Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 1:54:23 GMT -5
*****..... This match completely f***ed up the "Retirement Transfer of Power" that they had going on from Flair to HBK and now Taker. Man, that was horrible. Absolutely painful. The question is was that Roman botching or Taker not giving enough? Look, either way, yes, we needed to end this. Taker couldn't go on forever, no matter how much we wish he could. But this was far and away the wrong choice. Cena should have gotten the call for the honor. twitter.com/davemeltzerwon/status/819963670016819200According to Meltzer in January, Cena didn't get the pick because Vince saw Reigns as a long-term thing rather than short-term as he figured Cena was. Personally, I disagree because honestly Reigns is ridiculously overpowered anyway. There's only 3 people who beat Reigns clean and that's Rollins, Ambrose and Balor last year around a 2-month time span when he got popped. It doesn't help anyone if Reigns is so strong he can't be beaten even if he'll be around longer. In Cena's defense, he's earned the crowd's respect and Cena takes more clean pins than Reigns. I would have preferred if he did it.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Apr 3, 2017 1:57:54 GMT -5
The moment where Taker started to sit-up and then keeled over on his side...that was hard...that's the image that burns with me from the match itself. I think what's also echoing is what Cena meant when he told Miz in that promo a few weeks ago that he wishes he was interacting with The Undertaker. You can just see Taker does not have "it" anymore. I remarked in the thread that even his offense came across as very light, he could not get any lift on the chokeslam, his punches were soft, and the last ride was not landed with impact It seems once they did that spear through the table spot all of the gas Taker had went straight out the window. He stayed a few years too long and it happens to the greats (see Mays in baseball or Rice in football).
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,016
|
Post by chazraps on Apr 3, 2017 1:59:35 GMT -5
Taker having to teach Reigns how to get into Hell's Gate and then Roman still f***ing it up was worse than the Tombstone spot. Yeah, the Tombstone spot you can at least suspend your disbelief and say "in a real fight, if a guy is trying to tombstone you, that actually is how you get out of it." The Hell's Gate thing is tougher to describe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 2:13:09 GMT -5
Absolutely painful. The question is was that Roman botching or Taker not giving enough? Look, either way, yes, we needed to end this. Taker couldn't go on forever, no matter how much we wish he could. But this was far and away the wrong choice. Cena should have gotten the call for the honor. According to Meltzer in January, Cena didn't get the pick because Vince saw Reigns as a long-term thing rather than short-term as he figured Cena was. Personally, I disagree because honestly Reigns is ridiculously overpowered anyway. There's only 3 people who beat Reigns clean and that's Rollins, Ambrose and Balor last year around a 2-month time span when he got popped. It doesn't help anyone if Reigns is so strong he can't be beaten even if he'll be around longer. In Cena's defense, he's earned the crowd's respect and Cena takes more clean pins than Reigns. I would have preferred if he did it. I think doing the job to Reigns is the "right" thing to do. There might be more attractive options on paper, but Undertaker himself doesn't strike me as a guy who's going to go for something like that. For the story being told I think Reigns was the best guy. John Cena/Undertaker could have had a great match without Undertaker having to exert himself as much as he tried for tonight, but if it's just a match to check it off a checklist I don't think that's interesting. Roman's character is polarizing and he's the kind of guy who could shoulder the burden of being the guy who retired the Undertaker. It's easy to go for the bonafide star vs. the bonafide star, but it's more befitting of Undertaker's legacy to end it the way he did than to wrestle Cena or someone of his ilk, which really doesn't benefit anyone when it's over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 2:15:27 GMT -5
Absolutely painful. The question is was that Roman botching or Taker not giving enough? Look, either way, yes, we needed to end this. Taker couldn't go on forever, no matter how much we wish he could. But this was far and away the wrong choice. Cena should have gotten the call for the honor. According to Meltzer in January, Cena didn't get the pick because Vince saw Reigns as a long-term thing rather than short-term as he figured Cena was. Personally, I disagree because honestly Reigns is ridiculously overpowered anyway. There's only 3 people who beat Reigns clean and that's Rollins, Ambrose and Balor last year around a 2-month time span when he got popped. It doesn't help anyone if Reigns is so strong he can't be beaten even if he'll be around longer. In Cena's defense, he's earned the crowd's respect and Cena takes more clean pins than Reigns. I would have preferred if he did it. I could see Cena pleading with Vince so he doesn't have to marry Nikki and Vince is laughing at Cena telling him "You have no chance in hell, gotta put a ring on her!"
