Passing the torch....

Naturally, as wrestlers get older and a new generation comes in, we see a passing of the torch. The established, legendary guy doing the job at a big PPV to put over the younger star. Sometimes it doesnt necessarily have anything to do with age, just purely someone jobbing in order to put over the most popular guy at that time in order to endorse them further. Now it seems to me that back in the day, the older generation of wrestlers had a real problem with putting over new talent. My article about Hogan yesterday covers this in terms of Hogan not wanting to pass the torch to Bret in 1993. Ric Flair apparently also didnt rate Bret as a big enough draw when he made the step up to main event status. Bret Hart was probably the first guy who worked his way up the card on merit, going from a tag team champion to an IC champion onto a WWF Champion, Bret paid his dues yet the likes of Hogan and Flair could accept him as a big player. Hogan refused to job to Bret and by sheer 'coinsidence' when Bret beat Flair for his first WWF Title it wasnt even televised, it was a taped episode of Superstars. Says it all really. It seems that the older generation of wrestler had more of a problem in passing the torch than guys in recent years. The Rock putting over Brock Lesnar, Chris Benoit putting over Randy Orton, Mick Foley putting over Edge. All correct decisions.

What i want to know is, what are the worst decisions the WWE have made over the years by choosing the wrong winner of a match where the torch could have been passed? I'll start off...

Shawn Michaels vs Hulk Hogan Summerslam 2005.

Ok, so Shawn was already massively established and didnt need the torch here, but in my opinion the wrong guy definately won this match. Hogan had already put over The Rock at Mania (yes, Hogan actually let someone beat him clean), so from this i got the impression that Hogan had accepted it was time to let the new generation take centre stage, but no, he had to come back and get another big win against Shawn. Its well known that Shawn wasnt happy about jobbing to Hogan and over sold everything in their match. Probably not the most mature thing to do but i definately think Shawn should have won this match.

Triple H vs Sheamus Wrestlemania 26.

He might have previously laid down for Benoit, Batista and Cena at the Grandest Stage of Them All, but the WWE made a glaring error in not letting Sheamus go over Hunter at Mania 26. Having beaten Orton the year before, Hunter got the previous years' losses out of his system and there was no need whatsoever for him to beat Sheamus. It would have done so much for Sheamus' career but having lost the match he was lumbered with the King Sheamus gimmick. Hunter endorsed his mate Batista, and he should have done the same for Sheamus.

Lex Luger vs Yokozuna Summerslam 1993.

Luger was hot as hell going into this match. He'd taken over from Hogan as being the 'American Hero' and was a huge fan favourite with the whole 'Lex Express' thing. Luger won the match via countout, and proceeded to have a huge celebration with balloons falling and the faces from the locker room coming out to celebrate, but it should have been with the title. Although Yokozuna only won the title from Hogan at KOTR, i still would have had him drop it to Luger leading to a Luger v Hart fued. It would have made sense seeing at the original plan was to have a big face vs face fued between Hart and Hogan, and they still could have gone with this plan using Luger instead.

What do you think? What matches would you have changed the outcome of?

As far as I am aware, Hogan had agreed to lose to Michaels at another date further down the line after winning the first match, but not long before their match changed his mind and that's why Michaels over-sold it all.

I think Haitch definetly should be laid down for Sheamus, I can't help that the result may have been changed to HHH to avoid people predicting the Sheamus win, I think the same might be said of the year before as well.

Whether this would be classed as passing the torch so to speak but I always have a gripe that Cena never lost to Umaga!!

AberdeenSteve wrote:Whether this would be classed as passing the torch so to speak but I always have a gripe that Cena never lost to Umaga!!

I thought about this one, but the timing was all wrong. They fueded early 2007 and if Umaga did win the strap he would have had to of carried it into Wrestlemania unless they had Cena regain it before then which would have been a short and pointless reign for Umaga. If they fueded after Mania, i definately would have put the strap on Umaga.

I personally would have had Umaga win the strap early and had their feud end at the Royal Rumble with Cena winning the title back in the Last Man Standing match to end Umaga'a monster streak. Umaga had the potential to be a brilliant monster heel champ but they just never pulled the trigger.

WWE never seemed fond of Umaga, I think because of his weight. And there was an incident where I think Triple H or Shawn Michaels pulled him up on the fact he was wearing similar coloured trunks and a huge go at him, I think it was Haitch not Michaels.

Mr H wrote:

AberdeenSteve wrote:Whether this would be classed as passing the torch so to speak but I always have a gripe that Cena never lost to Umaga!!

