|
Post by angryfan on Dec 28, 2009 13:46:59 GMT -5
I don't see why people think losing would cause Taker to be remembered only for one loss rather than the streak. Goldberg had a streak and lost, and he's still remembered for his streak; Taker would be, too. Exactly. I honestly have a serious issue with Undertaker's character and his winning streak. Why should he be the only veteran exempt from putting over a younger talent on his way out the door? That's pretty much the rule in pro wrestling, and most veterans who refuse usually take a bunch of flack for it. I just don't get why the same shouldn't be expected of Undertaker. Agree with the sentiment, but looking at track record and how WWE books, it wouldnt' happen that way anyway. They could've used Flair's retirement match to solidify a main event star or brought someone to that level of superstardom. Instead, we got a very good match that led to nothing that could make money in the future. Michales/Taker last year was the same deal. Put someone in there with long term potential, and you've got someone who just went a good long time with the Dead Man and was made to look great. Instead, it was the match for the sake of the match and no future earnings potential. Rematch might serve to make money on another one shot, but looking down the road there's no way to build on it. If you must have Taker lose for the sake of elevating someone, then you have to make sure that it's someoen who the company has faith in, and who is absolutely red hot having been built to the point where the fans will buy into the character completely. That way, they take the win and they keep building, they don't just show up the next Monday and begin anew or do something random. This is why Cena shouldn't be the one to beat Taker. He wins, fine he's now beaten everyone, congratulations. Now what? The price of Cena beingpushed to the moon as he has been, and the thin rosters to boot, is that should he beat Taker at Mania, there's not much else he can do to keep that momentum. Who do you have him feud with after that that isn't something we've seen five times already? Take, just for an example, Kofi. Build him to a match with Taker at Mania, have them go all out, and in the end, the kid goes over. Then the announcers play off of that, leading into feuds we've never seen. Kofi/Cena, Kofi/Trips, Kofi/Micheals. All fresh, all knew, and for each there's the contrast of "yeah he's an underdog, but he did what no one else could, what's going to happen?"
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,286
|
Post by The Ichi on Dec 28, 2009 15:31:56 GMT -5
Honestly, where would the logic be in ending the streak at this point? They've spent years building it up, why destroy it now? And to a babyface no less? Sounds completely pointless.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Dec 28, 2009 16:18:33 GMT -5
Exactly. I honestly have a serious issue with Undertaker's character and his winning streak. Why should he be the only veteran exempt from putting over a younger talent on his way out the door? Because this isn't 1987 any more. There are plenty of ways to build up new stars that don't require the established stars to lay down on their way out. Because you kill off something you've taken 19 years to build up in order to further an angle that'll last for about 3 weeks tops, and isn't even guaranteed to have the effect you want it to have. Because it would be a nice way of saying "Thank You" to a man who stuck with the company through the worst of times, even when WCW started flashing the big dollar signs around. Do you have any idea how many people Undertaker has put over in his career? Kane. Jeff Hardy. Mick Foley. Randy Orton. Khali. Edge. John Cena. The list goes on and on. The above is just the short list of people who either are or were main eventers who got to their spot on the card thanks at least in part to the Undertaker. Putting someone over doesn't necessarily require that you lose to them. Look at Taker/Hardy. Most people will agree that Undertaker put Hardy over HUGE in that ladder match, even though Taker was the one that won. Undertaker's HIAC match with Foley is one of the reasons Foley is so legendary today, and Undertaker won that one too. Many agree Edge stepped up his game as well when feuding with him, even though Edge also came up on the short end. Just because it's "Tradition" doesn't mean it's the right thing to do any more. IMO, you don't throw away something you've spent 19 years working on in order to keep up with a "tradition" that has long since outlived its usefulness anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Jackson "The Cool" Carter on Dec 28, 2009 16:19:46 GMT -5
And as for the "Why shouldn't Taker job on his way out" thing, who says his last match is at WrestleMania. He could win his final WM and retire later into the year, like at SummerSlam or appropriately enough Survivor Series.
Keep the streak alive, put someone over one the way out on a different PPV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2009 16:36:19 GMT -5
I don't think the streak should ever end. However, with Edge having fallen victim to it, the next best choice to end it if it must end is Cena.
