Wrestlemania

nacho libre

http://www.prowrestling.com/article/news/2700

I hope this is indeed true!!

HorseRadish

If so I'd love if it was a gimmick match of some sort,add more spice to it overall.

Minto

Yea, Hell in a Cell or something darker like Buried Alive! I hope they change the outcome of the match, I wanna see Taker win the World title and not see his undefeated streak lost. Especially, to a should be jobber like Batista!

Charlie

Minto wrote:

Especially, to a should be jobber like Batista!

I think it would be a travesty for taker to lose that streak to Batista. I am not against him losing the streak per se, just not to Dave. From what I have read, Batista is not suppose to be well liked backsatge and, generally considered to be disrespectful in relation to those who have been around much longer than him (the Booker/Summerslam pic shoot seemed to confirm this).

I think the person that Taker should lose the streak to is either Kane ( I think Taker even proposed doing this himself out of the respect he holds for Glen Jacobs) or HBK (because of their great feuds in the past).

Vince135792003

Kane or Shawn Michaels don't need a win off Taker. They are already established and the benefit of them getting the rub off Taker at Wrestlemania would be minimal.


Someone like Lashley or Umaga would really gain from it.

krudler

think edge should get the streak win,hes undefeated at mania too,think its 7-0,they should have a streak vs streak TLC match,although that prob wouldnt happen since money in the bank will be on the same night,im gonna be at this mania so hope its not batista

Minto

I like the idea of having Edge taking the streak from Taker! They could put on a decent match, but I think Vince has his heart set on Batista Vs. Taker!

On a side note, who would be the face and who would be the heel? I think Batista is sorta edging towards becoming a heel, but Taker makes a brilliant heel!

Gerard.C

'Taker shouldn't loose at 'Mania.

Good to see 'Taker finally winning the Rumble, I'm presuming. 'Bout time, too.

nacho libre

Gerard.C wrote:

'Taker shouldn't loose at 'Mania.

Good to see 'Taker finally winning the Rumble, I'm presuming. 'Bout time, too.

Agreed. Taker should not lose his streak at Wrestlemania just to put someone else over. After all the hard work, and loyalty he has given to WWE, they should give him the title, even if only for a brief period of time.

fatal

Is it taker or someone else that suggested that he was going to retire from wrestling next year?I know kane hinted that he wants to retire in january but I think I remember taker suggesting a while ago that he will retire next year

J.R.HARTLEY

i've no problem with someone taking takers streak, i just don't see anyone who really deserves it at the moment, Dave Batista doesn't need it anyway he's already over, the Kane story would have been nice as a way for kane to takeover Takers slot in the company , but isn't glen jacobs looking to retire, lashley would benefit and is on the rise it would really benefit him, but respectfully Umaga is an option i balk at, the guy has had everything thrown to him recently, a very nice intro to the company, with recent wins over both members of DX and Cena to preserve his unbeaten streak, he's good but thanks to the scripting recently he doesn't need to end takers streak.
personally if they both want to retire they should have a spectacluar ending to a Kane Taker Match, where Kane chokeslams Taker through the stage and taker drags kane down with him as the hole in the stage spews out smoke, and have them both gone when the smoke clears or something big and cool along those lines, that the two titans fought each other into oblivion.

redmosquito

I really would like to see 'Taker win the title one last time, it would be fitting that he wins it on possibly his last WM, and I have always thought (since his streak became built up) that he should never lose it.

He has been there now a very long time, and many others have had more reigns as champion and longer reigns but the one thing that, IMO, people should be remembering him by when he retires is that he never lost a match at the biggest wrestling PPV around.

Flair = 16 time champ (even though he has had more, at least 18)
HHH = 216 time champ (by the time he retires!!!!!)
Austin = Probably the biggest draw ever
Benoit/Angle/Malenko etc = Gifted
Undertaker = NEVER LOST AT WRESTLEMANIA

Mr.Nice Guy

Anyone who believes this needs their head examined. If Flair and Triple H didn't break his streak then no one will.

