|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jan 9, 2011 15:47:12 GMT -5
Yes! This could be good. Wade just needs a convincing finisher. Again how is toting someone over your shoulder, heaving them over, then slamming them into the mat not a convincing finisher? You notice you just described the AA? And nobody complains about that looking weak. At least not anymore.
|
|
Remix
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 384
|
Post by Remix on Jan 9, 2011 16:00:24 GMT -5
Taker's old school. He knows that his streak is worthless when he's retired. I'm not saying he'll put Barrett over at 'Mania but it's not out of the question. After all, he's a veterain of the territories where you were expected to leave a company on your back so that somebody still there can benefit from it. The streak isn't worthless when he's retired. The WWE could make some serious bank on a 20-0 DVD, which I still believe is what they're going for now. Aren't most of his 'Mania matches already out on DVD already? And besides, what's the sales of one DVD compared to the money that can be made by establishing Barrett as a top star for a Decade or more. Yes there are. However, when you're on your way out of a company there is litterally no reason not to lose in your last match. Look at the results of the final matches of The Rock, Lita, Flair, HBK and Jericho (both times) and you'll see that they all left WWE on their backs. Some things never change and one of those things is that the best way to establish a star is still to let him beat you. At the end of the day 'Taker's WM streak is nothing more than a title with 20 years of history and like all titles, it's going to be lost eventually. And how many more years did it take Hardy to become a Main Eventer? Very true, but Foley's situation is not like Barrett's. Mick got over based on his insane stunts and stayed over because of his charm and charisma. Wade can't get over that way because A) he's getting over in a different way already and B) the chances of him taking any death defying stunts are rediculously low. It worked for Khali, the man's a former WHC and is perrenially over in america and even more so in India (which is why he's still employed). I'll give you Kozlov There's nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't help anybody but 'Taker. The guy who won't exactly be needing his legacy when he's not The Undertaker any more and is only Mark Callaway. At the end of the day, I feel that more money would be made by making a star that can make money for a decade by pinning 'Taker at Wrestlemania than can be made from a 20-0 DVD which contains mostly recycled footage.
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jan 9, 2011 16:50:40 GMT -5
The Streak should never be broken.
The other ___ matches become completely irrelevant if there is a 1 in the other column.
|
|
Remix
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 384
|
Post by Remix on Jan 9, 2011 17:20:20 GMT -5
The Streak should never be broken. The other ___ matches become completely irrelevant if there is a 1 in the other column. Because The Undertaker will TOTALLY need those matches to remain relavent when he's done with wrestling. Jesus Christ, Taker's streak is no different to Goldburg's. It's got to end sometime, and it should be ended by someone who'd benefit from it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2011 17:21:38 GMT -5
The Streak should never be broken. The other ___ matches become completely irrelevant if there is a 1 in the other column. Because The Undertaker will TOTALLY need those matches to remain relavent when he's done with wrestling. Jesus Christ, Taker's streak is no different to Goldburg's. It's got to end sometime, and it should be ended by someone who'd benefit from it. Like Kevin Nash!
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jan 9, 2011 17:31:08 GMT -5
If Wade ended the streak, I would cry tears of joy.
|
|
Remix
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 384
|
Post by Remix on Jan 9, 2011 17:34:51 GMT -5
Because The Undertaker will TOTALLY need those matches to remain relavent when he's done with wrestling. Jesus Christ, Taker's streak is no different to Goldburg's. It's got to end sometime, and it should be ended by someone who'd benefit from it. Like Kevin Nash! Pay attention to the part where I said "someone who'd benefit from it" Nash wouldn't have benefitted from it because he's already a made man. If, for example Chris Jericho had ended the streak he'd have become a massive star in WCW, especially if he'd cheated to do so.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Jan 9, 2011 17:44:13 GMT -5
