takermark
AC Slater
if ya smelllllll wat tha rocc is cookin
Posts: 155
|
Post by takermark on Jan 17, 2007 17:19:35 GMT -5
ATTENTION MAY HAVE SMACKDOWN SPOILER
Considering the way things have turned out recently on Smackdown and the ending to the match in this weeks Smackdown according to the spoilers...does anyone believe that Taker may win the Rumble and Kennedy beats Batista and they have an Undertaker vs Kennedy match at Wrestlemania with Kennedy going over and thus giving him the big boost to be a major superstar?
I personally hope this does not happen as I believe Taker should have his undefeated streak remained intact to keep his legacy as he does not have a million title reigns or long ones.
|
|
Garcia Vega
Bubba Ho-Tep
"Please don't get angry ladies, I only call ya b****es cause I don't know your names individually."
Posts: 516
|
Post by Garcia Vega on Jan 17, 2007 17:22:10 GMT -5
That would be the only way I'd agree with them ending Taker's streak. Batista is over enough without it.
|
|
nostradumbass
Tommy Wiseau
The only man to be booked in TNA and not look like a jackass
Posts: 89
|
Post by nostradumbass on Jan 17, 2007 17:23:15 GMT -5
I personally hope this does not happen as I believe Taker should have his undefeated streak remained intact to keep his legacy as he does not have a million title reigns or long ones. Even if he doesn't keep his streak, everyone will remember the Undertaker. I'd rather see Edge be the undefeated one. |
|
|
|
Post by kickassforumguyme on Jan 17, 2007 17:23:54 GMT -5
Batista on TV makes me change the channel
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jan 17, 2007 17:25:33 GMT -5
Only problem is they say in the spoliers that Taker was mad at Batista setting up them to feud and not Kennedy and Taker.
|
|
takermark
AC Slater
if ya smelllllll wat tha rocc is cookin
Posts: 155
|
Post by takermark on Jan 17, 2007 17:30:53 GMT -5
ohh I didnt read that or might have overlooked it...but anyway I would rather have Taker keep his streak because I am a full out mark for him and it just seems that would be the proper thing to do for all of his loyalty and respect to the company and business.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 17, 2007 17:32:39 GMT -5
SPOILER
Batista interferes in a match between Kenedy and 'Taker..if 'Taker won, the Rumble match woulda been triple threat.. but 'Tista's run-in gets 'Taker disqualified. They end the show with 'Taker looking pissed that Dave screwed him out of a title shot. If this is the start of a Dave heel turn, I'm not sure.
|
|
mo
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,262 
Member is Online
|
Post by mo on Jan 17, 2007 17:34:16 GMT -5
if anyone is to end it, it should'nt be Batista (especially) or Kennedy...just because I'm biased against them so >=P
And still, Taker being my favorite and all, so I may be biased here as well, he should just keep it
|
|
4real
Wade Wilson
Posts: 28,952
|
Post by 4real on Jan 17, 2007 17:37:11 GMT -5
OK i've heard this said many times but....Why the heck do people think Undertaker's gonna face Kennedy at WMania? They have already feuded. They might face at NWO, But not at Mania.
Why the heck would they?
|
|
|
|
Post by The middle finger is offensive on Jan 17, 2007 17:40:08 GMT -5
takers not in the rumble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deadman Inc. Misses Shawn on Jan 17, 2007 17:40:39 GMT -5
I just hope Taker keeps it. His WM matches are always more exciting when he could lose the streak that's why I enjoyed Taker vs. Orton at 21 because for a minute or two I thought Orton was going over.
|
|
Dave FCIC
Mephisto
I said nice one bruva!
Posts: 714
|
Post by Dave FCIC on Jan 17, 2007 17:41:36 GMT -5
OK i've heard this said many times but....Why the heck do people think Undertaker's gonna face Kennedy at WMania? They have already feuded. They might face at NWO, But not at Mania. Why the heck would they? Well its not as if there is a rule to when a fued needs to end. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jan 17, 2007 17:53:44 GMT -5
takers not in the rumble. I could swear he was in the graphic Monday and last night as well as on the list yesterday. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 17, 2007 18:12:12 GMT -5
According to the graphic they showed last night he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Daddy Bad Booking on Jan 17, 2007 18:15:13 GMT -5
You better believe both Kane and Undertaker are in the Rumble. Brings memories of 2001 and 2003.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,515
Member is Online
|
Post by Legion on Jan 17, 2007 18:29:41 GMT -5
I would love to see Undertaker vs dave at WM with Undertaker getting the win
|
|
Sam Punk
Hank Scorpio
Own Nothing, Be Happy
Posts: 6,322
|
Post by Sam Punk on Jan 18, 2007 0:15:53 GMT -5
This from Lance Storm. A guy who was actually in the business. Q: This is in response to a question in your latest Q & A about who should be the one to defeat the Undertaker at WrestleMania. The asker of that question seemed to take it as a given that it would happen, under the "passing the torch" principle. However, I'm of the opinion the streak should never be broken. It's one of those things that should be left well alone, it's the Undertaker's big claim to fame. Also, the whole torch-passing thing seems to have gone the way of kayfabe (Trish Stratus at Unforgiven, Hulk Hogan ever since 2002, etc), especially in favour of "sentimental moments", so to speak. Undertaker retaining his streak in his last WrestleMania certainly qualifies, and I believe he's a big enough name in the business to deserve that (as was Trish, to deserve the win at Unforgiven). A: I disagree completely. This business is, or at least should be, built on people putting over others for the good of future business. Taker doing one job at a Mania will not tarnish his spot in wrestling history. Austin lost his last match clean, because he is a pro. The Trish thing is a bit different in that she went over in her last match but she beat Lita who was leaving anyway. Jericho put Cena over huge on his way out. www.stormwrestling.com/011807.html |
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Jan 18, 2007 0:17:52 GMT -5
I agree with Storm.
Oh, and the easiest way to set up this match is have Batista turn heel and piss off Teddy Long.
Bam, Batista/Undertaker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 18, 2007 0:53:54 GMT -5
From the looks of what I saw last night, which I'm assuming ya'll already read since I did the whole spoiler warning thing.. it LOOKS like a Batista 'semi-heel' turn by way of costing 'Taker a shot at his title, I'm thinking that's gonna set up a match 'tween those two.
|
|
Smark
AC Slater
Posts: 202
|
Post by Smark on Feb 7, 2007 1:07:19 GMT -5
This from Lance Storm. A guy who was actually in the business. Q: This is in response to a question in your latest Q & A about who should be the one to defeat the Undertaker at WrestleMania. The asker of that question seemed to take it as a given that it would happen, under the "passing the torch" principle. However, I'm of the opinion the streak should never be broken. It's one of those things that should be left well alone, it's the Undertaker's big claim to fame. Also, the whole torch-passing thing seems to have gone the way of kayfabe (Trish Stratus at Unforgiven, Hulk Hogan ever since 2002, etc), especially in favour of "sentimental moments", so to speak. Undertaker retaining his streak in his last WrestleMania certainly qualifies, and I believe he's a big enough name in the business to deserve that (as was Trish, to deserve the win at Unforgiven). A: I disagree completely. This business is, or at least should be, built on people putting over others for the good of future business. Taker doing one job at a Mania will not tarnish his spot in wrestling history. Austin lost his last match clean, because he is a pro. The Trish thing is a bit different in that she went over in her last match but she beat Lita who was leaving anyway. Jericho put Cena over huge on his way out. www.stormwrestling.com/011807.htmlLOL, I'll pretend you said Ultimate Warrior. |
|
