How come Cena/Taker never had a real mania match?

[Shark]

Dec 28, 2020 8:12:06 GMT -5 Toates Madhackrviper said:

Dec 28, 2020 7:18:54 GMT -5 repomark said:

WM29 was the perfect time to do it. Cena needs redemption after losing to Rock - the only way he can see how is by ending the streak.

Kinda sucks because the "rematches we didn't need" are on two different shows. Wrestlemania 28 had Taker/Trips III in the Cell, which ended up being a great match but I've always felt that Taker shouldn't have been doing rematches for the streak even if they ended up good. Wrestlemania 29 had Cena/Rock II which we definitely didn't need. My problem with doing Cena/Taker at 29 is I'm not sure I want to sacrifice Punk/Taker.

What I guess they could have done, though is done Punk/Taker and Cena/Rock at 28, and then done Cena/Taker and Punk/Rock at 29?

They did always at least up the ante for the rematch. And the storylines going into each one were really well done. HBK wants redemption, so he essentially forces Taker to accept the match. Then with Trips, they do the Rocky 2 thing where Apollo wants the rematch because he won, but he didn't beat Rocky. Also, the idea that Taker lived in his lair for a year, rewatching his match over and over and seething that he won, but had to be carried out is not something I want to give up. It really does just come down to timing. After Mania 30, Taker was a shell of what he was in the ring, so doing a "real" match after that would have likely ended up being a disaster.

[Deleted]

They just took too long to actually book it. Bookers must have had their hearts broken by not booking it in time. Or just greedy.

[fw91]

Dec 28, 2020 5:53:19 GMT -5 Bad Moon said:

2005-2011 SuperCena was above the streak. It's become this mythical prestigious thing in retrospect, but honestly the annual Undertaker mania feud was considered something for the B-listers and nostalgia acts to do, not the main event of the show.

Orton, Batista,Edge, (for the whc no less) and HBK twice are hardly b-listers. Only case is for Henry at 22

[Toates Madhackrviper]

Dec 29, 2020 17:21:48 GMT -5 Shark said:

Dec 28, 2020 8:12:06 GMT -5 Toates Madhackrviper said:

Kinda sucks because the "rematches we didn't need" are on two different shows. Wrestlemania 28 had Taker/Trips III in the Cell, which ended up being a great match but I've always felt that Taker shouldn't have been doing rematches for the streak even if they ended up good. Wrestlemania 29 had Cena/Rock II which we definitely didn't need. My problem with doing Cena/Taker at 29 is I'm not sure I want to sacrifice Punk/Taker.

What I guess they could have done, though is done Punk/Taker and Cena/Rock at 28, and then done Cena/Taker and Punk/Rock at 29?

They did always at least up the ante for the rematch. And the storylines going into each one were really well done. HBK wants redemption, so he essentially forces Taker to accept the match. Then with Trips, they do the Rocky 2 thing where Apollo wants the rematch because he won, but he didn't beat Rocky. Also, the idea that Taker lived in his lair for a year, rewatching his match over and over and seething that he won, but had to be carried out is not something I want to give up. It really does just come down to timing. After Mania 30, Taker was a shell of what he was in the ring, so doing a "real" match after that would have likely ended up being a disaster.

Yeah I don't disagree with that. What we got was still pretty good. And all four of the HBK and Trips vs Taker matches were really good. Just, personal preference, what I personally would have booked (and have in my fantasy booking project!) I would have done Shawn once and then three fresh opponents. But I get the appeal of the End of an Era match, and the Taker/Shawn II story was very well told.