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Apr 3, 2017 2:20:46 GMT -5
According to Meltzer in January, Cena didn't get the pick because Vince saw Reigns as a long-term thing rather than short-term as he figured Cena was. Personally, I disagree because honestly Reigns is ridiculously overpowered anyway. There's only 3 people who beat Reigns clean and that's Rollins, Ambrose and Balor last year around a 2-month time span when he got popped. It doesn't help anyone if Reigns is so strong he can't be beaten even if he'll be around longer. In Cena's defense, he's earned the crowd's respect and Cena takes more clean pins than Reigns. I would have preferred if he did it. I think doing the job to Reigns is the "right" thing to do. There might be more attractive options on paper, but Undertaker himself doesn't strike me as a guy who's going to go for something like that. For the story being told I think Reigns was the best guy. John Cena/Undertaker could have had a great match without Undertaker having to exert himself as much as he tried for tonight, but if it's just a match to check it off a checklist I don't think that's interesting. Roman's character is polarizing and he's the kind of guy who could shoulder the burden of being the guy who retired the Undertaker. It's easy to go for the bonafide star vs. the bonafide star, but I think giving the nod to Roman Reigns was the "right" thing to do, and it's more befitting of Undertaker's legacy to end it that way then to wrestle Cena or someone of his ilk that really doesn't benefit anyone when it's over. Taker is old school so I am pretty sure he agreed with Vince when they said you and Roman at Mania for your last match. Taker was leaving on his back no doubt so why not give it to Roman who to his credit keeps taking his lumps and moving on. Sure the counter argument was Cena/Rock was a match between two stars but Roman has a longer shelf life than Taker and adds a major notch in his belt. This is something they can talk about for years for Roman and eventually it can be brought up when they do Cena/Roman
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 2:24:21 GMT -5
According to Meltzer in January, Cena didn't get the pick because Vince saw Reigns as a long-term thing rather than short-term as he figured Cena was. Personally, I disagree because honestly Reigns is ridiculously overpowered anyway. There's only 3 people who beat Reigns clean and that's Rollins, Ambrose and Balor last year around a 2-month time span when he got popped. It doesn't help anyone if Reigns is so strong he can't be beaten even if he'll be around longer. In Cena's defense, he's earned the crowd's respect and Cena takes more clean pins than Reigns. I would have preferred if he did it. I think doing the job to Reigns is the "right" thing to do. There might be more attractive options on paper, but Undertaker himself doesn't strike me as a guy who's going to go for something like that. For the story being told I think Reigns was the best guy. John Cena/Undertaker could have had a great match without Undertaker having to exert himself as much as he tried for tonight, but if it's just a match to check it off a checklist I don't think that's interesting. Roman's character is polarizing and he's the kind of guy who could shoulder the burden of being the guy who retired the Undertaker. It's easy to go for the bonafide star vs. the bonafide star, but it's more befitting of Undertaker's legacy to end it the way he did than to wrestle Cena or someone of his ilk, which really doesn't benefit anyone when it's over. I'm not saying I would have preferred it to be Cena due to how much better the match would be (even though that's a plus) or who's the bigger star, I think that there's higher chances of Cena letting guys go over him clean, higher chances of Cena working with guys and making them look better than it is with Reigns. We've seen guys like Owens and Styles beat Cena clean which was great for them, in Roman's case the only guy who's gone over him and it helped them out has been Balor. Sure, it makes sense for Roman's character to carry the burden, I just don't think Roman's going to be making more new stars as "the guy who beat Undertaker" rather than Cena as "the guy who beat Undertaker" since he's helping more new stars now given his career's winding down. In Roman's case it's different. When guys go against Roman these days we don't really think "well let's see how Roman can help this guy out" it's more like "well let's see what happens", Cena's different, when guys go against Cena it's sorta a boost for them these days. If Cena was the guy to beat Taker, that would just add to the guy's cred more.
