WrestleMania 31

First topic message reminder :

Before all the moaners turn up, that was a bloody good show.

Kay Fabe wrote:

They got a main event performance from Reigns (that they won't acknowledge)

Seriously?  So anyone who disagrees with you must be lying? 

I didn't think Reigns gave "a main event performance" at all, he is the same size as Brock and is only about a stone and a half lighter but Brock was throwing him around for about 10 minutes, he didn't look anywhere near a threat,  the only way he began to look like a genuine threat was when Brock was bleeding and even that I assume wasn't planned, if Brock wasn't pouring with blood no-one would have believed Roman had a chance of beating him IMO

I suppose it strengths the argument that blood does play a major role in the psychology of a match/fight

No, you've made an argument out of an opinion.

But he certainly performed. He performed on psychology, he performed in the ring, he performed getting hurt and on the offence. That was a better wrestling match than Lesnar/Cena, which was only my match of the year because of the sheer shock factor added to the dominance.

Kay Fabe wrote:

They got a main event performance from Reigns (that they won't acknowledge)

Seriously?  So anyone who disagrees with you must be lying? 

I didn't think Reigns gave "a main event performance" at all, he is the same size as Brock and is only about a stone and a half lighter but Brock was throwing him around for about 10 minutes, he didn't look anywhere near a threat,  the only way he began to look like a genuine threat was when Brock was bleeding and even that I assume wasn't planned, if Brock wasn't pouring with blood no-one would have believed Roman had a chance of beating him IMO

I suppose it strengths the argument that blood does play a major role in the psychology of a match/fight

To be fair, I think it has to be viewed in the context of facing Lesnar rather than anybody else. He did better than John Cena did at Summerslam and the Royal Rumble. Since last year's Wrestlemania that is the best fight anybody has given Lesnar.

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The logic was appalling, but the biggest pops of the night according to many there were for the NWO and DX entrances. Nostalgia sells, and if you havent realised that by now I worry for you!

It delivered as a spectacle. It was a spectacle of Mania standards

Nostalgia is a big thing in Wrestling but when does Nostaglia stop being Nostalgic? How often do you see DX or the NWO blah blah blah...its not a special attraction anymore

It wasn't a spectacle. It wasn't "Mania Standard"

Well I, people here, and the crowd disagree.

Crimey wrote:And they announced that Seth Rollins cashing in made it a triple threat.

Did you listen Dolph?

Could barely hear a thing, the place was going nuts. Although "announcing it" doesnt really mean it makes sense

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

They got a main event performance from Reigns (that they won't acknowledge)

Seriously?  So anyone who disagrees with you must be lying? 

I didn't think Reigns gave "a main event performance" at all, he is the same size as Brock and is only about a stone and a half lighter but Brock was throwing him around for about 10 minutes, he didn't look anywhere near a threat,  the only way he began to look like a genuine threat was when Brock was bleeding and even that I assume wasn't planned, if Brock wasn't pouring with blood no-one would have believed Roman had a chance of beating him IMO

I suppose it strengths the argument that blood does play a major role in the psychology of a match/fight

No, you've made an argument out of an opinion.

But he certainly performed. He performed on psychology, he performed in the ring, he performed getting hurt and on the offence. That was a better wrestling match than Lesnar/Cena, which was only my match of the year because of the sheer shock factor added to the dominance.

Hmmm you make argument out of opinion, thats kinda how it works

Psychology? Nope, not for me, if you mean the little smiles he gave as he got whooped, that wasn't psychology, I get that ut was supposed to be psychology but it certainly wasn't,  unless Michael Cole constantly referring to "the kids got heart" was supposed to make me believe this dude could beat Brock Lesnar, it didnt work because he didn't work

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The logic was appalling, but the biggest pops of the night according to many there were for the NWO and DX entrances. Nostalgia sells, and if you havent realised that by now I worry for you!

It delivered as a spectacle. It was a spectacle of Mania standards

Nostalgia is a big thing in Wrestling but when does Nostaglia stop being Nostalgic? How often do you see DX or the NWO blah blah blah...its not a special attraction anymore

It wasn't a spectacle. It wasn't "Mania Standard"

Well I, people here, and the crowd disagree.

Well thank God watching on TV doesn't discredit people's opinion on it ehh

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

They got a main event performance from Reigns (that they won't acknowledge)

Seriously?  So anyone who disagrees with you must be lying? 

