|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Apr 4, 2008 13:09:18 GMT -5
Something tells me it's the WWE itself that has the biggest interest in having Undertaker win all of his WM matches.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Apr 4, 2008 13:12:54 GMT -5
Can someone answer me a question?Why in the smurf does everything have to be about "giving a new guy a rub" or "putting a new guy over"? Seriously, what the smurf? Hidden agendas. People are more in favor of a young, up and coming guy with teh workratez, going over the whole roster to have credibility. As far as they're concerned, the business is ALL about putting over younger talent, and not about being entertaining at all. WWEROH.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Apr 4, 2008 13:52:27 GMT -5
Not having a 24 months title reign or not being a 72 times World Champion doesn't mean he can't be a huge mark for himself... And in the wrestling business, you have to be a huge mark for yourself if you intend to get ahead. Many top wrestlers have said that before. I don't see a problem with this. True. But very few top wrestlers didn't get shit for their big egos... And who will remember that squash match in, say, 5 years? That's the exact "meaningless loss" I was referring to. We'll see where Edge goes from here. And who's been main eventing for SmackDown at Mania the last two years? Foley? And then Maven (and other wrestlers) got beaten like a punchbag by a very angry Undertaker. That was buildup for a feud. Maven was just instrumental. Lanny Poffo got a count-out win on Hogan. Would you say Hulk put Lanny over? With 25256 run-ins and interferences Midcard? maybe until WMIX... After that it was either a semi-main event, or at least an highly promoted match, especially when they began to run with the streak. It may as well be. But that doesn't change the facty he has gotten away with behaviours that would have other superstars killed by Newzsitez and fans. Duggan has 30 years experience... Top money draw? If Bret&Shawn are often called "horrible draws", i'd say Undertaker should be with them. As I've already said... it's not about how many reigns and how many days. Even without the belt, he was always there, always looking strong, always glooming over the main event. Kudos for making a WrestleCrap gimmick last 15 years while giving 5 star matches. But the streak is getting ridiculous now IMO. Triple H's infamous 11 title reigns are peanuts if compared with the 16-0 and counting.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Apr 4, 2008 14:45:55 GMT -5
And in the wrestling business, you have to be a huge mark for yourself if you intend to get ahead. Many top wrestlers have said that before. I don't see a problem with this. True. But very few top wrestlers didn't get crap for their big egos... As far as I know, undertaker has never been known for having a "big ego". He's one of the most senior wrestlers in the locker room, and is considered the locker room leader. He takes his role seriously and acts accordingly. You've said Undertaker has never been booked to look weak. I was simply giving you several examples of where you're wrong. That being said.....Undertaker has made both himself and Vince millions of dollars by playing a character that is booked to be near-invincible. You don't have to like it, but the fact remains that that gimmick is a proven money maker. So of course he's going to continue to be booked to look as near-invincible as possible. Why? Because it makes money. Why the hell would they change a formula that has been making them millions of dollars a year and is still more over with the fans than 90% of the stuff they've been pumping out recently? See above. With the Undertaker character, they have to find a delicate balance between keeping his character looking as strong as possible and putting the other guy over. They've done a pretty damn good job, IMO, of doing that, as Undertaker has put over everybody from Kane to Jeff Hardy to Maven without looking weak. Want to know what happens when you take a character like Undertaker's and don't do enough to continue making him look strong? You get Kane. Oh really....... Last I checked, Undertaker/Bundy didn't main-event or semi-main-event WMXI. His match at WM XV was a gimmick match against a past-his-prime and low-card Big Boss Man. And of course you've got the match against Big Show and A-Train (who never really got past low-card/Heat level for any length of time) at WM XIX. And of course there was the filler match with Mark Henry at WM XXII. None of those were anywhere near the main event, nor were they heavily promoted. And they've only started really promoting "the streak" over the past 5 years or so, give or take. Since then it's become a huge money draw. So why wouldn't they promote it from here to hell and back? It puts asses in the seats. It brings in wrestlemania buys. It gets people talking about whether or not this will be the year he loses. It sells