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Apr 3, 2017 2:27:22 GMT -5
I don't mind Roman beating Taker per se. It just bothers me that two people have now beaten him at Mania. I really thought it was best that Brock was the only guy to have ever done it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 2:29:22 GMT -5
And Taker officially ends his career at 99 ppv wins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 2:36:36 GMT -5
*****..... This match completely f***ed up the "Retirement Transfer of Power" that they had going on from Flair to HBK and now Taker. Man, that was horrible. Absolutely painful. The question is was that Roman botching or Taker not giving enough? Look, either way, yes, we needed to end this. Taker couldn't go on forever, no matter how much we wish he could. But this was far and away the wrong choice. Cena should have gotten the call for the honor. It's a botch. It's not a matter of strength but a matter of timing. Lifting up a wrestler relies heavily on your opponent jumping and correctly timing the jump to use the momentum rather than raw power. More of a olympic weightlift based on technique and less of a power lift. Undertaker jumped while Roman Reigns was bending down positioning himself. You can see his footwork wasn't ready and Roman Reigns left arm isn't wrapped around Taker when Taker jumps. So he couldn't get a grip plus god knows how slippery and sweaty Taker is. Now the question is was Roman Reigns to slow in getting himself ready or did Taker jump too soon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 2:39:39 GMT -5
I think doing the job to Reigns is the "right" thing to do. There might be more attractive options on paper, but Undertaker himself doesn't strike me as a guy who's going to go for something like that. For the story being told I think Reigns was the best guy. John Cena/Undertaker could have had a great match without Undertaker having to exert himself as much as he tried for tonight, but if it's just a match to check it off a checklist I don't think that's interesting. Roman's character is polarizing and he's the kind of guy who could shoulder the burden of being the guy who retired the Undertaker. It's easy to go for the bonafide star vs. the bonafide star, but it's more befitting of Undertaker's legacy to end it the way he did than to wrestle Cena or someone of his ilk, which really doesn't benefit anyone when it's over. I'm not saying I would have preferred it to be Cena due to how much better the match would be (even though that's a plus) or who's the bigger star, I think that there's higher chances of Cena letting guys go over him clean, higher chances of Cena working with guys and making them look better than it is with Reigns. We've seen guys like Owens and Styles beat Cena clean which was great for them, in Roman's case the only guy who's gone over him and it helped them out has been Balor. Sure, it makes sense for Roman's character to carry the burden, I just don't think Roman's going to be making more new stars as "the guy who beat Undertaker" rather than Cena as "the guy who beat Undertaker" since he's helping more new stars now given his career's winding down. In Roman's case it's different. When guys go against Roman these days we don't really think "well let's see how Roman can help this guy out" it's more like "well let's see what happens", Cena's different, when guys go against Cena it's sorta a boost for them these days. If Cena was the guy to beat Taker, that would just add to the guy's cred more. I don't think you're letting anyone retire Undertaker for anyone's benefit but the guy retiring Undertaker. Retiring Undertaker is a polarizing deal in the first place and Roman Reigns is a polarizing guy, it's win/win for WWE because if people hate him even more now, that's great, they can tell you that that's what they want and roll with it. Cena's on the cusp of beating Ric Flair's title record, he's beaten everyone from Triple H to Shawn Michaels to The Rock, and now he's barely gonna be around. And to me it's just so much better to put it on someone with a future than for someone who's peaked already. Reigns might peter out in time and in the end it might not even be worth it, but I'd rather see them take that chance than to take a lateral move with Cena, who I'm sure if he retired Undertaker, the day afterwards John Cena would still be John Cena, not "the guy who retired the Undertaker."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 2:59:38 GMT -5
