Paco
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,145
|
Post by Paco on Dec 28, 2009 22:42:23 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. I wouldn't call 1997 Austin a midcarder at all! He spent the entire year in main events vs. Taker, HBK & the Hart Foundation. He won the Royal Rumble! HBK put Austin over as the Champ but Austin was already "The Man" in the face of the fans by then. From the Bret feud, to stunning Vince for the first time, to getting in Mike Tyson's face. No midcarder does all that. I just remembered Mark Henry beating Randy Orton this year. Yeah, another big deal. Jobs do not definitely equal "putting over" or "instant rub". |
|
|
|
Post by KevFalcön07 on Dec 29, 2009 4:14:51 GMT -5
I'll just say this myself
No one deserves to break it nearly as much as Taker deserves to keep it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Dec 29, 2009 4:27:49 GMT -5
I'll just say this myself No one deserves to break it nearly as much as Taker deserves to keep it. I agree. I mean, ANYONE you put up for consideration is going to be naysayed by at least two people, and probably with good reason. If I could channel my inner Tarantino for a second.....The big problem is, ok, you've got the Undertaker, ok? And he's the baddest motherf****r walking the Earth, undefeated at WrestleMania, all right? And who's gonna beat him? You put a young guy in there, you run the risk of that young guy either fizzling out, or getting too huge and splitting, or pulling a Benoit at the ultimate worst case scenario, so you have to eradicate his win from the record books, and with something like The Streak, ending it will be an iconic moment, and so we're more f****d than a GI on shore leave in Shanghai if that happens, dig? So you then go, "We'll give the win to an established persona, like John Cena or something, ok? Problemo! He doesn't NEED the win, and Taker has nothing to gain from beating HIM. Same goes for any established vet on the roster. There's no reason for them to beat the Deadman, and it does NOTHING for their careers. Especially someone like HBK, who is at most three years from retirement himself. So what do you do, hotshot? What do you do? Here's what you f*****g do: you leave it be. Let the Taker retire with the Streak intact. /Tarantino. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto) on Dec 29, 2009 5:34:50 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. 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. Thank you both for pointing these things out. Undertaker does not need to lose his streak at Wrestlemania in order to put over other talents. He has done that already throughout his career in many other ways. Foley vs Taker, Taker vs. Hardy, Taker vs. Lesnar and Taker vs. Angle from back in the day have proved this. Also, even if he did lose to some young wrestler who is "the next big star" in WWE, (as many have already opined) what if they just become another Lashley/Lesnar/Kennedy/Nathan Jones. Then what do you have? A damn near 20 year legacy thrown away just for some flash in the pan guy who decides to leave wrestling after 3 years because he wants to be a film star, etc. That is in no way a jab at Lesnar, by the way. I imagine that if someone did beat Taker at Mania, the next year that person would just be fed to Cena, so they can say "Bah Gawd, Cena has beaten the top guy who retired Taker." Again, NO, CENA DOESN'T DESERVE IT. NOBODY DOES! |
|