I didn't think Reigns gave "a main event performance" at all, he is the same size as Brock and is only about a stone and a half lighter but Brock was throwing him around for about 10 minutes, he didn't look anywhere near a threat,  the only way he began to look like a genuine threat was when Brock was bleeding and even that I assume wasn't planned, if Brock wasn't pouring with blood no-one would have believed Roman had a chance of beating him IMO

I suppose it strengths the argument that blood does play a major role in the psychology of a match/fight

No, you've made an argument out of an opinion.

But he certainly performed. He performed on psychology, he performed in the ring, he performed getting hurt and on the offence. That was a better wrestling match than Lesnar/Cena, which was only my match of the year because of the sheer shock factor added to the dominance.

Hmmm you make argument out of opinion, thats kinda how it works

Psychology? Nope, not for me, if you mean the little smiles he gave as he got whooped, that wasn't psychology, I get that ut was supposed to be paychology but it certainly wasn't,  unless Michael Cole constantly referring to "the kids got heart" was supposed to make me believe this dude could be Lesnar, it didnt work because he didn't work

I meant argument in the other context.

It worked for me though. I liked it. And we cant be judging wrestlers on what Michael Cole says!

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The logic was appalling, but the biggest pops of the night according to many there were for the NWO and DX entrances. Nostalgia sells, and if you havent realised that by now I worry for you!

It delivered as a spectacle. It was a spectacle of Mania standards

Nostalgia is a big thing in Wrestling but when does Nostaglia stop being Nostalgic? How often do you see DX or the NWO blah blah blah...its not a special attraction anymore

It wasn't a spectacle. It wasn't "Mania Standard"

Well I, people here, and the crowd disagree.

Well thank God watching on TV doesn't discredit people's opinion on it ehh

Exactly. Yours is your opinion and mine is mine. ehh

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The logic was appalling, but the biggest pops of the night according to many there were for the NWO and DX entrances. Nostalgia sells, and if you havent realised that by now I worry for you!

It delivered as a spectacle. It was a spectacle of Mania standards

Nostalgia is a big thing in Wrestling but when does Nostaglia stop being Nostalgic? How often do you see DX or the NWO blah blah blah...its not a special attraction anymore

It wasn't a spectacle. It wasn't "Mania Standard"

Well I, people here, and the crowd disagree.

Well thank God watching on TV doesn't discredit people's opinion on it ehh

Exactly. Yours is your opinion and mine is mine. ehh

So why are you saying those with a different opinion to you must be lying then?

Why is it so hard to believe that others wont have the same opinion as you?

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

They got a main event performance from Reigns (that they won't acknowledge)

Seriously?  So anyone who disagrees with you must be lying? 

I didn't think Reigns gave "a main event performance" at all, he is the same size as Brock and is only about a stone and a half lighter but Brock was throwing him around for about 10 minutes, he didn't look anywhere near a threat,  the only way he began to look like a genuine threat was when Brock was bleeding and even that I assume wasn't planned, if Brock wasn't pouring with blood no-one would have believed Roman had a chance of beating him IMO

I suppose it strengths the argument that blood does play a major role in the psychology of a match/fight

No, you've made an argument out of an opinion.

But he certainly performed. He performed on psychology, he performed in the ring, he performed getting hurt and on the offence. That was a better wrestling match than Lesnar/Cena, which was only my match of the year because of the sheer shock factor added to the dominance.

Hmmm you make argument out of opinion, thats kinda how it works

Psychology? Nope, not for me, if you mean the little smiles he gave as he got whooped, that wasn't psychology, I get that ut was supposed to be paychology but it certainly wasn't,  unless Michael Cole constantly referring to "the kids got heart" was supposed to make me believe this dude could be Lesnar, it didnt work because he didn't work

I meant argument in the other context.

It worked for me though. I liked it. And we cant be judging wrestlers on what Michael Cole says!

Thats brilliant, I'm delighted for you, it will work for some, not for others, not everyone's taste is the same

As for Michael Cole, hmm if you seriously think Michael Cole says on more than pne occassion "The Kids got Hearts" is actually coming from Cole then I worry about you, thats straight from Vince

Ive never said you were wrong!

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The logic was appalling, but the biggest pops of the night according to many there were for the NWO and DX entrances. Nostalgia sells, and if you havent realised that by now I worry for you!