The streak isn't worthless when he's retired. The WWE could make some serious bank on a 20-0 DVD, which I still believe is what they're going for now. That never has nor never will impede sales. There are fans out there who would love to have all of his WM matches in one collection. Plus, how many other collections have come out that are little more than remixed collections of matches that are also already available? Plus, just because they have been previously released on DVD doesn't mean they are currently or easily available. There are a number of problems with that statement. 1)If working for the past 8 months with Cena hasn't put him over as a top star, then one match with the Undertaker isn't going to do him a hell of a lot of good, even if it is a Wrestlemania. Like it or not, some people just don't have enough of the "it" factor to become a top main event star, no matter how much you try to force the issue. 2) This is WWE Creative in 2011. This will not turn into something that Barrett would be able to carry for "a decade or more". It most likely would turn into a 3 month storyline and just end up being forgotten like every other one. This especially holds true because Undertaker is on the tail end of his career and may not be healthy enough to carry out a feud that's long and meaningful enough. 3) You're putting 20 years of work at risk. An undefeated Undertaker still has market value post-retirement in terms of DVD sales and future appearances. That value diminishes if he's 18-1. It just doesn't have the same ring to it. What if Wade gets injured? Pulls a Lesnar? Gets Wellnessed? 20 years of work down the drain for nothing that could have been saved for guaranteed payouts later down the line. And who exactly got elevated as a result of those losses? Jericho got punted by Orton who was already a credible main eventer. HBK lost to Undertaker. 'Nuff said. Flair lost to HBK. Again, 'nuff said. Lita lost to Mickie James, who had already replaced the recently retired Trish as the top diva. The Rock wasn't even the one pinned in his last match. So again, who got elevated? Oh, that's right. Nobody. All the winners were already credible main eventers. Not one case you mentioned involved anybody being elevated. There is not one reason that this statement has to be true, especially when there's more guaranteed money to be made keeping the streak intact than there is potential money sacrificing it to elevate a guy who has yet to prove his ability to get over as a main eventer on his own. 99% of this was due to his own vices. Had Jeff not gone full retard repeatedly, he'd have most likely been a main eventer years earlier. The point is there are other ways to put someone over other than to lose matches to them. Foley is just one example. Again, look at Undertaker/Hardy, which did wonders for Hardy's career even if Hardy himself blew it. More recently, Rey Mysterio helped establish Alberto Del Rio even with Rey's superman booking. Orton helped boost Kofi Kingston, but he ended up being another example of not being ready/not having enough "it". He was hired in the first place because he's one of India's biggest celebrities and the WWE is trying to break into that billion-person market. His win vs. Undertaker had absolutely no effect on his already sky-high popularity there, just like his countless jobbing since then has not negatively impacted it. He's over as a sporadic comedy sideshow act in America. As a credible main eventer, he was crapped on by the fans from day one. The squash win vs. Undertaker did not change this fact. And the only person your suggestion would help is Barrett. So either way, it's still only helping one person. And quite frankly, I'd rather keep the streak intact as a way of saying thank you to a man who has made me countless millions of dollars over two decades and continuing to make money on it in the form of DVD sales and maybe future appearances than to sacrifice it to elevate a guy who couldn't get himself over as a main eventer after 8 months of working with Cena and who has shown no reason to believe he's ready or even able to be a permanent fixture in the main event scene. I will guarantee you that Undertaker vs. a ham sandwich would put more asses in front of the TV for this year's Wrestlemania than there are people willing to pay to see Barrett get his ass kicked this year. Hell, I'll be willing to bet that over his career, Barrett will show not to be a consistent money draw. To me, he just doesn't have that "it" factor, at least not at a main event level.
|
|
|
Post by Snaptastic on Jan 9, 2011 18:33:52 GMT -5
And who exactly got elevated as a result of those losses? Jericho got punted by Orton who was already a credible main eventer. HBK lost to Undertaker. 'Nuff said. Flair lost to HBK. Again, 'nuff said. Lita lost to Mickie James, who had already replaced the recently retired Trish as the top diva. The Rock wasn't even the one pinned in his last match. So again, who got elevated? Oh, that's right. Nobody. All the winners were already credible main eventers. Not one case you mentioned involved anybody being elevated. I agree with all those apart from Rock. The match at WMXX was a one match stint and that was it. I consider him dropping the title to Lesnar at Summerslam 2002 to be more than worthy of the going 'out on your back' idea.
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jan 9, 2011 18:39:51 GMT -5
The Streak should never be broken. The other ___ matches become completely irrelevant if there is a 1 in the other column. Because The Undertaker will TOTALLY need those matches to remain relavent when he's done with wrestling. Jesus Christ, Taker's streak is no different to Goldburg's. It's got to end sometime, and it should be ended by someone who'd benefit from it. It's about them remaining special in the spectre of the WrestleMania spotlight. Blow the streak, and then you just have a collection of good/bad/Shawn Michaels level of awesome WrestleMania matches. Keep it intact, and you have a legacy that made it on to a list of actual sporting streaks. Barrett can beat him at Extreme Rules or something, and then retire him at Summerslam. But there is just no good reason to break the Streak.
