Posted in: Mr. Tito
MR. TITO STRIKES BACK - WWE Wrestlemania 32 Hype: Vince Screwing Undertaker? Roman Reigns Turning Heel?
By Mr. Tito
Mar 26, 2016 - 1:34:55 PM

Follow Mr. Tito on @titowrestling

Welcome back to the Excellence in Column Writing brought to you by the one & only Mr. Tito exclusively here at / Wrestlemania 32 weekend is just a week away and regardless how its booked, it's STILL Wrestlemania. I wasn't exactly excited for Broncos vs. Carolina this year for the NFL Super Bowl but the event was STILL the Super Bowl. It's a great time to hang out with friends, family, eat lots of pizza or chicken wings, and just talk about how much fun past Wrestlemania events were. Me and my 2 pals mostly talk about the old days of wrestling whenever a match, for lack of a better term, sucks.

The Triple H vs. Roman Reigns and the Shane McMahon vs. Undertaker matches are quite curious to me... Very difficult to formulate predictions as I prepare for my usual Tuesday night column (hey, this is an extra column!).

Big reason is that it seems too obvious that Shane McMahon, for lack of a better phrase, has NO CHANCE IN HELL to beat an accomplished Undertaker at Wrestlemania. You know, the event that Undertaker has only lost ONCE at and worse yet for Shane-o-Mac, the Undertaker is quite good in Hell in a Cell matches too. Shane is a guy who hasn't wrestled a single match in 6 years. Yes, I know that the Undertaker is older himself and wrestles once or twice a year, but he's a PRO WRESTLER. Sure, Shane has wrestled some matches, but he has never been full-time and taking the 6+ year break as he heads into his 40's should give him no chance. Especially against the Undertaker who pushed Brock Lesnar, of all people, to the limits last year in 2 tough matches. So are you saying that Shane McMahon can really challenge the Undertaker after that? What, can Shane wrestle Brock Lesnar after this? Do you see the idiotic psychology at play?!?

However, I think we could be seeing a SWERVE in the makings on that Undertaker vs. Shane McMahon match. After all, "ownership of Monday Night RAW" is on the line. Reportedly, there are real discussions about legitimately making RAW and Smackdown into two separate shows. Not a full brand split, but each show has its own unique styles and booking with Stephanie McMahon & Triple H reportedly receiving FULL Creative control over the Smackdown show. That's actually huge and it will go to show if Triple H is truly a creative genius that he appears to be for the NXT brand... Or is it the former pro wrestlers he lets run NXT? We'll find out...

But the SWERVE that I'm talking about is Vince McMahon screwing the Undertaker in that match. That would pair up Vince & Shane to run RAW and Stephanie & Triple H to run Smackdown. Seems even, right? That technicality of "Ownership of RAW" being on the line has me thinking that Vince will screw the Undertaker in some fashion. Otherwise, how on earth should the Undertaker lose a Hell in a Cell match to a normal human being? Makes NO sense especially blowing a Wrestlemania appearance with the Undertaker this way.

So what happens with Triple H vs. Roman Reigns?

After all, shouldn't Triple H be PISSED at Vince McMahon for potentially causing a BAD night for him at Wrestlemania 32? Think about it... HHH comes into Wrestlemania 32 as WWE Champion and "Chief Operating Officer" who helps manage Monday Night RAW... However, if Triple H LOSES to Roman Reigns and if Shane McMahon somehow defeats the Undertaker, he loses BOTH. Shouldn't the Game be more upset at Vince for putting his Son-In-Law in jeopardy? Seriously, HHH has EVERYTHING TO LOSE at Wrestlemania... And he might just lose it.

Time to face obvious facts... Roman Reigns is NOT working out as a babyface Main Eventer no matter how much favorable booking that the WWE gives him. He's too green as a singles wrestler and the WWE did him a disservice by pushing him too fast and too early in the singles ranks. Again, as I'm repeating myself here, go watch the WWE Network and see Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Macho Man Randy Savage, Steve Austin, the Rock, and John Cena all work their way up the midcard and got over by defending the Intercontinental Title or United States Title. They got over as midcard champions by the fans and that convinced management to promote them to the main roster.