It delivered as a spectacle. It was a spectacle of Mania standards

Nostalgia is a big thing in Wrestling but when does Nostaglia stop being Nostalgic? How often do you see DX or the NWO blah blah blah...its not a special attraction anymore

It wasn't a spectacle. It wasn't "Mania Standard"

Well I, people here, and the crowd disagree.

Well thank God watching on TV doesn't discredit people's opinion on it ehh

Exactly. Yours is your opinion and mine is mine. ehh

So why are you saying those with a different opinion to you must be lying then?

Why is it so hard to believe that others wont have the same opinion as you?

IVE NEVER SAID THAT

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

They got a main event performance from Reigns (that they won't acknowledge)

Seriously?  So anyone who disagrees with you must be lying? 

I didn't think Reigns gave "a main event performance" at all, he is the same size as Brock and is only about a stone and a half lighter but Brock was throwing him around for about 10 minutes, he didn't look anywhere near a threat,  the only way he began to look like a genuine threat was when Brock was bleeding and even that I assume wasn't planned, if Brock wasn't pouring with blood no-one would have believed Roman had a chance of beating him IMO

I suppose it strengths the argument that blood does play a major role in the psychology of a match/fight

No, you've made an argument out of an opinion.

But he certainly performed. He performed on psychology, he performed in the ring, he performed getting hurt and on the offence. That was a better wrestling match than Lesnar/Cena, which was only my match of the year because of the sheer shock factor added to the dominance.

Hmmm you make argument out of opinion, thats kinda how it works

Psychology? Nope, not for me, if you mean the little smiles he gave as he got whooped, that wasn't psychology, I get that ut was supposed to be paychology but it certainly wasn't,  unless Michael Cole constantly referring to "the kids got heart" was supposed to make me believe this dude could be Lesnar, it didnt work because he didn't work

I meant argument in the other context.

It worked for me though. I liked it. And we cant be judging wrestlers on what Michael Cole says!

Thats brilliant, I'm delighted for you, it will work for some, not for others, not everyone's taste is the same

As for Michael Cole, hmm if you seriously think Michael Cole says on more than pne occassion "The Kids got Hearts" is actually coming from Cole then I worry about you, thats straight from Vince

No, no I dont think it was. But I dont think we ever judge people based on what Michael Cole is saying

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Ive never said you were wrong!

Did you not say "people wont acknowledge it" when you were singing Roman Reigns praises?

Why would I or anyone else lie about something so inconsequential?

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

They got a main event performance from Reigns (that they won't acknowledge)

Seriously?  So anyone who disagrees with you must be lying? 

I didn't think Reigns gave "a main event performance" at all, he is the same size as Brock and is only about a stone and a half lighter but Brock was throwing him around for about 10 minutes, he didn't look anywhere near a threat,  the only way he began to look like a genuine threat was when Brock was bleeding and even that I assume wasn't planned, if Brock wasn't pouring with blood no-one would have believed Roman had a chance of beating him IMO

I suppose it strengths the argument that blood does play a major role in the psychology of a match/fight

No, you've made an argument out of an opinion.

But he certainly performed. He performed on psychology, he performed in the ring, he performed getting hurt and on the offence. That was a better wrestling match than Lesnar/Cena, which was only my match of the year because of the sheer shock factor added to the dominance.

Hmmm you make argument out of opinion, thats kinda how it works

Psychology? Nope, not for me, if you mean the little smiles he gave as he got whooped, that wasn't psychology, I get that ut was supposed to be paychology but it certainly wasn't,  unless Michael Cole constantly referring to "the kids got heart" was supposed to make me believe this dude could be Lesnar, it didnt work because he didn't work

I meant argument in the other context.

It worked for me though. I liked it. And we cant be judging wrestlers on what Michael Cole says!

Thats brilliant, I'm delighted for you, it will work for some, not for others, not everyone's taste is the same

As for Michael Cole, hmm if you seriously think Michael Cole says on more than pne occassion "The Kids got Hearts" is actually coming from Cole then I worry about you, thats straight from Vince

No, no I dont think it was. But I dont think we ever judge people based on what Michael Cole is saying

Whether we like him or not Michael Cole is the voice of the WWE, and when he says that then hes telling us Reigns isn't there yet, its subliminal, he tells us something,  usually relayed from Vince, it doesn't matter if its Michael Cole, JR or John Motson, its all coming from Vince and thats the perception he's giving us of Roman Reigns..."the kids got heart" think about that for a second, thats the perception of Roman Reigns the WWE want us to have

I don't think, in general, people will give Reigns much credit. To which point, it doesnt seem i'm wrong

So you judge everyone on what WWE wants the perception to possibly be?