T-Shirts. In other words.......IT MAKES MONEY. If I were Vince, I'd be promoting it too. And it's another reason I would never end it. Because once you end it, it stops drawing money. I don't like that any more than you or anybody else does. I believe that all employees should be on equal footing. But this is the real world we live in. Every job I have ever worked in has had employees who were there for a zillion years and had a ton of seniority. Or they're banging the boss on the side. Or they're uncle is the CEO. Or whatever. They get away with things that your average employee would be instantly fired for. The same thing applies here. The Undertaker gets away with stuff that The Highlanders would not. So does HBK. So does HHH. So does JBL. So does Cena. You don't have to like it, but when you're in vince's ear, or you're a proven money draw, or you've got a ton of time in the company, you're going to be able to get away with things that lesser wrestlers would not. Duggan is not a top money draw. Duggan hasn't sold as much merchandise in 30 years as UT has in 30 days. Duggan doesn't put asses in seats. Duggan doesn't have anywhere near the wrestling skills that Undertaker has. Do you have any idea how much UT merchandise sells to kids? Or adults, for that matter? Undertaker is one of the biggest money draws in the business. Bret and Shawn might have more in-ring talent than Undertaker, but Undertaker by far eclipses them in terms of merchandise sales. And so has Cena. And so has HBK. And so has Batista. And so has HHH. Why? BECAUSE THESE GUYS DRAW MONEY. Your money draws do not jerk the curtain. Your money draws do not end up on the losing end of squash matches. Your money draws don't wrestle on Heat or the Free-For-All. They're in the main event storylines and matches and in the title pictures BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY BELONG. Take a look at the Patriots last year. People were complaining that they were "too strong.". They were "running up the score". They were "being unsportsmanlike". All sorts of complaints. People (myself included) thought that they were a shoe-in to win the Superbowl. Then they lost. And everything they did last year became meaningless in the eyes of many football fans. A lot of people believe that going 19-0 became meaningless the second that they lost and went 19-1. Their 2007-2008 season will not be remembered for the 19 wins. It will be remembered for the one loss. The same thing applies here. The minute the undertaker loses at WM, the whole streak becomes....meh. A footnote, much like the pats 07/08 season.
|
|
|
Post by Veladus Jobs To Dead Computers on Apr 4, 2008 15:09:48 GMT -5
Can someone answer me a question?Why in the smurf does everything have to be about "giving a new guy a rub" or "putting a new guy over"? Seriously, what the smurf? Because the IWC wants a change. ALWAYS. It doesn't matter who's on top, they suck and it should be someone else. If the person they want gets the top spot, then that person begins to suck and needs to pass the torch. Yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Apr 4, 2008 15:12:57 GMT -5
NEVAH END.
Or, if it really absolutely MUST end, put over a young new star who needs the rub ie. NOT MVP, Kennedy or CM Punk.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Apr 4, 2008 15:13:51 GMT -5
NEVAH END. Or, if it really absolutely MUST end, put over a young new star who needs the rub ie. NOT MVP, Kennedy or CM Punk. Just curious, why does it always absolutely have to be a young guy that ends the streak, if it were to happen?
|
|
|
Post by A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto) on Apr 4, 2008 15:15:23 GMT -5
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Apr 4, 2008 15:22:35 GMT -5
NEVAH END. Or, if it really absolutely MUST end, put over a young new star who needs the rub ie. NOT MVP, Kennedy or CM Punk. Just curious, why does it always absolutely have to be a young guy that ends the streak, if it were to happen? Because all the "old guys" on the roster fall into one of two categories: "Don't need the rub" and "Don't Deserve the rub".
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Apr 4, 2008 15:24:21 GMT -5
Just curious, why does it always absolutely have to be a young guy that ends the streak, if it were to happen? Because all the "old guys" on the roster fall into one of two categories: "Don't need the rub" and "Don't Deserve the rub". To each his own I guess as frankly I don't care about which young guy should get the rub here and which guy doesn't deserve the rub like most people do.
|
|
Seth Drakin of Monster Crap
Crow T. Robot
Me when David Tepper sells a cow for "magic beans".....AGAIN!!!!
Posts: 43,331
Member is Online
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Apr 4, 2008 15:24:28 GMT -5
I agree with what Taker has said and that was that if it happens, Kane should be the one to do it.
|
|
|
Post by normcoleman on Apr 4, 2008 15:27:29 GMT -5
CM Punk
|
|
The G.O.A.T.