Note that if they do Cena / Taker, I fully expect and hope for Taker to win.
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Dec 28, 2009 16:38:07 GMT -5
Nope. He doesn't
|
|
r.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,458
|
Post by r. on Dec 28, 2009 16:54:28 GMT -5
I'll keep it short and simple.
[glow=red,2,300]F*** NO[/glow][/size][/b]
|
|
barley96
Dennis Stamp
This is the biggest Mickie James mark
Posts: 4,170
|
Post by barley96 on Dec 28, 2009 17:10:08 GMT -5
I think the streak has potential to make money after The Undertaker's retirement, such as a DVD of his Wrestlemania matches. As far as somebody beating him, if it has to happen it should not be John Cena. Itshould be somebody who could benefit from it. John Cena is way over with the crowd. Somebody like Jack Swagger deserves to beat The Undertaker so he can be more over with the crowd. There is already a DVD. You think a re-release with 4-5 more matches would sell? I did not know there was a DVD, but I do think that a new DVD could sell if Vince McMahon has the foresight and pulls the current DVD from production, not to mention that I doubt the HBK/Taker match is on the current DVD.
|
|
Krimzon
Crow T. Robot
This guy is the man!
R.I.P. Deadpool
Posts: 43,870
|
Post by Krimzon on Dec 28, 2009 17:15:54 GMT -5
At this point, nobody deserves to beat Taker at Mania. That's his thing. That is THE thing he is mostly remembered for. Why take it away from him? Nobody else can even come close to accomplishing something that legendary. Hogan had Hulkamania. Austin had alcohol & ass kickings. The Rock had his charisma & personality. Triple H has being Vince's son-in-law. Undertaker has "The Streak." You can't take it away without ruining almost everything we've come to love about the character.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 28, 2009 17:34:12 GMT -5
Exactly. I honestly have a serious issue with Undertaker's character and his winning streak. Why should he be the only veteran exempt from putting over a younger talent on his way out the door? Because this isn't 1987 any more. There are plenty of ways to build up new stars that don't require the established stars to lay down on their way out. Because you kill off something you've taken 19 years to build up in order to further an angle that'll last for about 3 weeks tops, and isn't even guaranteed to have the effect you want it to have. Because it would be a nice way of saying "Thank You" to a man who stuck with the company through the worst of times, even when WCW started flashing the big dollar signs around. Do you have any idea how many people Undertaker has put over in his career? Kane. Jeff Hardy. Mick Foley. Randy Orton. Khali. Edge. John Cena. The list goes on and on. The above is just the short list of people who either are or were main eventers who got to their spot on the card thanks at least in part to the Undertaker. Putting someone over doesn't necessarily require that you lose to them. Look at Taker/Hardy. Most people will agree that Undertaker put Hardy over HUGE in that ladder match, even though Taker was the one that won. Undertaker's HIAC match with Foley is one of the reasons Foley is so legendary today, and Undertaker won that one too. Many agree Edge stepped up his game as well when feuding with him, even though Edge also came up on the short end. Just because it's "Tradition" doesn't mean it's the right thing to do any more. IMO, you don't throw away something you've spent 19 years working on in order to keep up with a "tradition" that has long since outlived its usefulness anyway. So your basic argument is that the old farts should never have to pass the torch? I don't see how that should be an outdated ideal. You do bring up the point that Undertaker has put guys over in the past, but none of them have been on a grand scale. Putting guys over at random PPVs like No Mercy and on an episode of SmackDown doesn't do nearly as much as putting a guy over in a featured match at WrestleMania. Look at Edge and Batista. They've each beaten Undertaker several times, but at WrestleMania when it's really counted, they both lost. One victory at WrestleMania means more than three victories at filler shows.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Dec 28, 2009 17:59:01 GMT -5
