Twilling's Blog: Would the Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels match been one of the best ever if it took place at Judgment Day? Looking at the importance of when and where a feud takes place

Monday, MAY 11 – 1:05 PM (CT)

-With just six days away from the Judgment Day pay-per-view, the card, on paper, looks to be pretty strong. Oddly enough, with WrestleMania 25 not living up to expectations despite the epic Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels match, the Backlash show was arguably better without either of those men on the show. Judgment Day has the "will be good if you order it" feel, but it is not necessarily a "must see" show.

I have always argued that the venue helps people remember great matches even more fondly. For example, if the Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels match, the exact same match, would have taken place at say, Judgment Day or Armageddon, people would not be calling it one of the best matches of all time. Sure, the stage, the crowd, and atmosphere play into the greatness of a match, but should that be the case?

Last year, the feud of the year and the best feud in recent memory belonged to Michaels and Chris Jericho. However, they wrestled at "B" pay-per-views (I consider a B PPV to be any but the big four). Say the feud began in December, went through WrestleMania, and ended at Backlash. If that would have been the case, would fans refer to it as the greatest feud of all time? I am not saying the non big four pay-per-views should be throwaway cards, but is that actually the case?

Take the main event of Judgment Day; Randy Orton vs. Batista. To me, this is one of those "big matches" that should take place at WrestleMania or SummerSlam. Instead, Batista made his return, took a back seat to Triple H and the McMahons, and is now challenging for the title in a match he probably will not win.

Orton was red hot going into WrestleMania. He lost in the main event of that show, and we all know how well that was received. He managed to stay hot and won the WWE Championship at Backlash. There is no way he is going to lose the title this soon, and a title match against Batista should not have that feel going into it.

WWE walks the fine line of having to produce championship matches on pay-per-view every month and present the idea that the title may change hands. It is difficult to justify having Orton defend the title against a name not as prestigious as Batista, but at the same time, it is difficult to justify throwing out the Orton vs. Batista match right now.

I have been conditioned to recognize when feuds are beginning and when they are ending. I would think most fans in my age group are knowledgeable of this as well. I would not be surprised to see Batista vs. Orton at the next three pay-per-views. Of course, they could trade the title back and forth, but I would hope not. Thus, we will be subjected to a non-finish or a fluky win for Orton, causing the need for a rematch. I guess the question remains: if we know a rematch is coming, why should we pay to see the first encounter?