation to protect reputations that didnt need to be.

ADR probably never should have won a Rumble either.

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:No one should take The Streak IMO its just such a constant feel good moment for WM. I like the idea of it being 'passed' to someone, a protege given that role, but its hard to make that convincing. The match should be used as a great way to get second level guys (Ziggler, Bryan, Barrett and Sheamus) exposure to huge feuds, especially as defeat wont hurt them and there is that chance that we could see the upcoming star who takes it (I honestly think its more likely a Bryan type guy would beat Taker than a Lesnar).

I agree that you dont have to go over to get over, but i also wouldnt refer to these guys as 'second level' guys. They are 3rd level guys to me. You have your top level marquee guys - Rock, Austin, Cena, Lesnar, Taker, HHH. Then you have the tier just under that of Punk and Orton. I wouldnt say Punk and Orton are marquee names, yet. For them to get into that top top tier they'd need a huge Wrestlemania moment and taking the streak would fit the bill.

It's too late now though for me, like others have said after the last 4 epic matches i dont think the standard of match can be topped, so just leave it as 'The End of an Era'.

Lincs, i just think Michaels winning at 26 would have been fitting. His legacy is established yes and i agree that he may not have needed it, but from a storyline perspective and the strength of the booking of him being so so desperate to end the streak, and with his career being on the line, i dont think there was ever a better moment to do it. Also from a personal point of view i didnt want his career to end.

I'd also argue to a degree that ending the streak would help anyones legacy regardless of who you are and how great your legacy is.

2nd level, 3rd level, same difference. I think its probably cos I hold the part-timers as a completely different bracket, dropping in n out of level one, a level where any man could headline WM and it be acceptable. Its all much of a muchness though.

Cena could use it, and it would be massive, but it would have that Super Cena stink to it. I cant think its done yet, just because I cant see WWE missing out on the money they could make from Taker v Cena. Thats easy gold for them, and something you'd have thought they'd have had in their minds for over 5 years.

Plus, Im going this year and I want to see Taker, so for my own selfish desires I want him to keep going.

The point i was trying to make is that the '3rd level' guys shouldnt be anywhere near taking the streak, i was emphasising that being in the 3rd tier shows how far away they are from being ready. Pushing a relative newcomer to stardom with something as big as taking the streak is a risk the WWE would never take. We've seen how well Alberto Del Rio has done since being given a premature Royal Rumble win. All the hope in the world and ends up being as dull as dishwater. The streak match should be a marquee match and i dont think Taker would be interested in anything other than marquee matches given his one match a year schedule.

Rumours circulating that when Sting's TNA contract expires next month that Triple H wants to sign him and get him into the HOF. The dream match against Taker will once again be talk of the internet if that happened.