|
Post by primetime110 on Oct 4, 2009 22:49:07 GMT -5
Only CM Punk could make the internet turn on the friggin' Undertaker. QFT. The IWC turned quickly on Jeff Hardy after winning the title from punk. Once he lost it back, They were wishing Hardy luck and hope he returns soon. I mean, punk had the belt so it was all good. Now this thread. If Taker defeated say, Orton for the title. This thread would not be here. If Taker defeated anyone but punk this thread wouldn't be here. Taker gives the title some legit ME credablity. Me, Being a Edge fan if I went crazy everytime he lost the title I would died of a stroke by now.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Oct 4, 2009 22:52:56 GMT -5
I still love 'Taker, but that match sounded terrible and he does NOT need the belt. The only time he should win a title is at Wrestlemania.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Oct 4, 2009 22:55:55 GMT -5
Only CM Punk could make the internet turn on the friggin' Undertaker. QFT. The IWC turned quickly on Jeff Hardy after winning the title from punk. Once he lost it back, They were wishing Hardy luck and hope he returns soon. I mean, punk had the belt so it was all good. Now this thread. If Taker defeated say, Orton for the title. This thread would not be here. If Taker defeated anyone but punk this thread wouldn't be here. Because I created this thread, let me just say that you are wrong on both counts. I have never liked Jeff Hardy and I know there are others. Stop lumping everyone into the same IWC bandwagon. Secondly, this thread WOULD be here if Taker had beaten Randy Orton because I still would have made it. I don't appreciate you making assumptions that I'm one of those CM Punk fans who acts irrationally because Punk's an IWC golden boy. I simply don't like broken down old farts going over the wrestlers who should be being built up to carry the company into the future.
|
|
Rick Mad
Grimlock
Rick Mad Champion
Posts: 14,613
|
Post by Rick Mad on Oct 4, 2009 22:58:21 GMT -5
Only CM Punk could make the internet turn on the friggin' Undertaker. QFT. The IWC turned quickly on Jeff Hardy after winning the title from punk. Once he lost it back, They were wishing Hardy luck and hope he returns soon. I mean, punk had the belt so it was all good. Now this thread. If Taker defeated say, Orton for the title. This thread would not be here. If Taker defeated anyone but punk this thread wouldn't be here. Taker gives the title some legit ME credablity. Me, Being a Edge fan if I went crazy everytime he lost the title I would died of a stroke by now. When they did the Taker vs Orton feud a few years back (and Orton wasn't as established as he is now) there were a lot of people saying then that Orton should have won more. I don't think there has been any time in recent memory where Taker was universally loved amongst the IWC, especially as a World Champion. EDIT: Jeff Hardy was definitely never loved amongst the IWC either! In fact it seemed to me he was almost always basically disliked for being sloppy.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Oct 4, 2009 23:11:53 GMT -5
I have never liked The Undertaker. I've said this a few times, but I'm not the sort to harp on it at every opportunity. But this thread was created, so here I am. The Undertaker character has always been corny to me. I understand he's part of the "over-the-top entertainment" aspect of the show, but...I just never found the long entrances, the druids, the lightning, the droning undead promos, any of that entertaining. Paul Bearer was kinda fun, but that's about it. And his ringwork has never appealed to me, either. Yeah he's a big man, but they parlayed this character I didn't like into an opportunity for a guy to move slowly for over 20 years. Yeah, he occasionally pulls out something impressive (like that dive at Mania), but for the most part its been take some abuse, sit up, walk around slowly, chokeslam, tombstone. I thought "Underbiker" was a vast improvement, but that evolution of the character was short-lived, and we're back to the corny schtick, only now Taker walks even slower, because he's old. I'm not gonna pretend I know jack about backstage politics, and I didn't watch the PPV (though I do enjoy the hell out of Punk, and was kinda miffed that he lost). I just wanted to take this opportunity to vent about a character that I thought was sucky even when I was 10 years old. So thanks for this opportunity, OP.
|
|
|
Post by S-Chrome on Oct 4, 2009 23:14:53 GMT -5
I would contend that if Punk won in 10:40, there'd be no complaints.
