Now I think most of us can agree, WM 31 turned out better then most of us thought it was going to be. As fans we say stupid shit all the time, so some fans saying this was the greatest WM of all time is what is.

But fucking people who get paid to voice their opinion should fucking know better. Fucking dave meltzer called WM 31 the best show he has ever seen. What the fuck is he smoking? And other Journalist like Meltzer from Magazines and Forums who get paid are saying this is the greatest WM of all time.

Now I think Wrestlemania 31 was a good show, a lot could have been done better but it is what is and at least it wasn't a shit fest. But just because my expectations where so low and that WWE actually was able to pull something off that was good, doesn't make this the greatest WM of all time.

It is not in the top 5, probably somewhere in the top 10 but not in top 5 and sure as hell not the number 1 spot.

This WM can not compete with WMs like 3, 10, 17, 19, 24, and hell even 30. It was a good show yes, but don't fucking say it was the greatest WM of all time because that is total bullshit.

It was the best they've put on in a while, imo...but defo not the best ever lol.

John Cena Merican Hero wrote:

Fucking dave meltzer called WM 31 the best show he has ever seen. What the fuck is he smoking? And other Journalist like Meltzer from Magazines and Forums who get paid are saying this is the greatest WM of all time.

Whatever. Get the fuck out of here. I actually listen to Wrestling Observer Radio and he was talking to Bryan Alvarez and said it was the best show he'd ever seen live, there in person. Bryan Alvarez thought he said it was the best WrestleMania of all time and called him on it and Dave made himself clear that it was the best show he was able to be at live in person.

And lol at you listing 3 over 31. All those early WrestleMania shows were garbage. Normally when you go back and watch those there's only going to be a good match or two.

MooseNugget wrote:

And lol at you listing 3 over 31. All those early WrestleMania shows were garbage. Normally when you go back and watch those there's only going to be a good match or two.

Steamboat/Savage, right?

(Although Bull probably thinks Hogan vs. Andre was a classic).

I remember both of those matches were up to get on The Rate It list. And if I remember right he rated both of those matches about the same.

Haven't seen 17, and don't really remember 24, but 31 is definitely better than 3, 10 and 30.

Best show he has ever seen live? Even that is fucking bullshit and he fucking knows it and you do too. All the fucking shows he has seen live and WM31 was the best?

And you know the real difference between Wm 31 and 3. 5 years from now WM 3 will still be talked about for its moments, and what a huge impact it did for the business. Wm 31 won't be talked about in that light. Because all WM 32 has to do is try a little more which isn't that hard really to be the better show and every show after.

I think WM31 is a little over-rated right now because it was so much better than expectations. I definitely think WM30 was better and WM17 was better. It's one of the best Wrestlemanias of all time -- top five -- but I don't think it's the best ever.

And Bull arguing what Meltzer said about what he believes personally about his personal experiences is hilarious. It'd be like someone saying...

Bull, Wrestlemania 3 doesn't matter. No one actually cares about it. How could you possibly think it was a historically relevant Wrestlemania?

John Cena Merican Hero wrote:

Best show he has ever seen live? Even that is fucking bullshit and he fucking knows it and you do too. All the fucking shows he has seen live and WM31 was the best?

Well I guess I don't think of the west coast wrestling scene as highly as you do

John Cena Merican Hero wrote:

And you know the real difference between Wm 31 and 3. 5 years from now WM 3 will still be talked about for its moments, and what a huge impact it did for the business.

Well honestly I don't ever see anyone on this forum talk about old wrestling very much at all.

Because WM 3 set the bar of what a wrestlemania should be. Wm 1 started it, Wm 2 that experimented but it didn't work. WM3 is what put WM on the fucking map. And off the back of the Hogan and Andre feud wwe was able to create two more PPVs. Survivor Series and Summerslam. All that began at WM 3.

And to make this fucking clear, I still Believe WM 31 was a good show. Not the best, could have done way better but since I was expecting shit and I actually got something good doesn't make it one of the best. Not going to overrate it like fucking everyone else.

But since you want to pull that opinion bullshit fine. WM31 imo was a good show but one of the best and a lots of WM before it blow it out of the water and future WM will blow it out of the water.

John Cena Merican Hero wrote:

Because WM 3 set the bar of what a wrestlemania should be. Wm 1 started it, Wm 2 that experimented but it didn't work. WM3 is what put WM on the fucking map.

Being the first to get something right doesn't make you the best at it.

One day, somebody invented the Shooting Star Press. Now we have Adrian Neville doing a sexy version of it.

One day, Wrestlemania 3 happened, and established several things. Now we have Wrestlemania 31 doing it in a more sexy way.

John Cena Merican Hero wrote:

Because WM 3 set the bar of what a wrestlemania should be. Wm 1 started it, Wm 2 that experimented but it didn't work. WM3 is what put WM on the fucking map. And off the back of the Hogan and Andre feud wwe was able to create two more PPVs. Survivor Series and Summerslam. All that began at WM 3.

