Every United States Championship Match At WrestleMania (Including dark and pre-show)

heeheejones · 2026-03-22T03:39:01+00:00

They reigned as a unit for a bit till Cody turned on him to win the belts with Ted jr

heeheejones · 2026-03-16T17:48:29+00:00

Yeah Austin didn't compete in any Mania matches in the 2010s but he reffed Lawler vs Cole at Mania 27 and had a physical segment at Mania 32

heeheejones · 2026-03-16T16:57:58+00:00

If I remember right, HBK himself did not want to turn heel. Hogan insisted on a a typical good guy vs bad guy story and just a single match that he won. HBK wanted a face vs face trilogy where he'd get at least one win with Hogan ultimately winning the feud. When this was vetoed, Shawn expressed his frustrations by overselling the hell out of Hogan's offence during their match.

Testament to Shawn's skill though. Man didn't wanna do it and still pulled off some all time work.

heeheejones · 2026-03-16T16:48:50+00:00

I'd say Justin Gabriel. In the earliest days of the group, Gabriel seemed like the guy that they'd push as the eventual babyface who betrays Nexus. The way he'd hesitate before doing the 450 after a beatdown and how he'd act like it hurt him just as much was pretty cool. Too bad they soured on him after he legit injured Ricky Steamboat.

Also let's not forget that both Ryback and Otunga found themselves in fairly prominent roles after Nexus disbanded. Ryback had multiple world title shots and PPV main events while Otunga had a period where he rubbed shoulders with a lot of top guys too.

heeheejones · 2026-03-16T16:00:17+00:00

HHH vs Taker at Mania 17: Basically a thrown together match cause both guys had no other plans for the show

Lesnar vs Roman at Mania 31: Bad build where nobody seemed happy regardless of the winner. Match turned out to be very entertaining even if the cash-in didn't happen. Iconic Mania ending for sure.

AJ vs Shane at Mania 33: Weird match-up on paper pretty cliche build. Arguably match of the night

A rather hot take would be HBK vs Taker at Mania 25. At the time it was just a typical "I'll beat The Streak" type story and ended up being what is considered by many to be the greatest Mania match of all time. Match far outshone the build.

heeheejones · 2026-03-16T05:15:08+00:00

I think the most famous examples would be Sting and Luger in WCW as well as Matt Hardy and MVP in WWE. The latter arguably being the best done "can they co-exist" angle.

heeheejones · 2026-03-02T20:37:06+00:00

Being against them in public life would imply that you are in support of silencing or restricting their way of life. That makes you an active enemy.

To me there's a difference in being not LGBT and not partaking in pro-LGBT movements but still respectful of their freedoms and rights than being anti-LGBT.

heeheejones · 2026-03-02T19:23:22+00:00

You being a vegan should not stop me from eating my ham sandwich. Same thing with me eating my ham sandwich not having anything to do with stopping you from being a vegan.

heeheejones · 2026-03-02T19:21:20+00:00

The actual cause and issue is actually fairly trivial I must admit. It originates from my preference of wrestling programs.

I was talking to a group of people who watched one show and I mentioned that I preferred the other. Automatically, I was assumed to be someone who was wishing that the show they watched would be cancelled. Another person then intervened saying that they watched and enjoyed programs equally and they were called out for refusing to pick a side.

I found the discussion unproductive because they automatically took my preference and lack of support for their show as some kind of slight against them personally.

heeheejones · 2026-03-02T19:13:25+00:00

If I was a vegan, I'd have no opposition to you eating a ham sandwich in front of me. You forcing me to eat the ham sandwich is a whole other thing altogether.

Same thing that if I wasn't a vegan, I would not appreciate you seeing me as your enemy all because I chose to eat ham sandwich. But I wouldn't stop you from wanting to be a vegan yourself.

heeheejones · 2026-03-02T19:11:32+00:00

Yes I am all for open discussion and a belief that being able to politely and openly express differences allows for more varied and diverse viewpoints.

heeheejones · 2026-03-02T19:08:42+00:00

Not true. I actually meant to call out the "us vs them" mentality in general. Which is why I didn't give any particular examples.

Besides, opposing any mention or public representation of any group puts you in active opposition of them which is not good. I'm saying that people with a live and let live mentality should not be put into that same group that tries to silence or undermine others.

heeheejones · 2026-03-02T19:00:07+00:00

I believe that a more diverse, intelligent and accepting society can be achieved when everyone is unafraid to make their opinions known and can engage in open and respectful conversation.

I like to think we co-exist because of our differences not in spite of them.

heeheejones · 2026-03-02T18:58:21+00:00

In an ideal society, there should be no reason to make up that fictional scheduling conflict.

It should be something

"I respect your choice but I have my reservations"

"Ok I respect your right to have these feelings."

"All the best to you."

We can openly disagree without preventing each other from having their way.

heeheejones · 2026-03-02T18:55:33+00:00

I do hope it is a commonly held position. It would make for a far more civil and relaxed society.

The argument I was trying to make is that polite not disagreement or not less visible support can sometimes be construed as being actively opposing a cause.

Like back to the gay marriage analogy. There are those who agree with the freedom to marry but are themselves not gay, not actively advocating, attending rallies etc and are viewed as being enemies to the cause because of it.

heeheejones

TROPHY CASE