Also, it's a Hell in a Cell match, how many of those have Undertaker lost? One, and that was to put over Brock Lesnar, and Lesnar was better than Punk is. Flat out.
|
|
CM Dazz
King Koopa
Chuck
Posts: 10,475
|
Post by CM Dazz on Oct 4, 2009 23:16:35 GMT -5
Didn't see the match or read the thread, but... I DO like Taker, I just don't see why in the world they gave him the title NOW. First the timing doesn't seem right. Yes the HIAC is supposed to be "his match", but if that's the case, why start the show off with it. It would have helped Punk SO much more with back to back PPV wins over him. I expect this to be a short run with the strap for UT.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,162
Member is Online
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Oct 4, 2009 23:21:10 GMT -5
I would contend that if Punk won in 10:40, there'd be no complaints. Also, it's a Hell in a Cell match, how many of those have Undertaker lost? One, and that was to put over Brock Lesnar, and Lesnar was better than Punk is. Flat out. I think there'd be complaints. "Come on, Taker's OLD! And his hip is broken down! A young guy like Punk, the guy that needs to be THE GUY, he should be able to beat him in 8 minutes or less! It makes him look bad to have to struggle with someone who isn't even 100%!"
|
|
|
Post by primetime110 on Oct 4, 2009 23:27:49 GMT -5
When punk loses the title most of the board has a meltdown. When he wins it back, Its a love fest.
Jeff Hardy was well liked on here. When he won the title for the 1st time the board reacted very well to it. When he defeated punk you would have thought he had went michael vick on puppies.
If Hardy wouldn't have left I think he would still e champ. Now, Is Bats turns heel soon, Thats bad news for punk.
|
|
|
Post by Bravo Echo November on Oct 4, 2009 23:30:51 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, I am a mark for Undertaker, but I'm not impressed at the fact that his body is so broken down right now that WWE would put the title on him knowing he can't go for a long period. 10:40 in the opening match, inside a Hell in a Cell, with a guy who defeated Jeff Hardy in a god-dang TLC match. Booking is the enemy here, not Taker.
Overall the entire PPV sucked. Every Cell match was uneventful despite the title changes. And even they weren't handled the best way (I mean c'mon, why have Cena hold the WWE Championship for 3 weeks when you could've had a great lengthy Orton title reign). The TV-PG rule toned down the violence so bad that they were limited to a few weapon shots, and no blood, seriously what was WWE thinking in making a PPV centered around a match that is meant to have pure carnage and harsh brutality while trying to appeal to little children?
I had hope for this PPV, Edge Vs. Taker HIAC last year did prove that a Cell match can be done within the TV-PG limits, but they really dropped the ball here. Overall the only things accomplished with this PPV:
*Weakened the reputation and credibility of a Hell in a Cell match. *Hurting the World title's credibility (now 18 combined title changes this year alone).
**Rant Over**
|
|
|
Post by Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story on Oct 4, 2009 23:49:58 GMT -5
Taker's getting old - this much is true, however, I don't think it hurts Punk too badly to have lost to the guy. I mean, whether you like him or not, he's been booked as a legend and the fans have accepted him as such. Let's think about it - who else on Smackdown is there to challenge Taker for the gold? Punk/Taker is going to happen again, probably at Survivor Series. I wouldn't be shocked if Punk took the title back there, while Taker went to rest again until Mania 26 - when we'd likely see his last match.
He WAS noticeably slower tonight. He had some sort of wrap on his back between the top and bottom of his singlet, and he had a hard time walking. Punk took a lot of the bigger bumps in the match.
|
|
|
Post by Topher is Human on Oct 4, 2009 23:50:52 GMT -5
I've always been a Taker fan, always will be. But his body is broken down and he's not in any shape to be winning World Titles. Hell that limp he had was caused by his own leg drop!