So your basic argument is that the old farts should never have to pass the torch? I don't see how that should be an outdated ideal. Again, it's not 1987, where there's only one PPV per year and very few ways and opportunities to put new talent over. The "old farts" don't 'owe it' to the new talent to lay down for them on the way out the door. In fact, if anything, the new talent 'owes it' to the veterans to prove that they deserve the rub in the first place. Having the veterans lay down for new talent no longer is the automatic rub it used to be -- in fact, when not done properly, it sometimes ends up doing more harm than good. There's 14 PPVs per year these days, along with two shows per week. What's wrong with Undertaker laying down at Backlash? Summerslam? Survivor Series? That way, he keeps his streak, yet still does what you believe he's "supposed" to do? Undertaker put Hardy over on a random episode of Raw, and most people say it did wonders for his career. His match with Foley was at KOTR -- and is considered one of the biggest matches of both their careers. He jobbed to Khali on some random filler PPV. I don't think any of their rubs were tarnished just because they didn't happen at Wrestlemania. In fact, some may argue it's better that it doesn't. Had Undertaker/Hardy happened at Wrestlemania, it wouldn't have been a big match that put Hardy over. It would have been a filler match that most fans would quickly forget about, and Hardy would have just been another victim of the streak. You're making my case for me here. In both cases, their wins at the "filler" shows helped elevate them to main event status. Their wrestlemania performances helped cement them in the main event scene, despite both losing.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 28, 2009 18:03:17 GMT -5
You're making my case for me here. In both cases, their wins at the "filler" shows helped elevate them to main event status. Their wrestlemania performances helped cement them in the main event scene, despite both losing. Edge's feud with John Cena and Batista's feud with Triple H is what elevated them to main-event status. They'd long been main-eventers before going anywhere near Undertaker in 2007.
|
|
|
Post by Dynamite Kid on Dec 28, 2009 18:55:29 GMT -5
Cena deserves it. But then, so do Shawn, so do Triple H, they've all done a LOT for the company.
Doesn't mean any of them SHOULD, though. If Undertaker wasn't Undertaker and it was someone else's defeated streak, Taker would deserve it too. But it shouldn't end.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Dec 28, 2009 19:02:22 GMT -5
Exactly. I honestly have a serious issue with Undertaker's character and his winning streak. Why should he be the only veteran exempt from putting over a younger talent on his way out the door? Because this isn't 1987 any more. There are plenty of ways to build up new stars that don't require the established stars to lay down on their way out. Because you kill off something you've taken 19 years to build up in order to further an angle that'll last for about 3 weeks tops, and isn't even guaranteed to have the effect you want it to have. Because it would be a nice way of saying "Thank You" to a man who stuck with the company through the worst of times, even when WCW started flashing the big dollar signs around. Do you have any idea how many people Undertaker has put over in his career? Kane. Jeff Hardy. Mick Foley. Randy Orton. Khali. Edge. John Cena. The list goes on and on. The above is just the short list of people who either are or were main eventers who got to their spot on the card thanks at least in part to the Undertaker. Putting someone over doesn't necessarily require that you lose to them. Look at Taker/Hardy. Most people will agree that Undertaker put Hardy over HUGE in that ladder match, even though Taker was the one that won. Undertaker's HIAC match with Foley is one of the reasons Foley is so legendary today, and Undertaker won that one too. Many agree Edge stepped up his game as well when feuding with him, even though Edge also came up on the short end. Just because it's "Tradition" doesn't mean it's the right thing to do any more. IMO, you don't throw away something you've spent 19 years working on in order to keep up with a "tradition" that has long since outlived its usefulness anyway. The "tradition" is the only way the cycle of wrestling survives. The "tradition" is the reason Undertaker got over in the early 90s. Its the reason Mark Calaway isnt barely remembered as Dan Spivey's partner. Building it up for 19 years is ever the more reason to have a major payoff. There should be payoffs to every storyline in wrestling, or else why are you investing in the product emotionally? Taker can retire at 19-0, and when that is gone, the streak is gone and it cant benefit the product anymore. If he jobs to Cena clean, Cena can take that heat and create new stars with the heat and become the money heel the company hasnt had in a decade.
|
|
|
Post by diegorivera on Dec 28, 2009 20:02:16 GMT -5
The answer is simple: If the WWE can magically shake this yearlong slump of bad writing, uninteresting angles, poorly written performers, lame comedy and misfired pushes and put out a product that is good, and I mean really good; better than the mid 80s, better than the late 90s, better than it's ever been, then yes, end the streak. Doesn't really even matter who you have do it. Whether an up-and-comer like McIntyre, Swagger or Sheamus or an established hand like Cena, Michaels or Punk. If the writing's good enough, if you could involve the people, truly keep them at the edge of their seats and wanting more, no matter what happens, then the streak can be ended.
