Brock Taker feud in 2015

[mcstoklasa]

With all this talk of Taker being past it and his last great match was "years ago", who else enjoyed Brock and Undertaker's 2015 feud?

I was frustrated at the time and felt shortchanged with Lesnar's Rollins match just there to have The Deadman interfere. I was seriously peeved as Lesnars run was highly enjoyable at the time and it felt like old man Taker was coming back to ruin all his momentum.

I was instantly swayed the next night when they had their epic brawl(s) on RAW. It was so gloriously entertaining. I was still concerned about the ageing Undertaker beating Brock, and then he did- with a convulted finish. I actually didn't mind and Brock's middle finger as he passed out was badass.

I also found the build up to the Summerslam bout with the low blows hilarious, and seeing Brock get his own back at HIAC had me in stitches. The low blows told me Taker knew he needed help to beat The Beast.

And as for the HIAC match? What. A. War. In fact, both matches were, but I especially LOVED that match.

I'm glad that feud happened in the end. Another note- Taker looked fantastic- way healthier than at WM 30. He's also at the age where the long thinning hair looks bad on him but for his feud with Brock it was mid length and far more dignified. He also looked sturdy and muscular, which again helped him loOk an equal to Bork.

[Gerard Gerard]

It was great, in my books. A slightly more deranged Deadman was a welcome progression of the character and the matches were no slouch either. It would've been better if it had been Undertaker's first appearance since the streak ended, but minor quibbles and all that.

[Blindkarevik]

I feel those matches both did, and didn't, need to happen.

I feel like they didn't need to happen because it really didn't lend much to either of them. It showed that Taker is outmatched by Lesnar and can only win by cheating, even when he's desperate. So it seemed like he came back, not to get revenge, but to get destroyed again. Now, granted, it did give Brock something to do and headlined a few PPVs, but as an Undertaker fan... I feel it weakened him.

I think they DID need to happen for the fans, and Undertaker himself. Taker getting knocked loopy at Wrestlemania, and looking frail and more human than ever before, was the reason so many people were questioning if the streak was really supposed to end that night or if they had called an audible when it was clear Taker was in no shape to continue. It was damaging to the fans, as well as Undertaker himself. I really think he went into the Bray Wyatt match, the following year, with a ton of butterflies... wondering if his match with Brock was the universe telling him he didn't have it anymore. I remember the end of the Wyatt match, Taker looked to the heavens and said "thank you," and reports of him remarking about how good he felt backstage afterward, which was just a confidence booster for himself. Then, the feud with Brock, I think was so he could prove to himself he could still hang with Brock... and the matches HAD to be brutal to prove that point. And with him feeling fine after both matches, it did him some good. Plus, fans felt appeased by that as well because we knew he could still hang with Brock, even in a brutal blood feud and everyone was cool with writing off Wrestlemania as an unfortunate accident when he got concussed and that it had nothing to do with Brock being unsafe, or Taker just not having it anymore.

[The Kevstaaa]

I wasn't a fan of the SummerSlam one, especially the finish. The HIAC was great but nowhere near the 2002 classic. I could've done without either though.

[ISO Mid Thigh Pull]

The Summerslam match was balls, but the Hell in a Cell was amazing and super underrated in retrospect.

[Facetious]

I seriously wish Lesnar would have ended Taker's career with that HIAC, possibly even at Mania. Taker once again taking Lesnar to his domain to see if he could avenge the streak. That was Taker's last great match.

[Raskovnik]

The worst thing about the matches was the WWE's complete refusal to tell the story that both men were trying to tell in the ring and in the buildup to both matches, which was actually a rad and compelling story, because they didn't want to treat Undertaker as a heel or portray him in any way that could be construed as negative. It led to a disconnect that made the feud and matches less interesting to me. Undertaker was seeing red, seething with anger, and fighting dirty as f*** with fish-hooking and going for low blows, yet the commentary didn't play it up at all. If they went all in on the story of bitter old Undertaker, cornered and desperate to avenge his greatest loss and salvage his legacy against the one man who has his number and has bested him every time they met, even if it meant fighting dirty, it would have been much more enjoyable.

[Woo]

Apr 5, 2017 22:45:33 GMT -5 Raskovnik said:

The worst thing about the matches was the WWE's complete refusal to tell the story that both men were trying to tell in the ring and in the buildup to both matches, which was actually a rad and compelling story, because they didn't want to treat Undertaker as a heel or portray him in any way that could be construed as negative. It led to a disconnect that made the feud and matches less interesting to me. Undertaker was seeing red, seething with anger, and fighting dirty as f*** with fish-hooking and going for low blows, yet the commentary didn't play it up at all. If they went all in on the story of bitter old Undertaker, cornered and desperate to avenge his greatest loss and salvage his legacy against the one man who has his number and has bested him every time they met, even if it meant fighting dirty, it would have been much more enjoyable.

That's an amazing story. What you said reminds me of commentary ignoring Sting vs The Authority to make it WCW vs WWF.