WWE: The Undertaker's Wrestlemania plans not ruined by Strowman!

[Balance]

The guy got thrown around by Brock Lesnar in 2 out of 3 months last year. I think he can take a powerbomb.

Exactly. People think Taker is done when he wrestles the most physically demanding and painful wrestler 3 times in the past 1.5 years, twice without disqualification.

Roman Reigns said in a shoot interview that he was hurting for weeks after the Lesnar match and was not interested in a rematch.

Those suplexes are painful. I know that Lesnar has built a gimmick upon it but I'm surprised they let Lesnar hit Cena with them countless times. He already hurt Del Rio with those suplexes.

If Lesnar wrestled every week he'd injure so many guys they would never let him wrestle his style every match.

 

[swflyers93]

No offense to Taker but how about the part timers stop taking matches from full time talent?

 

[Kimi]

Part time legends are money. You don't go throwing it away for no good reason.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Part time legends are money. You don't go throwing it away for no good reason.

Building up full timers to be important on your biggest show of the year is a good reason.

 

[Kimi]

Like how Wyatt faced the Undertaker? Or how Fandango faced Jericho? Or how Reigns is facing HHH?


Anyway, it's not like they're not trying to build new stars or anything. In fact they're spending their entire time trying to do that exact thing. They're doing it badly, but they're trying all the same.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Like how Wyatt faced the Undertaker? Or how Fandango faced Jericho? Or how Reigns is facing HHH?


Anyway, it's not like they're not trying to build new stars or anything. In fact they're spending their entire time trying to do that exact thing. They're doing it badly, but they're trying all the same.

You mean like how Undertaker did nothing to help Wyatt? Or how nobody cares about Jericho to care if someone beats him anymore? Or like nobody cares about Reigns facing Triple H?

I would say that they're only trying to build one new star and it's failing miserably.

 

[Kimi]

Never said they did a good job of anything.

Still, it's incorrect to get rid of legends. Even if they had new stars who'd taken off, they're be doing it wrong taking HHH or Undertaker off the card.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Never said they did a good job of anything.

Still, it's incorrect to get rid of legends. Even if they had new stars who'd taken off, they're be doing it wrong taking HHH or Undertaker off the card.

I never said get rid of legends. I'm saying they shouldn't be in matches at Wrestlemania over full-time performers. You want to run segments like they did with Rock-Hogan-Austin at 30, that's fine. Have them in the back patting the back of a full-time guy like at 31, fine. Having matches at the event when they do very little to build it up like they have? No, that's not fine and that's detrimental to the product.

 

[Balance]

Wrestlemania is a 3.5 hour show. The part timers are not taking away anything from the full timers.

People would not buy a Wrestlemania without Taker, Lesnar, and Triple H. It's a proven fact. So, the part timers simply help full timers make their paychecks in the end.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Wrestlemania is a 3.5 hour show. The part timers are not taking away anything from the full timers.

People would not buy a Wrestlemania without Taker, Lesnar, and Triple H. It's a proven fact. So, the part timers simply help full timers make their paychecks in the end.

Like hell they don't when the bulk of the full-timers are relegated to the preshow. And they would buy Mania without those guys if they made guys like Ambrose, KO, and Bray Wyatt into people that matter. People bought Mania before without the use of over-the-hill part-timers and they would if none of those guys were there if they did right by the guys that put in the work every night.

 

[Morozov]

Having those guys makes me much more interested in Wrestlemania. Mania is a spectacle, part of that is bringing out these legendary names.

It's a long ass show, you can do both have the part time big matches while also giving others opportunities, it doesn't have to be one or the other. There's an audience who wants to see the likes of Taker out there even if some people on here don't.

 

[The Lunatic Fridge]

you mean like how undertaker did nothing to help wyatt? Or how nobody cares about jericho to care if someone beats him anymore? Or like nobody cares about reigns facing triple h?

I would say that they're only trying to build one new star and it's failing miserably.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Kevin Owens calling him out from his frustration of his losing streak, wants to swing for the fence, then has a Punk like disrespect for Taker's legacy, Owens can look strong in doing the job and it helps elevate him moving forward.

Not a bad idea at all. Man it would help him a lot more if the streak was still there.

Even if you job getting a streak storyline and match makes you.

 

[Morozov]

Obviously the streak was an easy way to script around Taker matches, but it's still easy enough without it to now just shift the narrative from people wanting to end the streak to people wanting to end Taker.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Obviously the streak was an easy way to script around Taker matches, but it's still easy enough without it to now just shift the narrative from people wanting to end the streak to people wanting to end Taker.

There is still an argument to be made of how much value he has at WM without the streak.

With it obviously he was money and a feud with him could make a guy even if he jobs.

Now the only real money in a Taker match might be one with an actual retirement angle and you can only really do that once as the second time it feels cheap as hell.

 

[Morozov]

There is still an argument to be made of how much value he has at WM without the streak.

With it obviously he was money and a feud with him could make a guy even if he jobs.