And to make this fucking clear, I still Believe WM 31 was a good show. Not the best, could have done way better but since I was expecting shit and I actually got something good doesn't make it one of the best. Not going to overrate it like fucking everyone else.

But since you want to pull that opinion bullshit fine. WM31 imo was a good show but one of the best and a lots of WM before it blow it out of the water and future WM will blow it out of the water.

Bull

My whole point is "you can't argue taste"

You have your opinion and he has his. Arguing the validity is silly, especially from afar. Say he has shit taste if you want, but leave it at that.

WM 31 is not the sexy version of WM 3. Look I don't want to hate on WM 31 but it is not one of the greatest. Top 10 yes, probably number 8 or 9 in that list.

Remember guys, if it's not Bull's Way, it's the Wrong Way.

I find it laughable that he said "Best show he has ever seen live? Even that is fucking bullshit and he fucking knows it and you do too."

So you know every single event and show he's been to? When WM3 was around, Dave was 28. It's possible he attended it in person. But do we know that for a fact? (I can't be bothered to do research. But you should be getting my point.)

I know Dave went to a lot of wrestling when he was a kid in California, where he lives now. He went to World Class Championship Wrestling shows when he lived in Dallas. And he was in Chicago when Ricky Steamboat beat Ric Flair for The NWA World Heavyweight Championship.

Even then Moose, we don't know ALL the events he attended. And that's my point.

Having watched WM3 many many times, I don't think it was better than 31. Though that's something that I think will be left mostly to opinion and personal taste if anything. I like old wrestling to an extent, but the old PPVs all feel the same to me. Whereas the manias of more recent memory, well, always feel like mania to me.

That may just be me showing my age difference, but I really think WM31 was an overall better show. A lot of people like to point out Savage/Steamboat, but really most people remember a match or two from any PPV, this one will be the same. It'll be the one that Rollins stole the belt. Is that as historical as Andre/Hogan? Not really, at least not now, but that doesn't make 3 better.

I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you.

And again with Dave I just don't understand how he can call it the best show he has ever seen live. The man has done this for 30 plus years, the man gets paid to talk about wrestling you think he has seen a fair number of live shows in his time.

StraightEdge Rurouni wrote:

Having watched WM3 many many times, I don't think it was better than 31.  Though that's something that I think will be left mostly to opinion and personal taste if anything. I like old wrestling to an extent, but the old PPVs all feel the same to me.  Whereas the manias of more recent memory, well, always feel like mania to me.  

That may just be me showing my age difference, but I really think WM31 was an overall better show.  A lot of people like to point out Savage/Steamboat, but really most people remember a match or two from any PPV, this one will be the same.  It'll be the one that Rollins stole the belt.  Is that as historical as Andre/Hogan?  Not really, at least not now, but that doesn't make 3 better.  

Fair Enough

Because he, like the rest of us, has his own taste.

And then, here's a point: Bull said WM3 caused SummerSlam and Survivor Series. Or whatever.

So what? That doesn't mean that the PPV (WM3) was good or even the best. It created two new PPVs. And? That's not relevant to the actual show.

Let's be honest, Bull marked out for Wrestlemania 3 because Hogan bodyslammed Andre The Giant. If it were Ultimate Warrior, or someone else of that build, he wouldnt care .

Back to the topic at hand...was Mania 31 one of the best in recent memory? Yes. All the matches were solid from top to bottom. When's the last time you got that at a Wrestlemania? 17? When the actual wrestling mattered?

As the biggest Bret Hart fan on the board, Wrestlemania 10 was kinda... not that great. The Ladder Match was solid but over-rated because of it's historical relevance and Bret's match with Owen was a classic, but other than that? Not a strong card.

IMO Bull seems to believe all the shows with historically relevant MATCHES means the SHOW is better and I don't think it works that way and I assume most people on the board don't as well.

there are a few moments that I think people will come back to from this card. Sting/Triple H will be historically relevant. Roman/Brock and the finish angle will be historically relevant. Bull disagrees. That's cool. There were no "duds" on the card aside from the pre-show Battle Royal. The seven matches that made it onto the main card all delivered. You can't say that about most Wrestlemanias.

John Cena Merican Hero wrote:

I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you.

Yeah but you're giving a reason other than it's just what you like.

John Cena Merican Hero wrote:

And again with Dave I just don't understand how he can call it the best show he has ever seen live. The man has done this for 30 plus years, the man gets paid to talk about wrestling you think he has seen a fair number of live shows in his time.

The guy has a family. Plus how much money is he going to make if he's running all over the place to see shows. Plus he prefers watching events on TV because he wants to review the version we're going to buy. So he watched WM 32 twice now. Live and on The Network.