Wrestlemania 31

The annual biggest event of the year in sports entertainment takes place tonight at the 49ers ground in Santa Clara and bookies as ever are offering odds......

http://www.oddschecker.com/tv/wwe

Always seems odd for them to risk offering odds on scripted action but there you go. Looks to be some value to be made though......

Roman Reigns to beat Brock Lesnar 8/11 with Paddy Power: Reigns has been built up this year as the biggest and most pushed babyface aka good guy on the roster. The whole storyline is based on everyone thinking he can't win the title. They wouldn't book their number 1 babyface as someone who can't win the title if they didn't plan on putting it on him as it would make him look weak and not make storyline sense. Plus Brock is on one of the best contracts in the company and always disappears after Wrestlemania for about four months because his annual big money deal doesn't have more than like a couple of dozen dates on it. Therefore it would make sense for him to drop the title.

Sting at 1/7 to beat HHH: Sting has finally arrived in WWE 14 years after WCW that he worked for went and got bought out by WWE. No way would Sting sign to finally join the company just to lose his first ever match there. Plus HHH loses just about every year on the show because he likes to try and create stars by putting them off to look good.

Undertaker 2/7 to beat Bray Wyatt: Taker lost for the first time in 22 WM matches 12 months ago against Brock Lesnar so I very highly doubt they would have him go from 21 and 0 to a record of 0 and 2 in the last two years.

Randy Orton 7/5 to beat Seth Rollins: Could be value in it. In the storyline Seth stamped on the head of Randy who's the babyface which wrote him off tv for four months. If he doesn't get revenge for that by being given the victory it will look odd. That's the match of the four i've mentioned that I see more chance of going either way.

 

"Sports entertainment" - Is that what it's classed as these days?

 

WWF Or WWE. Biggest set of pansies on the world.

FACT

 

Does anyone actually bet on wrestling? I genuinely thought the outcome was pre-decided and the match itself was just entertainment, loosely speaking.

 

Hence my point above

 

I agree entirely. These WWF wrestlers can't hold a candle to the likes of Big Daddy, Kendo Nagasaki and Giant Haystacks.

How was the trip?

 

Enjoyed it. Well. I turned into a 15 year old again lol. I certainly looked daft when we went 2-1 up. Jumping around like an idiot an no one knew why

 

You actually watch that *****

 

All of those you've listed were horrible wrestlers and are a million miles behind those who wrestle today. That said, the current product is at its lowest point in a longtime with a combination of terrible booking and one man's whims getting in the way of everything that appears on tv each week. For the first time ever I won't bother getting the ppv as I have little interest in paying money to watch what's on offer right now. It needs fresh impetus and only the success of NXT fills me with confidence they might get it right again once McMahon steps aside.

The reason there's a chance to bet on it is contained in the link address. See the 'tv' bit? It's no different than offering a book on who killed Lucy Beale.

As for the original post, now Lesnar has signed a new deal there's every reason not to stick the title on Reigns who has illustrated time and again he's not ready for the position he's been put in. Have Lesnar retain, the Shield reform and Rollins cash in his contract.

For years I've been involved in "wrestling is stupid/immature/pathetic" discussions, but leave it to those of us who know what we're talking about to actually criticise it, because if you're basing it on no knowledge of what it actually is, it's no different to me saying Coronation St is rubbish - I don't watch it so I can't make that assumption.

 

You could bet on who shot Lucy Beale in Eastenders which is pretty much the same thing.

 

Well done, didn't think I could dislike you more, then you come out with this *****.

 

Eh? Would I criticise you or one of your interests just because you posted about it?

Read it again, I'm more than scathing about wrestling right now. But it's because I know what I'm talking about.

 

So what you're saying is it's a soap opera for men

 

EastEnders doesn't pretend to be a sport, that was sort of my point. A sport that is nothing more than staged entertainment to us ill educated buffoons who don't know anything about it.

Coronation Street, and EastEnders for that matter are complete gash, so on that point I do agree with you.

I can't agree that Big Daddy was a horrible wrestler, his splash would have seen off any of these modern day pretenders and that's a fact. Easy, easy, easy.

 

Plenty. Tonight's crowd will be 70k, with next year's Wrestlemania in Dallas being held in from of 100k.

 

******* like

 

Wrestling doesn't pretend to be a sport either. It's been a longtime since they tried to convince people it was real, thus the shift to the admittedly horrible 'sports entertainment' name. Everyone knows its pre-determined, the difference between the storylines in a soap and wrestling are at times minimal, but wrestling has the added in-ring element to book-end the stories. When it's done right, and it hasn't been for quite a while now, it's great tv. But that just my opinion and I accept others aren't interested, or even that they think it's *****. But if they think the latter without actually watching it, it's an opinion backed up with no substance.

Watch last week's Raw, now that was *****.