What a bunch of bullshit

why do people always bring this up as a complaint? so the good guy always needs to win and everything needs to be predictable? why are wrestling fans autistic and need everything to follow strict patterns all the time? they had a weekly television show to make. if triple h loses all of the heat leaves the storyline, theres no austin at backlash helping the rock, theres no massive buyrate, and no amazing moment when the rock wins. why do smarks insist on trying to rebook things that were a huge success?

from a storyline perspective it was great. but of course you probably think the rock should have won and faced chris jericho at the next ppv or something in a heatless feud that nobody would have given a shit about

You call me a 'smark', but then proceed to use insider terms and act like you're an official backstage on Vince McMahon's payroll getting paid to defend and pretend something was great just so you won't piss off the boss. You ar what you claim to hate.
>so the good guy always needs to win and everything needs to be predictable?
see because I never said, mush brain.
>f triple h loses all of the heat leaves the storyline
They literally could've done anything to have Triple H get his heat back after dropping the strap to Rock at WrestleMania to continue the feud. It's been done before. You'd know this if you were actually a fan and not just some shitposting troll faggot larping.
> theres no austin at backlash helping the rock, theres no massive buyrate, and no amazing moment when the rock wins.
>All of this was too good for WrestleMania.... but not BACKLASH AKA the Superbowl of WWF/WWE.

Jericho didn't come in as a main eventer, looked like a rat fleeing a sinking shit by mid 1999, and had been shitting up every feud he was in.
Foley made Gaytch look like a star after his first/second title reigns flipped hard and got rewarded with a Wrestlemania main event he could've had the year prior.

>Gotta send the fans happy
This implies you can't send the fans home with a heel winning.

Odd how they had 3 shit WM in a row during their biggest years, then their best WM ever is during one of their worst

Wrestlemania 14 was one of the best ever retard

Uh what? The wrestlemania without a single good match was one of the best?

It had plenty of good matches mr smark

Want to name one?

Austin vs HBK, Taker vs Kane, hell even the tag team dumpster shenanigans were entertaining

Most of the main matches on the card had a purpose and were so entertaining that people consistently kept watching WWF again after for weeks. Imagine if they followed the Meltzer philosophy or continued to book like they did in 1993-1997 during the New Generation where athleticism was "Key". Would WWF/WWE even still be a thing after 1998?

>Austin vs HBK
Solid match, quite a step down from their KotR match though
>Taker vs Kane
Legit one of the most boring WM matches of all time

I get it, not enough flips for ya? Fuck the story surrounding them and the storytelling right?

>not enough flips for ya
Bret vs Austin is a 5 star match with no flips. Shawn vs Austin and Taker vs Kane are not good matchs

Bret vs Austin was excellent match. Those two were "good" matches to most. The main event especially can not be considered bad in any way shape or form.

Did I say it was a bad match? I was it was a WM with no good matches; not that they were all shit

Every single match on the card was good.
Everybody but zoom zooms used to get this.
3, 10, 14, and 17 were considered the gold standard Manias.

>Bret vs Austin is a 5 star match with no flips
On one of the least watches WrestleManias ever.

Attached: WM buys.png (1212x1170, 1.15M)