|
|
jdsnelson
Don Corleone
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Posts: 1,714
|
Post by jdsnelson on Oct 4, 2009 23:55:15 GMT -5
I would contend that if Punk won in 10:40, there'd be no complaints. Also, it's a Hell in a Cell match, how many of those have Undertaker lost? One, and that was to put over Brock Lesnar, and Lesnar was better than Punk is. Flat out. Actually I believe Taker is 5-4-1 in HIAC matches. He beat Mankind, Boss Man, Orton, Edge and now Punk. But he's lost to Michaels, Angle, Lesnar and Batista. I don't have a problem with Undertaker beating Punk. As a matter of fact, I was hoping Taker would come out on top when this feud started. But the way it happened just made Punk look so bad (to me). I was okay with Breaking Point because it helped Punk look like more of a heel and it continued the feud. But tonight Taker beat Punk with ease yet again and it was the worst Cell match of the night, which is saying something. This is my opinion of course but I think the best Cell match of the night was only the 3rd best match of the night (maybe even fourth). I have enjoyed every WWE PPV I've watched since Summerslam 2008, which has been every WWE PPV, but this one left a bad taste in my mouth. I really enjoyed the Tag title match and though the IC title match was good. The US title match was also good stuff to me and the main event was fine. But back to this match. I just wish it would've gone a little longer I guess. Maybe let Punk get a little bit more offense before Taker gets the win or something. But it's all good. I'll hold out to see what they do next for Bragging Rights. I was hoping for Punk/Cena. When Taker won, I thought Taker/Cena would be alright. I wouldn't really be interested in seeing Taker/Orton yet again. But again I'll just wait and see what happens next.
|
|
Johnny B. Decent
Patti Mayonnaise
Had one once
Everybody's Favorite Arizonian.
Posts: 31,076
|
Post by Johnny B. Decent on Oct 4, 2009 23:59:08 GMT -5
Now, before I start, I've been a big fan of the Undertaker since childhood, and I'm not a huge...................Punkhead (Term for his fans?), but even then, yeah I can not say that this was a smooth move at all. He looked bad in there.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Oct 5, 2009 0:02:43 GMT -5
As for Taker...I don't understand how people are saying he's all of a sudden terrible in the ring when people were praising him and Michaels at WrestleMania? A complete hip replacement, several months off and, 35 extra lbs will alter your work a bit. And it makes me mad that for whatever reason they don't let Michaels near the belt anymore. He deserves a reign more than Taker at this point and can put on much better matches, IMO, and he wrestles and works in a way that gets people over more than feuding with Taker does. He is turning down runs with the belt because he either doesn't want to be on Smackdown or doesn't feel he needs the belt.
|
|
|
Post by ♥ Bunnyslinger ♥ on Oct 5, 2009 0:04:17 GMT -5
His character is stale as shit, but then again, so are alot of other guys in the 'E. But yeah, he's not looking too good.
|
|
|
Post by VengeanceGOD on Oct 5, 2009 0:04:51 GMT -5
Only CM Punk could make the internet turn on the friggin' Undertaker. QFT. The IWC turned quickly on Jeff Hardy after winning the title from punk. Once he lost it back, They were wishing Hardy luck and hope he returns soon. I mean, punk had the belt so it was all good. Now this thread. If Taker defeated say, Orton for the title. This thread would not be here. If Taker defeated anyone but punk this thread wouldn't be here. Taker gives the title some legit ME credablity. Me, Being a Edge fan if I went crazy everytime he lost the title I would died of a stroke by now. Agreed and disagreed - I don't think this thread would exist if he had beaten anyone but Punk...but I also don't think he should have won the belt. He's not able to go unless it's a big show like Wrestlemania - Taker should be a special attraction, not a champion. Punk gives the belt more than enough ME cred.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,524
|
Post by bob on Oct 5, 2009 0:06:42 GMT -5
Taker is one of my all time favorites. He is in my top ten for sure and maybe even top 5. Yet, he is now suffering from old man syndrome. He just cant go like he used to. I would much rather he hang it up after all he has given us, then continue to limp through another run. Wrestlemania 25 should have been the end. this
|
|
Fiddleford H. McGucket
El Dandy
My Mind's been gone for 30-odd years! Can't Break what's already broken!
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by Fiddleford H. McGucket on Oct 5, 2009 0:47:44 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again.....Taker is one of the few that are above the titles. Putting him in the title picture is almost demeaning to him.
That said....Get the belt off of him as quickly as possible and get him off of TV until he's healthy enough for a legitimate "Farewell" run and send him off in a dignified manner.
|
|
Schemer
Don Corleone
Total class wit' a capital K!
Posts: 1,950
|
Post by Schemer on Oct 5, 2009 0:55:44 GMT -5
Taker doesn't need the title... He's getting older... It would be gracious of him to put over a guy like Punk and give him a rub, especially since he's supposedly all about protecting the business and backstage respect and all that bullsh*t.
|
|