I thought about this one, but the timing was all wrong. They fueded early 2007 and if Umaga did win the strap he would have had to of carried it into Wrestlemania unless they had Cena regain it before then which would have been a short and pointless reign for Umaga. If they fueded after Mania, i definately would have put the strap on Umaga.

I dont think it would have been a pointless reign at all. It would have cemented Umaga as a monster heel and would have made Cena winning it at the Rumble all the more impressive, especially if they kept the finish the way it was. It was the perfect way to have both guys look strong instead of giving Cena a weak win at NYR.

I'd love to see Triple H as champ put CM Punk over, Punk is massively over with the IWC but is already a 3 time World Champ anyway, it wouldn't be beyond realistic for him to beat Trips anyway but for me it would cement him at the top table

Samo wrote:

Mr H wrote:

AberdeenSteve wrote:Whether this would be classed as passing the torch so to speak but I always have a gripe that Cena never lost to Umaga!!

I thought about this one, but the timing was all wrong. They fueded early 2007 and if Umaga did win the strap he would have had to of carried it into Wrestlemania unless they had Cena regain it before then which would have been a short and pointless reign for Umaga. If they fueded after Mania, i definately would have put the strap on Umaga.

I dont think it would have been a pointless reign at all. It would have cemented Umaga as a monster heel and would have made Cena winning it at the Rumble all the more impressive, especially if they kept the finish the way it was. It was the perfect way to have both guys look strong instead of giving Cena a weak win at NYR.

But NYR was at the beginning of Jan, and the Rumble was at the end of Jan, so you'd give Umaga a 3 week reign only for Cena to win it back? Umaga only getting a 3 week reign before losing a Last Man Standing match definately wouldnt make him look strong. I just think the timing of the fued was all wrong, they should have held fire on it until after Mania.

I think the fact the only way Cena could keep Umaga down was by using the ring ropes to choke him out keeps Umaga looking strong IMO, especially with the amount of sick bumps in that match.

As for Umaga, its surely wrong to blame his weight, his size wasn't a new thing to Vince, they repackaged him and used his size as part of his package, Umaga didn't win the title because his feud with Cena came far to early for him, especially since they wanted Cena to remain strong for his WM rematch with HHH although injury stopped that, Umaga's push stopped when he got caught up in the steroid scandal and had to do a 30 suspension and also drop the IC Title, he was barely relevent by the time he had a run in over using the same colours as HHH and it was Shawn who had a problem with it not Hunter and it was during the Tribute To The Troops

Would anyone have had Razor Ramon beat Bret Hart for the WWF Title at the Royal Rumble in 1993? Huge risk, but Razor was as charasmatic as they came and probably could have carried it off.

Na definitely not mate, they had just pulled the trigger on Bret winning the title, Razor wasn't long arrived by the time that match came about

Fair enough gaffer, I didn't know about Umaga being caught with steroids.

10 of them got caught at the same time when Mike Knox stupidly left an old prescription in a house and the traced it to a doctor whn was supplying loads of them, Kennedy was caught too and it killed the illigitimate child angle

Yeah, I didn't think Umaga was one of the guys. Wasn't Orton one of them too?

Nah Orton got suspended the year before

One thing I'd have definitely changed would have been the Undertaker vs CM Punk feud in late 2009.

Taker completely buried Punk in their matches, barely giving him any offense. Their two matches went less than 20 minutes in total! Punk did win the first one, but in one of the cheapest finishes in the history of wrestling: Taker made him tap out to Hell's Gate in about 5 minutes, only for Teddy Long to restart the match because the move was banned. Punk then locked Taker in the Anaconda Vice and Long called for the bell despite Taker not tapping. The match was basically a squash, the finish only took place because it was in Montreal and they were considering a Taker-Vince feud, and the angle was never followed up on.

I would have done something brave and given Punk a clean submission victory in the first match at Breaking Point.

I wouldn't have had Taker actually quit, but instead he'd have passed out in the Anaconda Vice after a gruelling 25 minute match, with the storyline being that a fitter and younger Punk exhausted him and took advantage of Taker's worn down body (that isn't supposed to sound quite as sexual as it does).

Taker could still have won at Hell in the Cell a month later, with a storyline that he used his experience and know-how to overcome Punk, and everything could have carried on as it did anyway up to Wrestlemania, except that Punk would have been a legit main eventer with a clean win over Taker and would have been kept around the main event world title picture ready to eventually feud with Edge (instead of Kane feuding with him).

Totally agree with you crips. Like gaffer said in one of his posts yesterday 'You dont have to go over to get over'. So true.

I still find it hard to believe what the did with Punk, even if they did want to punish him by taking the title off him it just didn't make sense for the WWE not to make a legit Main Event player out of him, it would have been financially better for them and made future Punk matches more meaningful