Obviously, the WWE is not in such a position. AT ALL. Even if things get better in 2k10, they won't get better enough for anyone to benefit from ending the streak, nor could it ever happen in time for Wrestlemania baring an extreme miracle. In this case, let the streak continue. Have Taker beat Cena or Sheamus at Mania to keep the streak alive then have either beat Taker at Survivor Series to get the rub and have Taker go out on his back at the event he debuted at. Even if things continue sliding down hill, that's a reasonable enough way to end Undertaker's career with his biggest high light intact and not sacrificed to a WWE that needs to reevaluate it's product, (or at least Raw.)
Also... 1. Yes, we remember Goldberg's streak. But let's not pretend we don't remember how it ended or how bad the decision was to end it at that time. Discussions on it still pop up in the "(w)rest of Wrestling," section from time-to-time. 2. Bret on his best day has nothing on Cena as a draw outside of Canada and a handful of European markets WWE live shows only go to when Vince feels he needs a large payday.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Dec 28, 2009 20:53:35 GMT -5
The "tradition" is the only way the cycle of wrestling survives. Wrestling survives by building up new stars. Jeff Hardy wasn't built up by having the "old timers" lay down for him. Neither was CM Punk. Or Kofi Kingston. Or John Morrison. Or the Miz. All of these guys and more are being or have been built up without following the "tradition" that some people seem to hold so dear. This isn't the early 90's any more. I always see everyone on this board (rightfully) say that Vince has to let go of the "old way" of doing things and get with the times. The same thing applies here. Some "traditions" are no longer necessary any more. And all this time, I thought it was because he was talented enough to take what should have been a pure wrestlecrap gimmick and turn it into a licence to print money. And do you truly trust the WWE to produce the "major payoff" that an angle 19 years in the making deserves? You and I both damn well know that it'll be blown off in a matter of weeks, and nobody knows whether or not it'll even get the response it needs to. And what do you do when the storyline fails to get the other guy over, or they turn into the next Lesnar/Lashley/Kennedy? There is a storyline and a payoff every year. The storyline is always a variant of "Can <wrestler> end the streak?" And the payoff has always been the answer -- No. Just because you may not like it, doesn't mean it's not there. Or he can retire at 19-0 and when he's gone, the streak lives on as one of the things that has defined Wrestlemania. If Cena can't do that by now, ending the streak is not going to help him. The WWE has given him all the tools and then some to turn him into this generation's Hulk Hogan. If he can't get himself over after so many other people have laid down for him, after being so repeatedly shoved down everyone's throats, and after all the superman pushes, then the WWE picked the wrong guy to be their torch bearer. The streak shouldn't be sacrificed just so Cena can do something that he should already be able to do on his own anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2009 20:58:59 GMT -5
I don't really see what Cena beating Taker at mania would do for Cena in particular.
He's already the guy.
|
|
Paco
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,145
|
Post by Paco on Dec 28, 2009 21:05:56 GMT -5
People seem to think laying down for someone gives you an immediate rub.
Hurricane beat The Rock. Billy Kidman beat Hulk Hogan. Jay Lethal beat Kurt Angle. I could name others.
Steve Austin NEVER beat Bret Hart. NEVER. Yet that's the feud that made him a main eventer. Good writing makes new stars not just making your top guys job.
HBK and HHH lose more than you think but rarely do the people who beat them end up at their level.
|
|
|
Post by Unaffiliated on Dec 28, 2009 22:18:28 GMT -5
Ending the streak would at least make Undertaker's Wrestlemania matches less predictable.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Dec 28, 2009 22:22:43 GMT -5
People seem to think laying down for someone gives you an immediate rub. Hurricane beat The Rock. Billy Kidman beat Hulk Hogan. Jay Lethal beat Kurt Angle. I could name others. Steve Austin NEVER beat Bret Hart. NEVER. Yet that's the feud that made him a main eventer. Good writing makes new stars not just making your top guys job. HBK and HHH lose more than you think but rarely do the people who beat them end up at their level. Stone Cold was still a midcarder for the majority of a year after WM13. HBK was who put Austin over as the man.
|
|