|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Jan 30, 2007 0:14:34 GMT -5
The difference between Trish and the Undertaker...is the difference between the Women's Title and the WWE Title. WWE doesn't give a crap about the Women's Title. Hell, there have been YEARS where there wasn't even a recognized Women's champion. They don't care about that belt. Or the women's division. Otherwise, they'd hire more actual female wrestlers. Comparing the women's division and the rest of the show is like comparing apples to...uh, rotten apples in your basement that no one has paid attention to for years. My point is that Undertaker is very deserving of a royal sendoff. He's done a lot for the company. He's made them buckets of money. He remains one of their biggest attractions after all his years. He stayed loyal to the company through the Monday Night Wars. He's also changed his style every few years to remain somewhat fresh, and is probably in the best shape of his life right now. And the fact of the matter is that he won the Rumble and he's going up against SOMEONE, be it Batista, Lashley or Cena. Cena is really the only guy out of that trio that could contribute to a match of this magnitude. I FEEL like it's Undertaker's last hurrah, and 15-0 is a nice round number. Much better than 14-1. The only way I'd really support him losing would be if they did something drastic with John Cena's character and turned him into someone that did more than mug for the crowd. I was impressed with Cena's performance tonight, so I think they'd mesh well. I've said before, I don't care one way or the other about the Taker's streak. That means I don't care if he keeps it or not. If he goes 15-0 at Mania, that's just fine and dandy. I just don't think he should retire with the title. And you could do an excellent send-off for the man without the belt. Beyond that, as much as I dislike the Undertaker, I agree with your points.
|
|
Corporate H
Grimlock
He Buries Them Alive
Posts: 13,829
|
Post by Corporate H on Jan 30, 2007 0:17:45 GMT -5
Taker vs. Batista. Hasn't happened before...to my knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Jan 30, 2007 0:17:58 GMT -5
My point is that Undertaker is very deserving of a royal sendoff. He's done a lot for the company. He's made them buckets of money. He remains one of their biggest attractions after all his years. He stayed loyal to the company through the Monday Night Wars. He's also changed his style every few years to remain somewhat fresh, and is probably in the best shape of his life right now. And the fact of the matter is that he won the Rumble and he's going up against SOMEONE, be it Batista, Lashley or Cena. Cena is really the only guy out of that trio that could contribute to a match of this magnitude. I FEEL like it's Undertaker's last hurrah, and 15-0 is a nice round number. Much better than 14-1. The only way I'd really support him losing would be if they did something drastic with John Cena's character and turned him into someone that did more than mug for the crowd. I was impressed with Cena's performance tonight, so I think they'd mesh well. I've said before, I don't care one way or the other about the Taker's streak. That means I don't care if he keeps it or not. If he goes 15-0 at Mania, that's just fine and dandy. I just don't think he should retire with the title. And you could do an excellent send-off for the man without the belt. Beyond that, as much as I dislike the Undertaker, I agree with your points. Undertaker isn't the man that I would choose to be the World Champion, either.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 30, 2007 0:24:09 GMT -5
Batista because he is the greater of two evils and should therefore lose his title right away. And if not that, then for nothing more for Undertaker to stay on Smackdown. That show is vastly improving, and Undertaker's absence may only hinder things. Besides, it's nice knowing that at least one person has never jumped ship during the entire brand extension.
|
|
|
Post by tartsonawire on Jan 30, 2007 0:24:46 GMT -5
UT vs Batista, please.
BTW, isn't it funny how no one's even considering UT v Lashley? It's because we all know ECW's a joke and that'd never happen.
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Jan 30, 2007 0:27:32 GMT -5
Batista because he is the greater of two evils and should therefore lose his title right away. And if not that, then for nothing more for Undertaker to stay on Smackdown. That show is vastly improving, and Undertaker's absence may only hinder things. Besides, it's nice knowing that at least one person has never jumped ship during the entire brand extension. Taker was initially on Raw, when the whole brand thing started.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 30, 2007 0:30:19 GMT -5
Batista because he is the greater of two evils and should therefore lose his title right away. And if not that, then for nothing more for Undertaker to stay on Smackdown. That show is vastly improving, and Undertaker's absence may only hinder things. Besides, it's nice knowing that at least one person has never jumped ship during the entire brand extension. Taker was initially on Raw, when the whole brand thing started. Was he? I could've sworn he was always on Smackdown. Do you remember how he got traded?
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Jan 30, 2007 0:31:35 GMT -5
Undertaker vs Batista. We've already seen him face Cena before.. there is just something really appealing about UT and Batista facing for the first time. I honestly don't believe they are going to job Undertaker at WM. If they were going to, I'm pretty sure they'd have had a Raw superstar win the Rumble and just have Undertaker win some sort of tournament or something. Since he won the Rumble, my bet is that he is winning at Wrestlemania. Also, I'm very much looking forward to a Batista heel turn. I hope they go with that as opposed to face vs face. This is how I feel. Wrestlemania is about Spectacle, doing a first time match with two guys who are the top of Smackdown, and with the Streak, the Title, and everything on the line. Batista/Undertaker haven't had face offs, but the building to their match has been subtle and really cool. Almost making it like Batista fears Undertaker
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Jan 30, 2007 0:31:55 GMT -5
Taker was initially on Raw, when the whole brand thing started. Was he? I could've sworn he was always on Smackdown. Do you remember how he got traded? Nah, I can't remember, but the very first draft, Undertaker was the First Pick for Raw. I think he switched after he won the Undisputed title.
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Jan 30, 2007 0:37:37 GMT -5
It was in late August of 2002 that he switched to SmackDown.
credit: obsessedwithwrestling.com
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 30, 2007 0:41:32 GMT -5
Yeah, you're right. Wikipedia has the results of the first draft. My, how things have changed on both shows.
|
|
Garee
King Koopa
I miss the old days
Posts: 11,338
|
Post by Garee on Jan 30, 2007 0:56:23 GMT -5
I'd rather see Taker beat Batista, and if either is going to beat Taker I'd rather have Cena do it
|
|