Don Corleone
This post may or may not be credited to Rajah.com
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by The G.O.A.T. on Apr 4, 2008 15:32:13 GMT -5
18-1 just like the patriots.....there I said it
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Apr 4, 2008 15:47:15 GMT -5
I would have definiitely said Cena, but now that he lost at wrestlemania in a rather bottom-feeding way, It'll have to be someone else.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Apr 4, 2008 15:50:31 GMT -5
I said how I would have liked to have seen Taker vs. Cena in a battle of the Undefeated at next year's Mania before Cena got pinned. It would have made them a HUGE amount of money and it would probably be the most anticipated match on that card.
Having said that, the streak shouldn't end, but they should try and spice things up a bit with the fueds. Make it more about the match then the actual streak in question.
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Apr 4, 2008 16:18:00 GMT -5
Alot of people say Kane, but I say that it's too late for kane. Why have it be a guy whonot only lost to him at WM once, but TWICE? I think Undertaker suggested Kane some time before WM20.
|
|
Jtre
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 561
|
Post by Jtre on Apr 4, 2008 16:21:55 GMT -5
From what I have seen in the past, Loki usually makes pretty solid, thought-provoking intelligent sounding points in his posts.
Not in this thread.
To say that he played the locker room leader card to help him stay at the top doesn't make any sense. Sorry, but I don't think you can "play a card" like that if none of your peers resepect you. In turn, you have to earn the respect of your peers it can't be forced.
You criticize him for putting others over while not making himself look weak, but if he didn't would he still be able to put people over?
He put Mick Foley and Kane over in 1996 and 1997, respectively, and then later did the same for Jeff Hardy, Brock Lesnar and the Great Khali. If he had made himself look like a punk in feuds in '95, would he really be able to help legitimately make stars a decade later.
Loki's comment implying that Undertaker putting over Foley was inconsequential because UT, and not Foley, has headlined WM the last two years is silly. Foley chose to retire. To even include that in the conversation would be like negating his putting Hardy and Lesnar over because Hardy fell off afterward due to drug problems and Lesnar decided he wanted to pursue football. The aftermath is not the issue, but rather the fact that he attempted to build them up.
Also, it should be noted that almost everyone, except DDP, comes out of feuds with Undertaker better than they went in. I don't see Edge and Batista falling back to the middle of the pack anytime soon, even though they did lose to him at Wrestlemania. In reality, being involved in a feud with the Undertaker legitimizes most people, regardless of the outcome.
Finding fault with the streak is silly. There aren't many numbers that instantly mean something in the business of pro wrestling. Undertaker's Wrestlemania's streak is one such number.
Many people complain about the lack of respect promoters, specifically Vince McMahon, show titles, history, etc. This is a particular case in which respect is being shown, and it is deserved.
If nothing else, the streak is testament to Undertaker's longevity. Over a decade-and-a-half have passed since his first Wrestlemania win, and the fact that he is still deemed deserving of picking up a high-profile win at the biggest event on the wrestling calendar is noteworthy.
That is not 'Taker's ego that puts him in that position each year, it is the fan's willingness to pay to see him. I was in Detroit for last year's show, and there were many fans there to see him win. About the only complaint I heard from people I talked with was his match not being the main event.
Personally I don't see the streak ending, and there really is no point in ending it. Had Cena not lost this year, a streak vs. streak, title vs. title match at WM 25 would have been tremendous. With that out of the picture, hopefully he will carry it with him into retirement.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Apr 4, 2008 16:45:57 GMT -5
Sorry if this has been mentioned in here already as I scanned over a lot of this so far but, Undertaker shouldn't have to put anyone over at Wrestlemania for two reasons, 1) getting to face him at Wrestlemania is usually a huge thing in its own right and 2) those who do face him at Mania are usually already over, especially since they have started hyping the streak.
Batista and Edge both came out of those losses looking better than they had in a long time and Orton and Henry's careers took back off after facing him at Mania. I guess what I am trying to say is that by the time you are facing Taker at Mania, you don't need to be "put over" by beating him there.
|
|
|
Post by T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens on Apr 4, 2008 17:28:50 GMT -5
2 people voted for Shawn Michaels? Honestly?
|
|
Corporate H
Grimlock
He Buries Them Alive
Posts: 13,829
|
Post by Corporate H on Apr 4, 2008 17:34:37 GMT -5
'Taker said the only guy he'd want to lose to is Kane and that's really the only finish I'd want to see happen.
|
|