The Undertaker: He buries them all!

[Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone]

No, the Undertaker is not burying the roster. Here is the way I saw it.

(takes deep breath)

In that 6 man over the top challenge, all 6 competitors had already been in a 10 minute match prior to the challenge. The idea was that they were all being trotted out to work a second time in the same night. So right from the opening bell, all 6 men were fatigued.

They all went at it for a few minutes. Then the Undertaker, who is A) completely fresh from a physical standpoint, B) a bonafide main eventer, and C) extremely pissed after getting shafted out of a title shot at the Rumble, enters the ring. It makes sense that he was in adrenaline mode and able to destroy everybody. Plus from a storyline perspective, it makes the Kennedy vs batista match at the Rumble more interesting because you know that Undertaker is going to somehow be involved.

The Undertaker is not holding anyone back or burying anyone. If anything, he has helped put over lots of young talent over the years.

[ronsimmons]

theshow said:

The only one I cared about was Benoit. I hated him looking like a complain and/or rude female.

I hated that too. If Batista acts scared that'll be the final straw.

[darthpipes]

The thing with backstage politics is I think Cena is more or less controlled by Vince. He's the top star but I don't think he has the clout or the balls to stand up to Vince. He does what Vince tells him. Taker has the experience and clout to call most of his own shots. As does Hogan, HHH, Austin, etc.

Taker has put people over but he does it in a way that doesn't really help his opponent. I remember when Cena defeated him back on Smackdown in 2003 or 2004...I can't remember which year. This is when Cena was starting to come into his own as a heel and he would be challenging Brock Lesnar if he won. Taker was going to take some time off to have surgery on his elbow.

Now, you would think the logical thing to do would be for Cena to go over and to write Taker's injury into the storyline. That way, Cena could take credit for taking out the Undertaker and that would put him over further. Instead, before Taker even stepped into the ring, the announcers reveal that he's going into surgery the next day and bring up this point constantly. So basically, when Cena won, it was because Taker was wrestling injured. There's no excuse whatsoever for that kind of ego-stroking nonsense. It did nothing to help out Cena. Of course, Cena turned out okay but you get the point.

[therealmamamiller]

sinister1 said:

What the hell happened in that ring? It was a quaint little Battle Royal(with cheese), and Taker ends up showing up for no reason and single-handedly dominates!

Benoit gets his ass beat.
Same with MVP
Same with Booker T
Same With Finlay.
The Miz was eliminated, but comes back just to get his ass kicked by Taker.

What the hell is going on?

What is going on is that you have a certified superstar in The Undertaker. A man that people pay money to see who actually puts asses in the seats and is in the best shape of his career. I don't care how old he is he's just as good if not better than he was 10 years ago. Then you have Finlay who is probably closer to 50 than 40 and although a respected vet not a real name or factor in wrestling, Booker who got his title run and now needs to dump the King Booker gimmick, Chris Benoit who is a great wrestler but not a good entertainer and MVP who needs a ways to go to get over...a long ways.

If I were booking it I'd have given it the same ending. As far as politics go I'm sure they exsist but in my opinion very few people want or expect to see The Undertaker lose at major events or even on tv. The way that he puts the new talent over is to let them come real close and show everything they've got and you know what it works. I was never a Jeff Hardy fan but when he fought Taker at that Ladder Match I came away with a whole new respect and admiration for the kid. But if he'd have won I'd have probably been more pissed than any thing else.

You can't compare Taker to Hogan or Austin when it comes to their ocassional returns and the fact that they won't take a loss. Although he's a parttimer Taker is around probably more often than not and he can still work a match. All Hogan is is his past.

[Bub (BLM)]

therealmamamiller said:

Chris Benoit who is a great wrestler but not a good entertainer

I find that statement silly. If you're watching WRESTLING for entertainment, shouldn't a great wrestler be considered a great entertainer?

[Austin's Middle Finger]

I really doubt there's much politics going on in Taker's case. It's all the gimmick. Because they don't have a lot for him to do these days, he's booked as near-unstoppable undead monster. For that sort of gimmick, his age and position in the company don't matter. When he was the Biker character, he was booked a lot differently. It's more or less the same as Hogan, playing the superhero gimmick.