Despite the build-up, I thought this Mania more than delivered and was excellent from top to bottom. Sure, it had its problems but everything had its place and everything told a story. The story telling was the biggest selling point tonight.

The tag title match was a total overbooked cluster-Frak. Not a great match.

The Battle Royal was good for what it was, dropped the dregs quickly and the main guys got their share of the spotlight. If I would change anything I wouldnt have had Itami dropped by Big Show, and I probably would have had Miz or Mizdow win. I can understand why Big Show won, but I dont get it. He was being booked like a Babyface.

The IC title match was well paced and didnt have unnecessarily dangerous bumps - apart from THAT Ambrose spot. I think Bryan winning was the right call, and the promo later in the night with the former champions was great and really puts the title over.

Orton vs Rollins was a great singles match that relied on good story telling instead of constant finisher kick-outs. That RKO was incredible and Orton winning was the right call. It seems a call I made a couple of days ago kinda came true about getting this match out of the way early and have Rollins lose.. but I'll get to that.

Sting vs Triple H is an odd one. I wasnt remotely interested but I enjoyed the hell out of it. I marked out when DX came running down and even more so when the NWO came out. When HBK came out I was praying for Goldberg to come out and even the teams a bit, but it was not too be. Not entirely sure why HHH went over, but time will tell.

The Divas tag could have been more, but was fine for what it was. I stll maintain it should have been for the title. Maybe this could lead to a Fatal Four Way at Extreme Rules?

Rusev vs Cena was a good title match, and Rusev has lost nothing in defeat (apart from the title). Could this be leading to a split from him and Lana? I hope not. While he has been getting better on the mic, Lana is great. I think it would be a mistake to break them up right now.

Despite a 50 year old man, and a busted ankle, Wyatt and Taker put on a really good match. The only problem is Bray Wyatt needs a big win over a big name to make himself credible and not come across as a joke. Undertaker looked in great shape, and I can see him being used again before the end of the year.

The main event. Wow. Thats how you do booking. Lesnar looks insane and Reigns looks strong. Reigns kicking out of everything Lesnar threw at him was slowly getting the crowd to believe, and I could sense the crowd starting to turn for a while. Both men looked really, really good and I thought it was over a couple of times before it was. Me and my mates went mental when Rollins came out. It was perfect, and the end of the triple threat was perfect. All three men look strong in different ways coming out of it. Reigns took everything Brock threw at him, Lesnar didnt take the pin, and Rollins is a deserving WWE Champion.

Excellent WrestleMania - probably better overall than last years.

Really looking forward to RAW tonight.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:So you judge everyone on what WWE wants the perception to possibly be?

I form my own opinions of people hence why I wasn't impressed when WWE tried to shove Reigns down our throats although I get why most love swallowing up what the E give them

He was pushed. So was Rollins. I don't think booing him or criticising every little move is helpful.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I don't think, in general, people will give Reigns much credit. To which point, it doesnt seem i'm wrong

You don't think your wrong,  shock horror

so, if people disagree then they're lying then? Hmmm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:He was pushed. So was Rollins. I don't think booing him or criticising every little move is helpful.

Unfortunately when you get to the top of the WWE you become a target for critique,  thats the nature of the beast, the WWE have fully embraced the Internet now with their constant pushing of Social Media, so they and those who back their every move religiously must accept that fans have their own voice and own opinions, if they like something they'll cheer and support it, if they don't they'll boo it

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I don't think, in general, people will give Reigns much credit. To which point, it doesnt seem i'm wrong

You don't think your wrong,  shock horror

so, if people disagree then they're lying then? Hmmm

This is pointless. You've seemingly come on to take any negative from my point and make it an argument. Not that you're presenting anything you say as different to how you think I'm presenting it. How about you ask what I mean before just deciding to make it a you against me?

Have you even debated that point?

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:He was pushed. So was Rollins. I don't think booing him or criticising every little move is helpful.

