Which was the better rivalry?

[dude extreme]

Which was the better rivalry going into Mania. I vote for Batista vs Taker.
The WrestleMania match was a classic and did deserve a main event spot eventhough it was a smackdown! title match. The rematch at Backlash was also extremely awesome. Batista with the power game and Taker with all his big list of moves. HBK vs Cena was rather old and Cena had pinned HBK at Taboo Tuesday and both of them started the elimination chamber match at New Year's Revolution last year. Would have love to see the rivalry grow but unfortunately for injuries.

[Dave Youell]

Cena/HBK was thrown together last minute because of HHH injuries.

And the put together a really good programme with the teasing of HBK turning on Cena for over 6 weeks. That was good TV.

What did Batista and Taker have? It was more of a 'We just don't get along' and that was it.

[dude extreme]

The matches were great.

[Dave Youell]

The matches were great.
I preferred Cena/HBK to Taker/Batista

Only because the latter needed the big spots to get the match over. The Cena/HBK used great in ring pyscology (sp?), with the exception of Cena's no selling with the knee

[Slow]

No way, Batista/Undertaker was by far the better match, mostly because i can remember things that happened in it, whereas Cena/Micheals was another match that just didn't stand out, or improve on the match the week before.

[hb2k]

The Batista/Taker feud was pretty shitty to be honest, there was nothing of note in terms of storytelling, whereas Michaels/Cena was much more itneresting with the "will he turn/when will he turn" element. Matchwise, HBK/Cena blew Taker/Batista out the water realistically, although the surprise factor of Batista turning out a pretty good match somehow blinds people to the fact that as a drama builder, HBK/Cena shit on it. Taker/Batista should in no way have been the main event - the fact it did so well and got the reaction it did was because of it's placement on the show. The fact anyone thinks it should be higher actually means it was perfectly placed where it was, because they got the most out of it. Had it been higher it would have had a tougher time getting the same reaction.

Feud and match wise, HBK/Cena takes it, and seriously, wrestling psychology has nothing to do with "selling the leg", that was such a small thing that I guarantee 98% of the audience didn't notice.

[Jordan]

Batista and Taker picked up about 2 weeks before WM, HBK and Cena sold the show.

[Xero]

Cena/Michaels.

[BigDaddyCool]

HBK, because it had HBK.

[AdrianM]

The Batista/Taker feud was pretty shitty to be honest, there was nothing of note in terms of storytelling, whereas Michaels/Cena was much more itneresting with the "will he turn/when will he turn" element. Matchwise, HBK/Cena blew Taker/Batista out the water realistically, although the surprise factor of Batista turning out a pretty good match somehow blinds people to the fact that as a drama builder, HBK/Cena shit on it. Taker/Batista should in no way have been the main event - the fact it did so well and got the reaction it did was because of it's placement on the show. The fact anyone thinks it should be higher actually means it was perfectly placed where it was, because they got the most out of it. Had it been higher it would have had a tougher time getting the same reaction.

wtf...shut up. Thats the dumbest thing i've ever heard. well not the dumbest, but wtf are you even talking about. 'The fact it did so well and got the reaction it did was because of it's placement on the show'? WTF....you mean, it had absolutely nothing to do with it being an awesome match...of course not! :roll: - idiot

[SammyG]

...