Fantastic Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I agree with the three posts above mine. Taker vs. Bray would be a terrible creative decision and a bad match. Even when Bray was booked well, he was an overrated character with a definite ceiling. But now? It's even more of a lopsided mismatch, story-wise. Honestly, I don't see it happening. It sounds like internet fanboy bullshit and not anything credible or logical, but who knows. I could see Taker skipping this year's WM entirely. The only reason this match seems to be pencilled in is because of how much Taker's contract is costing WWE. They know physically, that he can only wrestle a couple of times a year at most, however, his contract downside is pretty large and has probably been in play since he was last a full time member of the roster. They aren't exactly going to release him from his contract, given who he is and his loyalty to WWE... Hypothetically, it makes the most sense for Taker to appear at Mania (or the post-Mania Raw) in a non-wrestling capacity to start a year long build to his official retirement at next year's Mania where he'll undoubtedly go into the HOF. A year gives them time to assemble a big time match with someone who can work and for Taker to get into the best shape he possibly can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sporadic Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I agree with the three posts above mine. Taker vs. Bray would be a terrible creative decision and a bad match. Even when Bray was booked well, he was an overrated character with a definite ceiling. But now? It's even more of a lopsided mismatch, story-wise. Honestly, I don't see it happening. It sounds like internet fanboy bullshit and not anything credible or logical, but who knows. I could see Taker skipping this year's WM entirely. Last I heard (and I want to say Meltzer was talking about it on WOL) Undertaker has such a huge downside guarantee in his contract that that the feeling is they've got to put him in a program with someone (Bray) to justify paying that out given the current state of affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sporadic Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Hypothetically, it makes the most sense for Taker to appear at Mania (or the post-Mania Raw) in a non-wrestling capacity to start a year long build to his official retirement at next year's Mania where he'll undoubtedly go into the HOF. A year gives them time to assemble a big time match with someone who can work and for Taker to get into the best shape he possibly can. The only matches anyone could really hope he does that would have huge payoffs is him and Sting (given) or him and Cena. That's all dependent on how healthy he is (and he looked really beat down and broken last year). Given that neither is going to happen this year I have no issue with Taker appearing at WM but putting him a match with Bray just to justify his contract downside is asinine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 My ideal scenario is for Sting to beat Trips (I'm not wild about that match, but it'll do for these purposes) and then for Taker to come out post-match and point at Sting. Honestly, Taker vs. Sting isn't even something I want to see, but enough other people are clamoring for it that it would make no sense for the WWE to ignore one of the few guaranteed money matches it has left. With Sting winning this year, he can safely lose next year to Taker, with the match also serving as Taker's retirement. If they have to use Taker this year, am I the only one who thinks Taker/Brock II makes the most sense? (Assuming Brock loses the title before then. If not, then no, obviously.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 If they have to use Taker this year, am I the only one who thinks Taker/Brock II makes the most sense? (Assuming Brock loses the title before then. If not, then no, obviously.) It makes sense yeah, from a storyline perspective - Taker coming back to avenge the biggest defeat of his career, and the result being less-than-predictable. But, realistically, Taker cannot safely contend with Lesnar's in-ring style, he just isn't in the kind of shape that he once was. Brock isn't blatantly stiff, but he's incredibly physical, his big moves are all intense and require a lot of physicality and endurance from his opponents, mainly so they don't injure themselves (the Germans, the overhead belly to belly suplexes, etc), those things Taker just doesn't have that kind of endurance or fortitude anymore. He really fucked himself up last year with that concussion, to the point he had to be lead through the match and hospitalized at it's conclusion. To compare, At Summerslam, John Cena took nearly two dozen Germans from Brock, threw himself around the ring for over 20 minutes, took a number of stiff shots (probably on his own accord, like at the ER match) and was for all intents and purposes, fine to wrestle throughout the next week and suffered no injuries. But even then, I doubt even Cena could have absorbed all that and have wrestled competitively (had that been the intention) in the same match. Brock is on another planet, he can do mega bumps, not get gassed, perform insane feats of strength, and survive botches that may have killed or severely injured other wrestlers (see Mania XIX, and the dive at ER) and just keep going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fando Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Taker and Brock should under no circumstances have another match after how terrible the last one was. Best thing would've been for Brock to face someone else at Mania and during that match the lights go out, bell tolls, Taker interferes and costs him the match. Everyone's happy to see Taker one more time. Brock goes on to do whatever. But since they're turning him face... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Revised Mania Predictions: WWE WHC: Seth Rollins (MITB cash in) vs. Daniel Bryan © WWE WHC: Daniel Bryan (Royal Rumble winner) vs. Brock Lesnar © Sting, John Cena, and Roman Reigns vs. Triple H, Seth Rollins, and Big Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lust Hogan Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2283701-inside-wwe-an-exclusive-look-at-how-a-pro-wrestling-story-comes-to-life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthedoctor Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Retrospectively, the end of the Streak really looks like a complete nothing, if you except the live reaction (which was shock over a total anticlimatic finish after a shitty and boring match). Especially if Taker comes back this year for yet another probably terrible match against Bray (that would make quite a bunch of awful Mania Taker matches if we're realistic). What a waste. If Taker wrestles again, what a waste. If Brock loses the title before Mania, what a waste. 2014 from the day after WrestleMania going forward was been wasted opportunity after wasted opportunity. The only person who could had booked this worse was Vince Russo. At least we get good matches. It also seems a waste if he drops the belt to Reigns who just isnt ready yet. The streak ending was a big deal and Brock losing to Reigns at mania wont look as important to last years moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2283701-inside-wwe-an-exclusive-look-at-how-a-pro-wrestling-story-comes-to-life Wow. Incredible write up. Answers a ton of questions. We were right on pretty much all of them. Bryan was taken out of the main event scene because of the Summerslam buyrate. Not really surprising but interesting to see in print. Bryan revealing Hunter wanted to work with him at Mania to finish the story. Steph revealing she has improved because she was away for awhile and got corporate boardroom experience and had a new perspective on life as a mother. This was said several times on this board. Again it seems Hunter and Steph were fighting for him against Vince Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Hypothetically, it makes the most sense for Taker to appear at Mania (or the post-Mania Raw) in a non-wrestling capacity to start a year long build to his official retirement at next year's Mania where he'll undoubtedly go into the HOF. A year gives them time to assemble a big time match with someone who can work and for Taker to get into the best shape he possibly can. The guy already has a year in between all his matches and he looks worse and worse ever year. Waiting 2 years isn't going to get him into better shape, it's just going to make him look older. He isn't GOING to get in any better shape, it's why he's essentially already retired. He's completely broken down and they should never put him in the ring again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think Undertaker should train even longer, keep him away for at least five years so that he can come back for a big WrestleMania match with Steve Austin. Maybe Steve's career ending neck problems will have healed by then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 My problem with The Undertaker is that his aura is gone. His Streak was his last hurrah and WWE killed it for no real reason. So now all the matches that otherwise would have had some intrigue (Cena, Sting) don't matter anymore. What's the point? To see who can beat 'Taker second? The mystique is gone. He has nothing left. Ending the Streak before having one of those big money matches was a total waste & completely short-sighted. A 20-year build blown on a whim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2283701-inside-wwe-an-exclusive-look-at-how-a-pro-wrestling-story-comes-to-life Wow. Incredible write up. Answers a ton of questions. We were right on pretty much all of them. Bryan was taken out of the main event scene because of the Summerslam buyrate. Not really surprising but interesting to see in print. Bryan revealing Hunter wanted to work with him at Mania to finish the story. Steph revealing she has improved because she was away for awhile and got corporate boardroom experience and had a new perspective on life as a mother. This was said several times on this board. Again it seems Hunter and Steph were fighting for him against Vince WWE ended up releasing