HOWEVER - Look at the Rock during 1998. He was a good wrestler, but not great... The Rock would need the teachings of Mick Foley during late 1999 and early 2000 to push him to become great. Now granted, the Rock was absurdly GREAT on the microphone and one of the BEST promo guys ever... WWE could have seriously pushed him as babyface during 1998 as seen by the loud "Rocky" chants going on at SummerSlam 1998 chants despite wrestling against DX's babyface Triple H at the time. The Rock character was so over that he didn't have to wrestle... The personality sold it. Then, the Mick Foley feud happened and Rock became a bigger superstar by merging the personlity with a strong in-ring ability.

My point on the Rock is that when he turned heel at Survivor Series 1998, what Vince McMahon did was surround him with loyal thugs within the Corporation stable who protected the Rock as WWE Champion at all costs. It's exactly what the WWE did NOT do with Seth Rollins. When Rollins became WWE Champion, suddenly, Triple H & Stephanie McMahon disappeared and Rollins had Jamie Noble, Joey Mercury, and a very un-loyal Kane at his side. Noble and Mercury did fine, as they were like the Pat Patterson and Gerald Brisco as stooges... But Kane? Seth Rollins spent more of his time squabbling with Kane than acting united with him to keep others away from the WWE Title. The Authority should have added multiple wrestlers to surround Seth Rollins to protect his WWE Title. I once said that the PERFECT role for Baron Corbin was to be a bodyguard for Seth Rollins. It would have been the perfect NXT call-up situation and an easy way to introduce the legitimately tough Corbin to a mainstream WWE audience. Corbin would be the Diesel to Seth Rollin's HBK, so to speak.

If Vince McMahon wants Roman Reigns to be WWE Champion and Main Eventer so badly, then TURN HIM HEEL at Wrestlemania 32. One way to put real heat on this supposed "brand split" between RAW and Smackdown is for Vince McMahon to (a) screw the Undertaker and help Shane McMahon win control over RAW, (b) screw Triple H out of his match against Roman Reigns, and (c) Roman Reigns is now a heel WWE Champion with 100% loyal support from Vince McMahon and Shane McMahon.

Then, you REBUILD the Corporation stable... And call it the "Corporation" to honor the once great stable of 1998-1999. See those losers in the League of Nations? So long League of Nations, welcome to the Corporation. Hey, maybe re-use my Baron Corbin bodyguard idea... Surround Vince's hand-picked WWE Champion with muscle to cause any babyface to get through THEM first before getting a chance at WWE Champion Roman Reigns. Hell, Vince could accomplish his biggest wet dream by adding Brawn Strowman as a trusted thug of the Corporation to protect Reigns. As a member of a bigtime stable, he could gain much needed experience... Then, if Vince McMahon REALLY wants Strowman vs. Reigns to happen, then a year or so from how, when the timing is absolutely right... The Corporation turns on Roman Reigns and maybe that creates the babyface sensation that Vince McMahon wants. EXPERIENCE fixes almost everything... A good heel run by Reigns as a protected WWE Champion will give him valuable experience and Strowman will also learn...

And there you go, WWE... Free advise in case that's not the plan already (it may really be). When Randy Orton, Seth Rollins, and John Cena come back, they have a ready-made HEEL stable to wrestle. Simple as that...

I actually think there is a good chance that Reigns wins the WWE Title and turns heel... Instead of Vince screwing the Undertaker, maybe it's Roman Reigns who does the dirty deed? Puts heat on Reigns for screwing the Undertaker (could be a Summer time feud?) and aligns him with the McMahons. WWE could FOOL wrestling fans by having a babyface Roman Reigns beat Triple H earlier in the card and then screw the Undertaker in the MAIN EVENT of Wrestlemania 32. It's very much in line with Triple H's heel turn at Wrestlemania 15 that began his upward climb to Main Event stardom.

So there you go... Either I predicted the WWE's moves at Wrestlemania 32 or I have just given them great advice to book things moving forward if they REALLY want Roman Reigns to be WWE Champion and a main eventer.