|
|
Remix
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 384
|
Post by Remix on Jan 9, 2011 19:18:12 GMT -5
Because The Undertaker will TOTALLY need those matches to remain relavent when he's done with wrestling. Jesus Christ, Taker's streak is no different to Goldburg's. It's got to end sometime, and it should be ended by someone who'd benefit from it. It's about them remaining special in the spectre of the WrestleMania spotlight. Blow the streak, and then you just have a collection of good/bad/Shawn Michaels level of awesome WrestleMania matches. Keep it intact, and you have a legacy that made it on to a list of actual sporting streaks. And when Goldburg lost it was just a collection of squash matches against Jobbers with occasional challenges thrown in on rare occasions? There's no good reason for him keeping it either. If he's gone it benefits nobody except a man who doesn't need it. Losing it is giving Wade Barrett the ultimate rub, which in my estimation is worth more than the legacy of a realtor who hung up the boots.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Jan 9, 2011 19:35:14 GMT -5
I agree with all those apart from Rock. The match at WMXX was a one match stint and that was it. I consider him dropping the title to Lesnar at Summerslam 2002 to be more than worthy of the going 'out on your back' idea. Even then, Lesnar was already an established main eventer, and I doubt you'll find anyone saying that he wouldn't have gotten there without the Rock laying down for him. Further, the Rock wasn't giving anything up laying down for Brock. 'Taker would be giving up something they've been building on for years, something that is a moneymaking draw, and something that once it's gone, you cannot get back. There's no good reason for him keeping it either. If he's gone it benefits nobody except a man who doesn't need it. Losing it is giving Wade Barrett the ultimate rub, which in my estimation is worth more than the legacy of a realtor who hung up the boots. Actually, numerous good reasons have been given for him keeping it. You just refuse to listen to them -- Your entire counterargument has been "There's no good reason for him keeping it" with little backing it up; the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears while screaming "lalalalalalalalala i can't hear you lalalalalalalalalala". This argument comes up all the time, and the same arguments are made every single time. Most of the time, the ones who are against the streak remaining intact argue simply because they just want to see the Undertaker lose.
|
|
|
Post by crimsonwolf on Jan 9, 2011 19:54:18 GMT -5
Aren't most of his 'Mania matches already out on DVD already? And besides, what's the sales of one DVD compared to the money that can be made by establishing Barrett as a top star for a Decade or more. There is no guarantee that Barrett will stand the test of time. Taker's legacy is and will always be important to the industry.
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jan 9, 2011 20:09:27 GMT -5
It's about them remaining special in the spectre of the WrestleMania spotlight. Blow the streak, and then you just have a collection of good/bad/Shawn Michaels level of awesome WrestleMania matches. Keep it intact, and you have a legacy that made it on to a list of actual sporting streaks. And when Goldburg lost it was just a collection of squash matches against Jobbers with occasional challenges thrown in on rare occasions? There's no good reason for him keeping it either. If he's gone it benefits nobody except a man who doesn't need it. Losing it is giving Wade Barrett the ultimate rub, which in my estimation is worth more than the legacy of a realtor who hung up the boots. Yeah, giving him a huge rub. Except what if things dont work out? Your entire argument is just "I want the streak broken". Barrett can take a significant rub from having a close match with Undertaker and still losing. His match at Hell in a Cell against Cena did wonders for his credibility. He kicked out of the freaking AA. Who does that? And how do you explain that the WWE's best in ring performer of all time couldnt beat the Undertaker at WrestleMania in 2 attempts, but a guy who has been there for a year can? Barrett will be a star, but not at the expense of the streak. The Streak itself has contributed to some great moments. Shawn Michaels kicking out of the Tombstone at WM 25 wouldnt have been half as good if the Undertaker had a loss. The eternal tease of a guy being on the verge of ending the streak is worth more than just giving it to someone. I'm a big Wade Barrett fan, but he just does not need to beat Taker at WrestleMania.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 9, 2011 20:47:20 GMT -5
With the way this decade yo yo books everyone, no one would get a rub from breaking the streak that would last more than a couple of months anyway.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Jan 9, 2011 20:48:40 GMT -5
Hey I'm all for it!
|
|
slashandburn
Team Rocket
Look Vegeta! A pokemon...I'm gonna catch it...