I'm not saying I would have preferred it to be Cena due to how much better the match would be (even though that's a plus) or who's the bigger star, I think that there's higher chances of Cena letting guys go over him clean, higher chances of Cena working with guys and making them look better than it is with Reigns. We've seen guys like Owens and Styles beat Cena clean which was great for them, in Roman's case the only guy who's gone over him and it helped them out has been Balor. Sure, it makes sense for Roman's character to carry the burden, I just don't think Roman's going to be making more new stars as "the guy who beat Undertaker" rather than Cena as "the guy who beat Undertaker" since he's helping more new stars now given his career's winding down. In Roman's case it's different. When guys go against Roman these days we don't really think "well let's see how Roman can help this guy out" it's more like "well let's see what happens", Cena's different, when guys go against Cena it's sorta a boost for them these days. If Cena was the guy to beat Taker, that would just add to the guy's cred more. I don't think you're letting anyone retire Undertaker for anyone's benefit but the guy retiring Undertaker. Retiring Undertaker is a polarizing deal in the first place and Roman Reigns is a polarizing guy, it's win/win for WWE because if people hate him even more now, that's great, they can tell you that that's what they want and roll with it. Cena's on the cusp of beating Ric Flair's title record, he's beaten everyone from Triple H to Shawn Michaels to The Rock, and now he's barely gonna be around. And to me it's just so much better to put it on someone with a future than for someone who's peaked already. Reigns might peter out in time and in the end it might not even be worth it, but I'd rather see them take that chance than to take a lateral move with Cena, who I'm sure if he retired Undertaker, the day afterwards John Cena would still be John Cena, not "the guy who retired the Undertaker." In the end it's something we'll have to wait and see considering we don't know how Roman's career will turn out. I will say that Cena will lose to guys clean more than Reigns these days and no one's beaten Reigns clean without controversy involved in real life. If it changes it's good, if not then well who knows. I personally think that big wins (Reigns beating Taker) for example can go a long way in helping other guys. Now if someone beats Reigns they can use that to help propel the other. They can say "Strowman is beat the man who defeated The Undertaker" and it makes Strowman look much more amazing. It's just all about presentation.
|
|
|
Post by slaughterama on Apr 3, 2017 3:03:02 GMT -5
The rub from beating Taker at Mania was beating "The Streak." Whether Brock was the right guy or not, is another argument. Taker had already declined greatly at that point, but he wasn't nearly as bad as what he was last night. That should have been it for Taker there. All that came after that was hanging a loss on Bray that Bray certainly didn't need or deserve, a big spot for Shane where the stipulation ended up meaning nothing, a pointless SmackDown promo, an ugly Rumble performance, and an awful farewell match that left a bad taste in just about everyone's mouth.
And while Taker is certainly old school to the point where he knows you "go out on your back" it isn't written in stone anywhere that you have to do it to a young guy that has a lot of miles left. Michaels "retired" Flair at Mania. Taker retired Michaels at Mania. There comes a burden with being a guy who "retires" a legend. Especially if the crowd is rejecting that guy to begin with. Nobody rejected Michaels or Taker for their wins, because fans felt that they earned that honor, and they got sent out with great matches. Most people will resent that Reigns got it because he seems to be being handed they keys to the kingdom. That he sent a legend like Taker out with a dud of a match will make the resentment that much greater.
Taker did so much for the company that they should have done absolutely everything in their power to make his final go as good as it could have been. I'd argue that really Cena or AJ would have been the best options. Cena earned the right and can recover from any backlash. AJ would have been easier to work with because of his size, ability to bump, and would have done everything in the world to make Taker's final match as good as it could have been. Plus, his promos that he retired Taker in his yard at his show would add so much more to him.