It's the key aspect of his legacy and if you give someone a win over him then you undermine all the previous Wrestlemania matches that have on gone beforehand.

If it happens I'll eat my hat. Batista has not had a good match all year and there's no way they'll entrust him with such a massive rub.

If anyone was to break it I would say Edge but I don't believe anybody should.

nacho libre

It's easy to see who aren't Taker fans in this thread shame on you all:D

Vince135792003

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Anyone who believes this needs their head examined. If Flair and Triple H didn't break his streak then no one will.

It's the key aspect of his legacy and if you give someone a win over him then you undermine all the previous Wrestlemania matches that have on gone beforehand.

If it happens I'll eat my hat. Batista has not had a good match all year and there's no way they'll entrust him with such a massive rub.

If anyone was to break it I would say Edge but I don't believe anybody should.

I disagree.

You have somthing in this record that could really help launch a guy. Why not use it?

"I'm the guy that beat the Undertaker, something that Snuka, Kane, Big Show, Nash, Flair, Orton or Triple H couldn't do". Undertaker could really make a guy by doing it and he'd be more valuable to the company than a ficticous record. It is not easy to put over new guys but this would be a sure fire way to do it.

Now you can argue that no one deserves to be "the guy" who breaks his record. But you have to take a chance too and certainly if someone comes along with immense talent like a Harry Smith that they really wanted to push to the moon, I'd do it.

I think Undertaker's legacy could take the hit. In 10 years time his legacy won't be selling out house shows but if he gives a guy the rub at 'Mania that guy could very well be. It would be the right thing to do for the company.

nacho libre

well, certainly Batista is not that guy so unless that guy comes along i don't agree.
The undefeated streak at Wrestlemania will be Taker's legacy when he finally retires. As Flair has his 16 titles, this undefeated streak is what will be synomous with the Undertaker.
It would be a disservice to all he has done for WWE to make him lose his streak at 'mania.
If you really want to build the profile of a new and exciting prospect put him in a specialist match with the Undertaker- like the loser has to retire- that would be a good way to put a guy over while keeping Taker's legacy in tact.

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

I disagree.

You have somthing in this record that could really help launch a guy. Why not use it?

Because it took him 14 years to build and would be over in the space of twenty or so minutes. You have to weigh up the pros and cons and for me anyway the cons far outweigh the pros. I'm sure it's why Kane reputedly turned down the chance of ending it. It's a part of his overall contribution to the WWE. He hasn't had the large number of title reigns that others have had but he's had the streak. I've always viewed it as his reward for being so loyal.

Vince135792003 wrote:

"I'm the guy that beat the Undertaker, something that Snuka, Kane, Big Show, Nash, Flair, Orton or Triple H couldn't do". Undertaker could really make a guy by doing it and he'd be more valuable to the company than a ficticous record. It is not easy to put over new guys but this would be a sure fire way to do it.

But cast your mind back to No Mercy 2003 with Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar. Undertaker's great Hell in a Cell domination came to a shock end as Lesnar got the clean win and with the huge rub he received, he immediately turned babyface and went on to win the Wrestlemania main event. But look back on it in hindsight - was it the wisest of moves? Lesnar basically left everyone high and dry. Can they afford to chance a similar scenario? In my mind no.

Vince135792003 wrote:

Now you can argue that no one deserves to be "the guy" who breaks his record. But you have to take a chance too and certainly if someone comes along with immense talent like a Harry Smith that they really wanted to push to the moon, I'd do it.

Well I'm surprised at that but each to their own. To me, some things are best kept sacred and the Taker Mania streak is one of them.

No doubt the rub would be gigantic for the individual allowed to end Taker's Wrestlemania streak but I look on it as sacrificing 14 matches and a solid legacy for 1 match and a leap of faith.

Weighing it up I just don't think it's worth it.