Now the only real money in a Taker match might be one with an actual retirement angle and you can only really do that once as the second time it feels cheap as hell.

I don't think there's really much argument about it at all.

You don't need an actual retirement stipulation or anything like that, the heels will flock to be the guy who ends Taker, that's an accolade anyone would want.

You don't even need that, people are going to be curious to simply see what happens and see if he will lose again.

It isn't hard to script reasons for people to fight him it's only wrestling. I'm Kevin Owens I'm a prize fighter I want the big name fights Undertaker that's you. Done.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The unfortunate thing to this argument is that I've never said that Jericho winning buried anyone. At least the few times Jericho does win, he gives it back. Taker is the one that doesn't do that. The big reason why nobody cares about when someone beats Jericho is mostly because nobody cares about Jericho. He's a boring shill of a rock-star babyface character that is just impossible to get behind. He'd be a great heel with that schtick because that's the kind of guy I'd like to see get his ass kicked.

 

[The Lunatic Fridge]

The unfortunate thing to this argument is that I've never said that Jericho winning buried anyone. At least the few times Jericho does win, he gives it back. Taker is the one that doesn't do that. The big reason why nobody cares about when someone beats Jericho is mostly because nobody cares about Jericho. He's a boring shill of a rock-star babyface character that is just impossible to get behind. He'd be a great heel with that schtick because that's the kind of guy I'd like to see get his ass kicked.

It's not impossible to get behind. People like you just don't like him because for you it's "realistic" enough. But for a PG company that has a #1 priority of children and even young teens? Makes plenty of sense. Tons of kids want to be rockstars and none of them go online to read on gossip of how old these guys are or what burying or jobbing is.

It's the same thing with reigns. They want to make him this badass hero that everyone should love but instead they shove him down our throats and it backfires.
Not a coincidence that the one thing reigns ever did that was not really "PG" was beating on Triple H and that was only because Triple H begged for it.

The difference with jericho is, he can talk, he can wrestle, but "he's old" so people just want him to bend over to anyone in their 20s.

 

[Morozov]

Smarmy suit wearing Jericho should make a comeback.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It's not impossible to get behind. People like you just don't like him because for you it's "realistic" enough. But for a PG company that has a #1 priority of children and even young teens? Makes plenty of sense. Tons of kids want to be rockstars and none of them go online to read on gossip of how old these guys are or what burying or jobbing is.

It's the same thing with reigns. They want to make him this badass hero that everyone should love but instead they shove him down our throats and it backfires.
Not a coincidence that the one thing reigns ever did that was not really "PG" was beating on Triple H and that was only because Triple H begged for it.

The difference with jericho is, he can talk, he can wrestle, but "he's old" so people just want him to bend over to anyone in their 20s.

What show are you watching where Jericho gets these kinds of reactions? Jericho gets next to no reaction when he comes out. Reigns at least pops the women and children. Jericho doesn't.

I don't care whether Jericho wins or loses matches. I care that he's not entertaining. And somehow now there are arguments being made that a character that is not entertaining is justified to be what he is because he placates to a small portion of the crowd. Neither Jericho nor Reigns pop the entirety of the women and children or even the majority. And that is a huge part of the problem with the product these days. They play way too conservative, even within the PG environment, with the guys they feel are top guys or legend characters to keep the product fresh enough to actually draw at the house or on the TV and inevitably it leads to less subscribers of the network.

 

[ColePens]

Part time legends are money. You don't go throwing it away for no good reason.

Part of me agrees and part of me disagrees.

You have legends who do bring in money, but the rest of the time the other wrestlers cannot draw because they are constantly not booked as the next big thing. That means... SD has to tarp off half the stadium. Raw never draws sell outs. And we never have new stars unless they are forced down our throat. That's the problem of part--timers taking over.

But whatever. It's the endless debate. Until the WWE is ready to fully commit long-term, then they will just keep going short-term booking and desperation for numbers.

 

[S A W F T*]

Welp. Since we all know Ambrose isn't winning next Sunday... let him turn heel and feud with Taker for a payoff at WM32.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

No offense to Taker but how about the part timers stop taking matches from full time talent?

without the part timers this year, WM would be a glorified raw

 

[Del Preston]

Meltzer:

We’ve been told Undertaker has a match. We don’t know the opponent, other than being told the planned name isn’t Cena, Owens, Lesnar or Strowman, and that it is someone who is not on the roster right now. Don’t know if that starts the Sting rumors up, because that’s the first name that would come to mind at this point, but Sting’s neck has spinal stenosis, needs neck surgery, and he’ll be 57 by that time. But they could always do a loser must retire match since undoubtedly that would be Sting’s last match if such a bout were to happen.

 

[Blitzkrug]

Now that's interesting. Sting's injury is the same thing Edge had no? I can't see him coming back.

Outside of that though...who? Rock can't go because of prior obligations. Nakamura isn't getting the Undertaker without build. Not a chance and he's technically on the roster already.