Unfortunately when you get to the top of the WWE you become a target for critique,  thats the nature of the beast, the WWE have fully embraced the Internet now with their constant pushing of Social Media, so they and those who back their every move religiously must accept that fans have their own voice and own opinions, if they like something they'll cheer and support it, if they don't they'll boo it

And other people have to accept that other people like Reigns, WWE have plans for Reigns and everyone else, that wrestling and winning matches isnt the end of a story. Reigns was being touted by many fans as being made "the main event." Wheres the proof? They've pushed numerous guys up there.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I don't think, in general, people will give Reigns much credit. To which point, it doesnt seem i'm wrong

You don't think your wrong,  shock horror

so, if people disagree then they're lying then? Hmmm

This is pointless. You've seemingly come on to take any negative from my point and make it an argument. Not that you're presenting anything you say as different to how you think I'm presenting it. How about you ask what I mean before just deciding to make it a you against me?

Have you even debated that point?

You didn't want an argument,  you clearly read views you didn't agree with and instead of taking individual issue with them and debate them you made a point of saying "no-one will acknowledge it" when singing the praises of Reigns, you wanted people to know that anyone who didn't agree with your own personal view of Roman Reigns must be lying

Your words not mine

Never said anyone would be lying. In fact, I wasn't even referencing posts on here. I don't understand why you've gone off on one personally and think you may have read something into what has been said that I didnt mean.

Your decision to take a point I made, take it wrong and not ask any more but instead go on a bit of an attack

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:He was pushed. So was Rollins. I don't think booing him or criticising every little move is helpful.

Unfortunately when you get to the top of the WWE you become a target for critique,  thats the nature of the beast, the WWE have fully embraced the Internet now with their constant pushing of Social Media, so they and those who back their every move religiously must accept that fans have their own voice and own opinions, if they like something they'll cheer and support it, if they don't they'll boo it

And other people have to accept that other people like Reigns, WWE have plans for Reigns and everyone else, that wrestling and winning matches isnt the end of a story. Reigns was being touted by many fans as being made "the main event." Wheres the proof? They've pushed numerous guys up there.

Why should others accept it? Me? Personally I'm not that fussed but why should everyone else accept it? The WWE don't work or rational on logic so why should they expect the fans to?

Reigns was being touted 18 months ago, they dropped that quickly when they realised he couldn't hold an audiance, I don't think thats changed yet, he has little moments but that's because like every guy they're high on, he's given those moments, over the course of a storyline though he hasn't shown himself to be ready, look at the way he's biting at fans who boo him, if he can't handle criticism now then how is he gonna handle being the World Champ when even more fans are focusing on him

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Never said anyone would be lying. In fact, I wasn't even referencing posts on here. I don't understand why you've gone off on one personally and think you may have read something into what has been said that I didnt mean.

Your decision to take a point I made, take it wrong and not ask any more but instead go on a bit of an attack

You said people wouldn't acknowledge the fact Reigns had a good match after people on here criticised him, that to me is clear as day that you believe those criticising him aren't telling the truth, what do we call people who don't do that?

You can say thats not what you meant now but we both know its exactly what you were getting at, but you'll still be right though ehh 

Not any part of it but you stick to your view and ignore your own hypocrisy. Ehh

Hypocrisy....You don't do Irony do you, bit like other people's opinions

of course, when your right your right, I guess we should all just agree with you 

I think you're both wrong anyway.

I thought Reigns was very good in the match, I think the point was that he was supposed to not be able to take on Lesnar. They took a part of the real life of him not being ready and made it part of the story and his character. He was supposed to be the underdog going into the match and that was apparent throughout the match. I thought he was really good, the stiff shots, the smiling and laughing, the desperate headbutts, it was all very good.

But he definitely has got a lot of praise for that, on here and all across the internet. It has been acknowledged, but it doesn't mean that people are going to accept Reigns or the push he has received.

Kay Fabe wrote:Hypocrisy....You don't do Irony do you, bit like other people's opinions

of course, when your right your right, I guess we should all just agree with you 

You dont seem to do reading. I've tried to be alright here but you've got an issue and you're taking it out. I'd say just ignore my posts cos you've obviously got a problem with them.

Crimey wrote:I think you're both wrong anyway.

I thought Reigns was very good in the match, I think the point was that he was supposed to not be able to take on Lesnar. They took a part of the real life of him not being ready and made it part of the story and his character. He was supposed to be the underdog going into the match and that was apparent throughout the match. I thought he was really good, the stiff shots, the smiling and laughing, the desperate headbutts, it was all very good.