Vince135792003

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

No doubt the rub would be gigantic for the individual allowed to end Taker's Wrestlemania streak but I look on it as sacrificing 14 matches and a solid legacy for 1 match and a leap of faith.

Weighing it up I just don't think it's worth it.

Some things are sacred? This is wrestling. This is a publicly floated company. You can't put the sacredness of a ficticious winning streak on the top of your balance sheet. Its financially worthless and by not letting someone who they see as dead cert future star have it would be a waste.

That sounds harsh but I don't think ficticious winning streaks should get in the way of potentially putting a new guy over massively.

Jinny Snuka, arguably a legend and definitely a draw put 'Taker over when he was winding down and when 'Taker was coming up. Thats how it is. Thats how it needs to be for the future.

And I also think that if they did it correctly it wouldn't hurt him at all and would be a very compelling story. You can do it in a way where people will still respect the hell out of you even when you lose. ie. Benoit at the Rumble 2003, Foley HIAC 2000 and Austin WM13.

Sacredness doesn't sell house shows. It doesn't do buy rates. It does nothing for the future. Putting a young guy over that has the potential to be an Undertaker or a Rock or an Austin does.

Fozzy

In this case, I think you've either got to keep the streak intact or let a younger guy beat Taker. Batista is not young, he's already over to a good degree, HHH lost 3 main events in ppv's to him and I don't think he deserves it

I definitely think Taker should put someone over. Edge would be an excellent choice I think, it would make his own streak worth more and be more valuable when it's his turn to put someone over at WM. If someone is to beat him though, they have to be given a big big push over the next summer

In my mind, I would imagine that the Undertaker would actually want to have someone beat him. I honestly can't see him wanting to keep his streak, it does nothing for anyone except him, and seeing as it looks like he'll be gone afterwards, why should he be put over?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

if you give someone a win over him then you undermine all the previous Wrestlemania matches that have on gone beforehand.

I don't see that as the case at all. He's won 14 matches or whatever it is, that definitely counts for something in itself. What you're saying is, to me, the same as saying that for a champion to lose his title undermines all the time he spent as champ

nacho libre

Fozzy wrote:

In this case, I think you've either got to keep the streak intact or let a younger guy beat Taker. Batista is not young, he's already over to a good degree, HHH lost 3 main events in ppv's to him and I don't think he deserves it

I definitely think Taker should put someone over. Edge would be an excellent choice I think, it would make his own streak worth more and be more valuable when it's his turn to put someone over at WM. If someone is to beat him though, they have to be given a big big push over the next summer

In my mind, I would imagine that the Undertaker would actually want to have someone beat him. I honestly can't see him wanting to keep his streak, it does nothing for anyone except him, and seeing as it looks like he'll be gone afterwards, why should he be put over?



I don't see that as the case at all. He's won 14 matches or whatever it is, that definitely counts for something in itself. What you're saying is, to me, the same as saying that for a champion to lose his title undermines all the time he spent as champ

When Triple H's career is analysed, what you associate him with is his number of title reigns, not that he lost three main events ppv's to Batista.
This comparison with losing a title is not valid as every WWE champion loses the title and no one is undermined by losing it.
The Undertaker is renowned for his unbeaten streak at Wrestlemania. His winning streak is unique in WWE.
To take it away is a slight on all he did for the company, such as putting people over, his work ethic and the loyalty he has shown.
I really think the idea of a specialist match at the end of his career with WWE is the best scenario for everyone- The Undertaker, WWE, and a new upcoming wrestler or an already established one in need of a major push to reach the top.

Fozzy

nacho libre wrote:

When Triple H's career is analysed, what you associate him with is his number of title reigns, not that he lost three main events ppv's to Batista.

And I think almost the same thing could be said of the Undertaker: he'll be remembered for the 14 WM's he didn't lose at, rather than the one match he did

I don't understand this talk of "taking away" his streak. He'd still have won 14 matches at WM (sorry if it's not 14, that number just keeps poppin into my head!), and that's a better record than anyone else has ever had, or will ever have. That streak will still exist