But, Vince has his guys, and it is what it is.
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Apr 3, 2017 3:07:29 GMT -5
I'm totally fine with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 3:14:42 GMT -5
I don't think you're letting anyone retire Undertaker for anyone's benefit but the guy retiring Undertaker. Retiring Undertaker is a polarizing deal in the first place and Roman Reigns is a polarizing guy, it's win/win for WWE because if people hate him even more now, that's great, they can tell you that that's what they want and roll with it. Cena's on the cusp of beating Ric Flair's title record, he's beaten everyone from Triple H to Shawn Michaels to The Rock, and now he's barely gonna be around. And to me it's just so much better to put it on someone with a future than for someone who's peaked already. Reigns might peter out in time and in the end it might not even be worth it, but I'd rather see them take that chance than to take a lateral move with Cena, who I'm sure if he retired Undertaker, the day afterwards John Cena would still be John Cena, not "the guy who retired the Undertaker." In the end it's something we'll have to wait and see considering we don't know how Roman's career will turn out. I will say that Cena will lose to guys clean more than Reigns these days and no one's beaten Reigns clean without controversy involved in real life. If it changes it's good, if not then well who knows. I personally think that big wins (Reigns beating Taker) for example can go a long way in helping other guys. Now if someone beats Reigns they can use that to help propel the other. They can say "Strowman is beat the man who defeated The Undertaker" and it makes Strowman look much more amazing. It's just all about presentation. Yeah I can agree that the follow up is pretty much all that matters from here. The match was lackluster but good followup can mask all its flaws. Not that Cena/Taker can't be satisfying either from a character standpoint, but I just much prefer the idea of Undertaker giving to the youth instead of giving it to a guy who has it all anyways, because that's always been his role. Like Shawn Michaels retiring Ric Flair lead to a great feud with a great short feud with Batista, then an amazing, revitalizing feud with Chris Jericho, so it really just comes down to good creative in the end. Neither is really wrong. I hope they handle Reigns with awareness of his actual situation. I'm begging them not to have Roman Reigns and Undertaker come to an understanding tomorrow before Undertaker rides off into the sunset, don't have Undertaker endorse Reigns. Reigns did what he said he was gonna do and now Undertaker's doneski, let his feud revolve around his bad attitude and the aftermath.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Suntan on Apr 3, 2017 3:14:50 GMT -5
I think anybody talking of one match (which would've been basically fine without the awful looking botches) in any way tarnishing the career or legacy of a guy like The Undertaker, is way off. When people think of Muhammad Ali, who's first thought is him getting bashed around the ring by Trevor Berbick?
In the end, a bonafide great going on a couple of fights too long and getting beat by a younger guy he'd have smoked in his prime is a tale as old as time.
|
|
|
Post by feartear on Apr 3, 2017 3:25:46 GMT -5
*****..... This match completely f***ed up the "Retirement Transfer of Power" that they had going on from Flair to HBK and now Taker. Man, that was horrible. I imagine Vince cursing like a sailor when this happened
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Apr 3, 2017 3:38:38 GMT -5
The streak should have never ended. Brock is already stale three years in. Roman Reigns just isn't. Don't know what it is, but he just isn't.
Thinking back at all of Taker's opponents (not just Wrestlemania) - legends like Bret Hart, Ultimate Warrior, Shawn Michaels, Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, Rock, etc. Roman just doesn't fit with those guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 4:11:32 GMT -5
Watching the match for a second time now. It's really quite good outside of the off ending and the Tombstone goof up. Undertaker tossing Reigns around saying "it's still my yard." The spear through the table, Undertaker's failed sit-up, his frail body language when he was trying to use Roman's body for leverage to get to his feet and Reigns kept slapping him away.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Apr 3, 2017 4:19:34 GMT -5
Hindsight being what it is, he probably should have retired last year in his home state, despite how bad WM32 was. It probably would have been better going out against Shane with a win than what we got.
|
|