a revised Summerslam buyrate at about this time last year that showed numbers only slightly behind the big 2012 number with Brock-HHH. That didn't get much play when it was reported in the WON for reasons I never understood, as the original number set the events in motion that led to the WM30 main event. I guess he might have won it earlier had the original projected number of buys for Summerslam been accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 It's pretty insane that the net had it basically all right in terms of what was going on behind the scenes last year. And again after reading that its hard not to like Hunter and Steph as human beings. They might not have Vince's business acumen but they come off so much better in the press. Yeah I'm sure Bryan would have won the title at HIAC last year if the correct number was released. But then he doesn't get to have that mania moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I think they're a little crazy not to run Sting vs Cena. That's easily the biggest match they could run in March, 2015, the one that would get the most mainstream attention and network buys, and it doesn't exactly salt the Earth or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmare007 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2283701-inside-wwe-an-exclusive-look-at-how-a-pro-wrestling-story-comes-to-life Wow. Incredible write up. Answers a ton of questions. We were right on pretty much all of them. Bryan was taken out of the main event scene because of the Summerslam buyrate. Not really surprising but interesting to see in print. Bryan revealing Hunter wanted to work with him at Mania to finish the story. Steph revealing she has improved because she was away for awhile and got corporate boardroom experience and had a new perspective on life as a mother. This was said several times on this board. Again it seems Hunter and Steph were fighting for him against Vince WWE ended up releasing a revised Summerslam buyrate at about this time last year that showed numbers only slightly behind the big 2012 number with Brock-HHH. That didn't get much play when it was reported in the WON for reasons I never understood, as the original number set the events in motion that led to the WM30 main event. I guess he might have won it earlier had the original projected number of buys for Summerslam been accurate. Yeah. Summerslam buys went from 296,000 (the bad number) to 332,000 as the final number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WashingtonFB Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 My problem with The Undertaker is that his aura is gone. His Streak was his last hurrah and WWE killed it for no real reason. So now all the matches that otherwise would have had some intrigue (Cena, Sting) don't matter anymore. What's the point? To see who can beat 'Taker second? The mystique is gone. He has nothing left. Ending the Streak before having one of those big money matches was a total waste & completely short-sighted. A 20-year build blown on a whim. They killed it for good reason, unfortunately they couldn't capitalize on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 What was the good reason? To shock people? Or 'cause 'Taker can't really go anymore? I guess it could be both. Either way, if that were the case, there had to have been a better opponent than Brock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthedoctor Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I think they're a little crazy not to run Sting vs Cena. That's easily the biggest match they could run in March, 2015, the one that would get the most mainstream attention and network buys, and it doesn't exactly salt the Earth or anything. Whats the prediction for Mania? Do you reckon Hunter really will put Sting over? Id like Sting to appear on TV a bit more but I guess his contract dates doesnt help that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 What was the good reason? To shock people? Or 'cause 'Taker can't really go anymore? I guess it could be both. Either way, if that were the case, there had to have been a better opponent than Brock. Based on what Dave reported around the time , the feeling seemed to be that Vince looked at Taker and decided he wasn't "looking good". At the same time, Vince started to view Brock Lesnar as a "special attraction" of sorts and I guess he intended to transition Lesnar into Taker's role as a Wrestlemania special attraction when the time came for Taker to hang up the boots. Some quotes from the Observer: It was reported here that a few years back, when Undertaker and Lesnar first talked about doing the angle for this match at WrestleMania 27, that Undertaker had said he would want to put Lesnar over. Mark Calaway is a 49 year old man whose body turned on him more than a decade ago, but when he had his nights, like WrestleMania the previous several years, he simply denied the pain and became The Undertaker. I can recall having dinner with one of WWE’s biggest names, telling me how badly Calaway was hurting and that he probably only had a year or two left. That was in the early fall of 1997. Whether