That's the difference between them and Cena winning all the time. Cena's supposed to be an everyman style character, yet is booked as a superman. So he just comes across as a wrestler that's real hard to like.

[Feargus McReddit]

I'd personally have the ending like a Typical Pre Rumble ending with a tonne of run ins after one match using guys like Benoit, The Miz, Helms etc except have MVP, Finlay and King Booker triple teaming Kane. The Lights go out, Taker appears with a staredown as though they are all ready to fight The Undertaker together.

Then Finlay and Booker push MVP to Taker and run off. Taker tombstones MVP, he helps up Kane who have a staredown. End of show

[MichaelMartini]

lenny said:

No, the Undertaker is not burying the roster. Here is the way I saw it.

(takes deep breath)

In that 6 man over the top challenge, all 6 competitors had already been in a 10 minute match prior to the challenge. The idea was that they were all being trotted out to work a second time in the same night. So right from the opening bell, all 6 men were fatigued.

They all went at it for a few minutes. Then the Undertaker, who is A) completely fresh from a physical standpoint, B) a bonafide main eventer, and C) extremely pissed after getting shafted out of a title shot at the Rumble, enters the ring. It makes sense that he was in adrenaline mode and able to destroy everybody. Plus from a storyline perspective, it makes the Kennedy vs batista match at the Rumble more interesting because you know that Undertaker is going to somehow be involved.

The Undertaker is not holding anyone back or burying anyone. If anything, he has helped put over lots of young talent over the years.

Exactly. Even though I'm a huge Benoit, Booker and Finlay mark, it didn't bother me. MVP was a wreck, still suffering from burns and already destroyed by Kane, The Miz is nothing, and the other guys got in some offense. Taker had the element of surprise going as well.

I thought it was cool that as soon as lights came on, Finlay already had the Shilaliegh in hand.

[Legion]

theshow said:

therealmamamiller said:

Chris Benoit who is a great wrestler but not a good entertainer

I find that statement silly. If you're watching WRESTLING for entertainment, shouldn't a great wrestler be considered a great entertainer?

No, because most people, myself included, dont watch wrestling for wrestling. We watch for the stories and the characters and the rest of the things that people tend to accuse Vince McMahon of bringing in to 'destroy' pro wrestling.

Benoit is a great wrestler, but he is a bad entertainer in that he is pretty much a charisma black hole.

On topic, The Undertaker hardly made anyone look weak in that 6 man thing on Friday, Benoit got in some decent chops and some of the others got some offence in, Undertaker was just being pushed as the favourite for the Rumble from Smackdown.

The Undertaker in general hardly ever politics in the way that some of the others do because he occasionally loses and, even if he usually wins the fued he does it in a way that hardly damages who he is against and keeps the live crowd, who pop like no ones business when he shows, happy.

For best use of the Deadman character he needs to go heel. Undertaker would still get a pop as a heel and considerable booing as well. Batista on the other hand.......im not sure he could cut it as a heel against someone like the Undertaker.

[Ben Wyatt]

moppy27 said:

The man's been in the company for the longest streak uninterrupted and has earned his spot and people go off about what creative has for him; going so far as to suggest that he uses his stroke to go and throw five or six people over the top.

God damn people, get a grip. The man has earned his spot. He didn't leave for bigger bucks and less of a workload. He didn't retire because of injuries(sure, he's had time off to heal, but never retiring), he's put over damn near everyone there is to put over('Cept Hogan really, HA!) and people crap on him.

Let's say you work with a company for damn near 17 years. And there's a corner office opening with a fantastic view of the city. Getting this office also includes a bit of a raise in pay. Does the person who's been working with the company for 8 years get the office or do you because of your tenure? Sure, the 8 year guy has done some great outstanding work and has done a lot for the company, but you've done more? Who gets the office and the raise?

The guy who has busted his hump for 17 years, doing whatever is told of him even though it sounds incredibly stupid or the guy who has been around for less than half that time?

The answer to the question, of course is th boss' son-in-law.

Duh.

This man speaks the truth.

Where is the person who wrote the 71 page manifesto about why the Taker shouldnt be hated? We need to see that

[Chris the Bambikiller]

dothebird said:

Can an entire forum go one on one with the Undertakah?

Sure, playa!
Tonight you're going one... wait... 4,856-on-one against the Undertakah!