PHAT QUESTIONS about Wrestlemania

I just compiled the typical questions asked around Wrestlemania time, some of which I've repeated in other columns... But in case you're a new reader to the Excellence in Column Writing, I'll state my Wrestlemania answers again.

Question #1: What is the BEST Wrestlemania event ever?

For me, it has become Wrestlemania 10. Most will probably answer Wrestlemania 17, but that event hasn't aged well for me and I'm not that crazy about the finish between Austin/Rock. Plus, watching Wrestlemania 17 can get depressing because you know that it's the final peak of the Attitude Era and it was all downhill from there.

Wrestlemania 10, however, has 2 AMAZING matches that launched the new era of Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels on top. It was the first Wrestlemania without Hulk Hogan and it was in Madison Square Garden. The event holds up incredibly well over time compared to Wrestlemanias before and after it. That Ladder Match between Razor and Shawn was off-the-charts great and still holds up despite the many variations of the Ladder Match that we've seen since. Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart was absurd and that was an opening bout! Those 2 5-Star Perfect matches on 1 card do it for me. Plus, as a bigtime "Macho Man" Randy Savage fan, this was his last Wrestlemania match ever and it was like the true end of an era for me.


Question #2: What was the BEST Wrestlemania match ever?

Ouch... That's like picking between your kids... I really love the Wrestlemania 10 matches that I just mentioned, but I like 3 other matches just slightly better... And sadly, I keep flipping and flopping over which of the 3 is technically my favorite:

- Steve Austin vs. Bret Hart from Wrestlemania 13
- Shawn Michaels vs. Kurt Angle from Wrestlemania 21
- Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker from Wrestlemania 25

It is seriously a toss up... For athleticism, HBK vs. Angle is off-the-charts and I really respect that Shawn Michaels lost cleanly to Angle. But then you have the old battle horses of Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker delivering a HUGE match when most weren't expecting it. They completely blew HHH vs. Randy Orton out of the water to follow. Great "sense of urgency" on Shawn to finally end the streak.

But, I have to give the BEST Wrestlemania match to Steve Austin vs. Bret Hart. Saw it recently and I was amazed... It is an absolute battle between the two and the ending is executed perfectly for the double switch. Jim Ross is right... For any new wrestlers, Ross recommends that they watch Austin vs. Bret to not only see how a great match is done but how to execute heel and face turns simultaneously with success. It's the best Wrestlemania match and it could very well be the most important match the way it fully launched Steve Austin into the #1 babyface.


Question #3: Can you rank the Wrestlemanias again?

No thanks. It has become quite difficult to rank 31 shows and remember them all.. Being honest here, the 2000's Wrestlemanias are very fuzzy to me whereas I remember the 1980's and 1990's Wrestlemanias quite well. Also, my opinions of the 2010's Wrestlemanias have changed upon viewing the shows additional times. Most will notice how positive my Wrestlemania 27 & 28 reviews are but those shows have lost it with time to me... I actually like Wrestlemania 30 a little more now than upon my first viewing.

As I randomly watch events and matches, I get different things out of each Wrestlemania now. There are many matches that are good from a storyline standpoint but not so much from a technical in-ring standpoint. For example, I really like Wrestlemania 15 from a storyline standpoint and I've ranked it higher than most because of that.

I've ranked the Wrestlemania events for YEARS... Let's allow someone else to do it... I retire from Wrestlemania rankings.


Question #4: In hindsight, was it good to have Brock Lesnar END the Undertaker's streak?

This was a question posed by the Doc from on Twitter... In my opinion, YES... The results speak for themselves. Brock Lesnar defeating the Undertaker and ending the streak helped galvanize Brock Lesnar as a WWE superstar and made him bigger than ever. The reason Brock Lesnar is paid $3 to $5 million per year is because he's a draw for the WWE Network. By making him super strong and only allowing him to wrestle on Pay Per Views only, it gives fans reason to get the Network. Plus, as you saw during SummerSlam 2015 and Hell in a Cell 2015, the heat from the Streak caused great business to occur with those rematches. Brock Lesnar, in my opinion, is helping to keep the WWE Network relevant by being exclusive to that network. You cannot watch Lesnar wrestle elsewhere.

