Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 19:44:31 GMT -5
Only one superstar can be bigger than everyone else on the roster and command a top level match with Cena. ![](https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/shanemcmahondance.gif?w=650) ![](https://i.imgur.com/k0jPoN6.gif) I don't get the whole "Taker hasn't had a great match since Punk" stuff. The Cell match was awesome, a hate-filled brawl that you don't see anymore that should have headlined 32 in Dallas. Dick kicking old man Taker was great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 19:58:08 GMT -5
Taker feels great post hip surgery. If he feels he can still go, who are we to quibble? The man knows his limits. I mean maybe the reason his match with Roman was so bad was because of a bad hip. One reason is Taker can’t go, he’s physically done. He needs to enjoy his retirement because this year was bad to look at him. Second reason is coming back will shit all over his moment he had at Mania. You don’t get a better retirement than that and he will essentially be pulling a Ric Flair except he won’t be wrestling in his underwear in front of a few hundred people. I hate to break it to you but that moment wasn't good. His moment was already shit on when WWE decided to take a wrestler who work for them for the last 27 year and used him to get a failed wrestler over. I don't want Taker last match to be remember as a fail attempt to get Roman Reigns over for the 50th time. You know how we give TNA shit all the time for feeding their homegrown talent to the latest WWE reject? Well that pretty much what WWE did to Taker. If Taker vs Cena happen. I'd view it as a apology to Taker for using his legacy to get a wrestler that no one give shit about, outside of a couple fanboy, over.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Dec 29, 2017 20:01:03 GMT -5
One reason is Taker can’t go, he’s physically done. He needs to enjoy his retirement because this year was bad to look at him. Second reason is coming back will shit all over his moment he had at Mania. You don’t get a better retirement than that and he will essentially be pulling a Ric Flair except he won’t be wrestling in his underwear in front of a few hundred people. I hate to break it to you but that moment wasn't good. His moment was already shit on when WWE decided to take a wrestler who work for them for the last 27 year and used him to get a failed wrestler over. I don't want Taker last match to be remember as a fail attempt to get Roman Reigns over for the 50th time. You know how we give TNA shit all the time for feeding their homegrown talent to the latest WWE reject? Well that pretty much what WWE did to Taker. If Taker vs Cena happen. I'd view it as a apology to Taker for using his legacy to get a wrestler that no one give shit about, outside of a couple fanboy, over. So Roman's a reject? Hmmm okay I stand by my statement
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 21:15:57 GMT -5
I hate to break it to you but that moment wasn't good. His moment was already shit on when WWE decided to take a wrestler who work for them for the last 27 year and used him to get a failed wrestler over. I don't want Taker last match to be remember as a fail attempt to get Roman Reigns over for the 50th time. You know how we give TNA shit all the time for feeding their homegrown talent to the latest WWE reject? Well that pretty much what WWE did to Taker. If Taker vs Cena happen. I'd view it as a apology to Taker for using his legacy to get a wrestler that no one give shit about, outside of a couple fanboy, over. But Reigns and Taker are both WWE-grown talent, and WWE already used the biggest part of Taker's legacy (the streak) to get Lesnar over. Your analogy makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Dec 29, 2017 23:58:07 GMT -5
Undertaker can stay away. He's finished.
Batista would be a good surprise.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Dec 30, 2017 0:26:49 GMT -5
I hate to break it to you but that moment wasn't good. His moment was already shit on when WWE decided to take a wrestler who work for them for the last 27 year and used him to get a failed wrestler over. I don't want Taker last match to be remember as a fail attempt to get Roman Reigns over for the 50th time. You know how we give TNA shit all the time for feeding their homegrown talent to the latest WWE reject? Well that pretty much what WWE did to Taker. If Taker vs Cena happen. I'd view it as a apology to Taker for using his legacy to get a wrestler that no one give shit about, outside of a couple fanboy, over. But Reigns and Taker are both WWE-grown talent, and WWE already used the biggest part of Taker's legacy (the streak) to get Lesnar over. Your analogy makes no sense. Yea, Reigns and Lesnar have gotten the two most important things you can get from Taker. One was to take the streak which was what Brock got and the second was to retire him which is what Reigns got Don't get me wrong I think the atmosphere around a Taker/Cena match will be f***ing awesome just like I thought the same with Taker/Sting and that's what you have the match for because performance wise both guys will bring it but Taker is washed physically and will crumble after 6-7 mins. In regards to a match for Cena his main other option is against Samoa Joe which will be Cenas highest profile match at Mania since Wyatt? I think at this point Cena doesn't want to just "be there". He did the angle for Nikki last year and was injured before that so i'm sure he wants something he can jump right into
|
|