But he definitely has got a lot of praise for that, on here and all across the internet. It has been acknowledged, but it doesn't mean that people are going to accept Reigns or the push he has received.

This is the very reason I couldn't buy into Reigns, for a year now we've been sold this big unstoppable badass, he went through the roster, got an injury, won Superstar of the year and then came back and steam rolled the Rumble, to go from that to the huge underdog he then became was giving out mixed signals, I get that he proved he could take a beating but if Lesnar didn't get unintentionally busted open I don't think Reigns offence would have looked anywhere near as good, the blood told the story for Reigns in this one

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:Hypocrisy....You don't do Irony do you, bit like other people's opinions

of course, when your right your right, I guess we should all just agree with you 

You dont seem to do reading. I've tried to be alright here but you've got an issue and you're taking it out. I'd say just ignore my posts cos you've obviously got a problem with them.

If you don't want me to comment on your posts block me, i'll comment on a post that gets my attention be it positive or negative, the "problem" was when you choose to indicate that others with a differing opinion than your own must have an ulterior motive, why else would someone disagree with you ehh?

Ehh ehh ehh maybe you've got it all wrong but weirdly will refuse to accept me quite earnestly trying to explain what I meant.

Of course I've got it wrong, I wouldn't expect you to think anything else.

How very tiresome

You two want to just Frak and get it over with?

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:How very tiresome

Isn't it just, imagine how this thread could have went if you thought others were capable of having a different view of things from you without any sordid reasoning

Or how it could have gone if that bug hadnt crawled up there

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Or how it could have gone if that bug hadnt crawled up there

Vince put him there and you're well within your right to defend him until your dying breath

I dont even like the man. As my comments on the McMahon ego winning last night would attest

I really enjoyed Mania last night if I am honest. Was there things I would have changed? Yeah quite a few but overall it was a good show.

I am a massive Roman Reigns fan, I've never said differently, but last night the right man left as world champion. Seth Rollins is pure money for me, for the last year he has been absolutely fantastic and he deserved the big Mania moment. I am really looking forward to his title reign.

Randy Orton vs Rollins was my favourite match (I'm hoping for a re-match at Extreme Rules), the main event was a close second. I think there are lots of good things going for WWE right now, whether they choose to make the most of it is a different matter altogether.

I read that the Reigns-Lesnar match was supposed to go 35 minutes, with entrances, instead of the just over the 20 that it got. Could explain why there was so little offense from Reigns and why they went with Lesnar being completely dominant, a tried and tested formula, but then again that's just what I read on the internet so won't bank on it.

I like the idea of Reigns taking a couple of high profile feuds away from the world title before coming back for an eventual Summerslam main event with Rollins/Ambrose. Think he needs some more big performances to maybe get people "believing".

Was going to cancel my subscription but I'll give it a month to see where things head from here. I don't get my hopes up although in my mind, with the way I would book things, there are some great possibilities.

Thought the ending to the main event was brilliantly done - show was very good overall too. Good work WWE

Didn't watch the pre-show, only saw the brief highlights they played during the main show, so can't comment on the action in those matches, but Cesaro/Kidd were definitely the right winners for the tag team match. Really wasn't bothered by the battle royal so Big Show winning is neither here nor there for me, just glad they've started the Miz/Sandow feud.

Ladder match was what was to be expected, a few decent spots(not as spectacular compared to previous Mania ladder matches granted) and the Ambrose one which looked a rough one. Right winner and I think we might get Bryan vs Ziggler for at least one Pay Per View, I hope so anyway.

Orton vs Rollins was a fantastic match, was bound to be when you put those two together and the RKO finish was pretty sweet. Again they got the right winner in that one.

Sting vs HHH was just one colossal Frak from the get-go. HHH's entrance was just plain strange and Sting's not much better. NWO helping Sting made absolutely no sense, and didn't really enjoy DX's interference either(apart from HBK, but that's because it's HBK!) Didn't see the point in HHH winning the match and with his promo later on, did just seem like they wanted to give Sting/WCW a slap in the face. The handshake at the end made absolutely no sense either.

The divas match is probably the best they've had at Mania for a fair few years. I know all the divas in NXT get all the credit/hype and deservedly so, but I have to say that the Bella's have improved hugely over the past year or so. I mean never, ever give them time on the mic but their actual wrestling has got much better.