Posts: 913
|
Post by slashandburn on Jan 9, 2011 20:49:57 GMT -5
Hope that torch doesn't get blown out by the winds of change.
|
|
Remix
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 384
|
Post by Remix on Jan 9, 2011 20:53:49 GMT -5
And when Goldburg lost it was just a collection of squash matches against Jobbers with occasional challenges thrown in on rare occasions? There's no good reason for him keeping it either. If he's gone it benefits nobody except a man who doesn't need it. Losing it is giving Wade Barrett the ultimate rub, which in my estimation is worth more than the legacy of a realtor who hung up the boots. What if your car breaks down? What if you get struck by lightning? what if there's an earthquake? Everything you do has a risk attatched and ending 'Taker's streak is a risk well worth taking. The potential gains (Wade Barrett becoming a megastar) well outweigh the risks (tarnishing the legacy of a cripple on his way out of the company). I agree. Hell, if I'd been the booker I'd have had Wade lose that match after kicking out of the AA. But this isn't like that. Cena putting over Barrett in that context isn't like 'Taker passing the torch. 'Taker is not long for this buisness. He's old, broken and battered. Losing at 'Mania could be his final gift to WWE. The legend of the streak dies along with his career, but it turns Wade Barrett from the man who thrice fell to Randy Orton to the man who did the impossible. The man who ended the longest streak in Pro Wrestling history. Shawn's old and has got a broken back. Barrett's young, fit and the only man who can claim to be a better pure striker than 'Taker. Especially if he goes all CM Punk on 'Taker (ripping apart the myth and focussing on the mortality of the Deadman) and WWE in general makes it seem like Wade's biggest advantage is his youth. to draw a paralell in this, the Alpha Male of a pride of lions may spend years defeating all his challengers, but eventually he will grow old and another young lion will defeat him. This is what would be happening to 'Taker. The past is history, something that 'Taker's streak will become the second he ends his career. Ending the streak means that A) Wade Barrett's legacy (which will be good for another decade, barring injuries) has a kickstart B) the Streak benefits someone (what good's being undefeated going to be for someone selling houses for a living) and C) ensures that it will be spoken about for longer (announcers will use it as a talking point in Barrett matches for years to come) wheras if it stays in tact it'll be bought up when 'Taker is. Which would be rarely. How often are legends mentioned on WWE TV when they don't appear any more? And 'Taker doesn't need to take his streak to the grave. Keeping it helps nobody wheras ending it benefits more people and actually preserves its legacy because Barrett, or whoever does end it will be known throughout the rest of his career as the man who pinned the Undertaker at Wrestlemania.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Jan 9, 2011 21:39:46 GMT -5
What if your car breaks down? What if you get struck by lightning? what if there's an earthquake? Everything you do has a risk attatched and ending 'Taker's streak is a risk well worth taking. The potential gains (Wade Barrett becoming a megastar) well outweigh the risks (tarnishing the legacy of a cripple on his way out of the company). You keep saying this with no backup even though numerous people have already given numerous reasons why this is simply not true. Again, this statement is also false. The legend of the streak will live on through DVD sales, and will be as much of a fixture of Wrestlemania history as Hogan/Andre, Savage/Steamboat, Hogan/Warrior, Hogan/Rock, etc. Most of Shawn's classic matches have been after his back surgery. It's been years since the WWE has made even a passing reference to it in kayfabe. This statement is the most ridiculous statement I think I have ever read. A man who is 1-X in PPV main events and just lost a 6-1 feud vs Cena is a better striker than the man who is 18-0 and has been around for 20 years? That doesn't even pass the laugh test. They did this with Orton. Didn't work then either. See above. This statement is false. Or the more likely result -- he will be a career midcarder and the streak will be sacrificed to jumpstart a career that wasn't meant to be. Again, he doesn't have enough "it" to be a main eventer. Some guys just....don't. He's one of them. The streak benefits every up-and-comer who can use "I'm going to be the next Undertaker and stay undefeated at Wrestlemania!" in a promo whenever they win their first Wrestlemania match. No, it'll be brought up in barrett matches for about 2 months. Then the ADHD kids that we call WWE creative will drop it entirely when they have Barrett feuding with Alberto Del Rio over a pretzel. Legendary Wrestlemania moments like Hogan/Andre are brought up all the time, especially as we get closer to Wrestlemania. I expect this to be no different. And we've already repeatedly told you why keeping the streak intact helps far more people and is better for Taker, the WWE, the 18 (and counting) people who have helped build it up, and the future stars. Your entire argument against it is "I want to see him lose." Yet again, I and others in this thread have repeatedly said why all of this is false.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 9, 2011 22:21:11 GMT -5
You're going in circles guys. By all means continue if you want, but it doesn't look like either of ya is budging.
|
|