The psychology works, too... Look at all of the names who FAILED to beat the Undertaker at Wrestlemania... Kane (several times), Triple H (several times), Batista, CM Punk, Big Show, Diesel, Sid, and many others. All failed. Therefore, it should take a bulldozer to finally beat the Undertaker. And we were all SHOCKED when it happened. Everybody's jaw dropped at once and who will ever forget that?

Seeing the WWE Network business and how much bigger it made Lesnar, in my opinion, made ending the Streak a great decision.


Question #5: Who is the BEST Wrestlemania performer?

No question, Shawn Michaels. He already had a decent track record at Wrestlemania during the 1990's but then you add his 2000's matches... GOOD GOD! While Hulk Hogan gets a close nod for "BIG" matches, the "Macho Man" Randy Savage was "Mr. Wrestlemania" before Michaels came along. Look at Savage's run from Wrestlemania 2 through 9. He's always there and often steals the show. The Undertaker deserves a solid nod but I think he needs strong performers to complement him more than Macho or Michaels. But you know who else deserves a solid nod? Triple H... He has a nice Wrestlemania resume to brag about and if he pulls off a good match against Reigns, he'll only add to his legacy.


Question #6: What is the WORST Wrestlemania event?

Wrestlemania 9. Yuck... It was a hot mess of an event as the WWE was under pressure from the Feds regarding steroids and it showed. Hulk Hogan almost looked like he was dying of something for how thin he was from 1992 to 1993. The booking was just awful and then you get that Undertaker vs. Giant Gonzalez match... And then you get Hogan stealing the WWE Title at the end. The outside atmosphere subtracted from the event, too.


Question #7: Best storylines heading into Wrestlemania?

Wow... The hype around Wrestlemania 3 was good, although they used a cheap ploy of bigger trophies to cause it. Trophies weren't needed... Andre could have just been upset at Hogan never giving him a WWE Title match. In my opinion, Wrestlemania 5 is the best HYPED Wrestlemania of all time. The MEGA POWERS exploding was the best storyline, period. They spent over a year building that main event up from creating a friendship between Hogan & Macho, teaming them up as the Mega Powers, and slowly building animosity and jealousy over Miss Elizabeth that turned Randy Savage into a heel. Wrestlemania 5 legitimately held the Pay Per View buyrate record for over 8 years until the Monday Night Wars begin to push buyrates up through late 1997. I think StarrCade 1997 was the first event to beat Wrestlemania 5's record.


Question #8: Best Wrestlemania moment?

As much as I enjoy the sight of Steve Austin passing out in his own blood while locked in Bret Hart's sharp shooter, that big bodyslam by Hulk Hogan on Andre "the Giant" was amazing. That scene is just iconic and delivered on the hype of that match especially because Hogan tried to bodyslam the Giant earlier in the match and almost lost. When he slammed Andre, the whole Detroit crowd erupted and I believe that millions of new WWE fans were created in the process. It was the true handing off of the torch and it gave the WWE a solid 1 and a half years of additional Hogan vs. Andre matches afterward. That Main Event televised show on NBC brought in 33 million viewers following Wrestlemania 3. Think about that... RAW is happy to get 4 million viewers per week now. Multiply that by 8 for people wanting to see Hulk vs. Andre again after Wrestlemania 3.


Comments and feedback are welcome. Follow and Tweet me @titowrestling or login in below to post comments.

Like Super Mario Maker for the Nintendo Wii U? Then check out my pro-wrestling based courses within Course World --> Search:

- WrestleWar - ID: AEAC-0000-01C3-4578

- nWo Run-in - ID: 2274-0000-01B3-5AC0

- WCW Wargames - ID: 7BAA-0000-01B0-8F99

- WWE Royal Rumble - ID: 7B38-0000-01A3-2F4C

- Pro Wrestling Mario - ID: E290-0000-0199-7AC7

© Mr. Tito and - 1998-2016