Thought that Rusev vs Cena was surprisingly good actually, and the Cena win made perfect booking sense. Rusev certainly didn't look weak from the loss with the screwy finish, in fact I thought he was gold from the very start of his entrance. Also I don't know whether it was deliberate or not, but that springboard stunner move by Cena was incredible!

The HHH/Rock segment dragged a bit, particularly when Steph got involved. Marked out when they Rousey got involved though. Guess it's setting up for Rock vs HHH next year, which I'm not particularly psyched up for at this stage. Think he's a bit above HHH to be honest, although not in HHH's mind/ego obviously.

Really don't know why Wyatt didn't go over Taker. I thought that was the one banker of the whole night. Everyone called the spider-walk/Taker sitting up spot but it was still pretty cool when it happened. Not up to the standard of Taker's golden series of matches with HHH/HBK but much better as a match than the one with Lesnar last year. Guess Taker's going to go for one more year, and I'm hoping it's Sting personally.

Main Event was great, the ending obviously being the stand-out point and thoroughly deserved for Rollins who along with Ambrose carried the product throughout the summer really. In terms of booking, it did everything it needed. Got a full-time Champ(Rollins), Reigns didn't look weak and sets him up for a big summer feud with Rollins and hopefully Ambrose at some point, while Lesnar still looked like a legitimate bad-ass throughout. The guy is absolute box office.

I really enjoyed the main event, for me it told a great story, with more than a few shades of the wrestle kingdom Nakamura/Ibushi match, it was basically the young guy straddling the line between competive and in over his head, Reigns to his credit played his part very well, I thought his facials were great and his strikes had real force to them, it was smart of them to the lay the match out as they did as it felt different (as all Lesnar matches do) and to be honest I don't have full faith in either man to carry out a conventional WWE style 25 minute main event, but what they did worked and played to both men's strengths, the blood did help the match, whether it was intentional or not is debatable but given Lesnar's seemingly baby soft face skin and his penchant for shoot nutting ringposts it was kind of inevitable

The cash in was very well done, came when I least expected it, kept all 3 men strong in their respective ways and I was genuinely in doubt of what was going to happen until the 3 was counted, a rarity for cash ins

All in all a solid **** match for me to cap of an entertaining if not flawless show

Orton v Rollins was motn for me, I've watched the finish about 10 times now ****1/2


Taker vs Wyatt wasn't the best match ever but I enjoyed it for what it was, Taker is a living legend and I'm always pleased to see him, the spot where he sat up and Bray just seemed to melt during the spider walk made me mark out ***

Cena vs Rusev wasn't as good as their fastlane clash but it was still good, I'm not fussed about Cena winning, putting Rusev over would have been bold and really given them a few options but Cena's win was a logical finish to the story, Rusev's tank though ***1/2

I enjoyed the ladder match, all 7 guys gave far more of their bodies than the insulting build up they were giving merited, pleased Bryan has won, WWE obviously don't see him right at the top of the card long term, so I solid IC reign where he has long defences would be great ***1/2

Sting v HHH was an average match overlapped with a total assault on the senses, wtf is Scott Hall doing taking a back body drop?!?! Overall I was entertained for what it was, couldn't give a toss about the finish and I still don't like Sting so I hope this is one and done for him **1/2

Divas match was fine for the time it was afforded, 6 woman on raw tonight was much better **

Rock & Rousey segment had its moments but it took way too long for me, I was bored to tears during Rock's opening monalouge who wasn't nearly as engaging as usual

Overall a good show despite the crappy build

Say what you want about Roman Reigns but his last 2 PPV matches are MOTY contenders.

I think MotY has already been won by that Triple Threat at the Rumble. That'll take some beating.

Plenty of time in the year to go yet.  But the triple threat would be leading the way for me right now. Though outside of WWE I'd probably have 4 or 5 matches above it.

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:Say what you want about Roman Reigns but his last 2 PPV matches are MOTY contenders.

Can't buy into that....I actually don't get the big deal with his performance at Mania; for me if you took Brock out of that it wouldn't be getting anywhere near the chatter it's getting. The man made that match not Roman Reigns. Reigns played his part well, but nothing more than that. At times it was dangerously close to being a Cena style performance albeit with some more intensity, which even Cena had during his earlier days. In fact as I remember rightly during the 'comeback' stage the man didn't sell any of the beating he took whilst running about the ring delivering Superman Punch after Superman punch...1 of just 3 moves he hit all evening.