Undertaker does another match or not, Vince McMahon was going on the assumption that this was his last hurrah, and he could either win, or lose. McMahon chose the idea that it was better to lose on your way out. But McMahon thought, and was probably correct, that he had no more streak matches left. And he may not have really had this one left in his body. At that point, it’s just a call. Do you end the storyline in a shocking way, or a predictable way? From a business standpoint, if he was never going to come back for a streak match, neither decision was better than the other. They also needed to put Lesnar over in a really big way, since seemingly, the intention had been since Summer 2013 for Brock to have a big title run in 2014. Being defeated by Undertaker at Wrestlemania would have somewhat diminished the build towards this title run. I mean think about it, Brock wins the series with Triple H 2-1, goes over CM Punk (arguably the most popular wrestler not named John Cena at the time) at Summerslam, beats the crap out of Mark Henry, demolishes Big Show and comes away looking unstoppable in the process... Only for him to all to Undertaker at Wrestlemania. What then? Brock comes back following a huge loss, gets a title shot without any reason and resumes his path of destruction beginning with Cena as it happened? No, that would suck, because the fact this trail of destruction was briefly postponed by a high profile loss to Taker would always be there. So in hindsight, even though Brock didn't need to end the streak (he could have taken on anybody at Wrestlemania, although it wouldn't have been as high profile, unless it was John Cena), he did need to win his match at Wrestlemania. Taker wanted to face Brock, Vince decided that the streak was going to end here, and Taker agreed to it. If things were different (and Bryan wasn't injured), I would have had Wyatt vs Taker with Taker winning to preserve the streak and Lesnar destroying John Cena at Wrestlemania. Then in the Summer, Bryan would fall to Lesnar like Cena did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 It was never planned, but I remember that Undertaker wanted to work with Daniel Bryan last year. If he knew it was going to be the year the streak ended, I wonder what his thoughts were there. Bryan is the type of character that might actually be hurt by a win like that more than he's helped, but I do wonder if that's what Undertaker had in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 What was the good reason? To shock people? Or 'cause 'Taker can't really go anymore? I guess it could be both. Either way, if that were the case, there had to have been a better opponent than Brock. very strongly disagree the issue as i see it was that the streak had become TOO big to make a new star. doesn't seem like that makes any sense at first...but do you really think the fans would buy a roman reigns or even daniel bryan being the one to end it? giving that honor to a newer guy puts way too much pressure on him - he can't ever job again without it seeming ridiculous, basically, and you don't know whether he'll work out as a top star in the long run. the problem with continuing a winning streak this long is that you leave yourself with almost no credible ways of ending it. a "special attraction" type like brock (or andre in his prime, etc. etc.) is really the only good option there, as you at least know what you're getting with those guys and they haven't been as deeply mired in the 50/50 booking as the rest of the roster has. the only alternative i see an argument for is never ending the streak, which is honestly what i was expecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 What was the good reason? To shock people? Or 'cause 'Taker can't really go anymore? I guess it could be both. Either way, if that were the case, there had to have been a better opponent than Brock. very strongly disagree the issue as i see it was that the streak had become TOO big to make a new star. doesn't seem like that makes any sense at first...but do you really think the fans would buy a roman reigns or even daniel bryan being the one to end it? giving that honor to a newer guy puts way too much pressure on him - he can't ever job again without it seeming ridiculous, basically, and you don't know whether he'll work out as a top star in the long run. the problem with continuing a winning streak this long is that you leave yourself with almost no credible ways of ending it. a "special attraction" type like brock (or andre in his prime, etc. etc.) is really the only good option there, as you at least know what you're getting with those guys and they haven't been as deeply mired in the 50/50 booking as the rest of the roster has. the only alternative i see an argument for is never ending the streak, which is honestly what i was expecting. Using it to turn Cena heel would had been the best option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 the issue as i see it was that the streak had become TOO big to make a new star. doesn't seem like that makes any sense at first...but do you really think the fans would buy a roman reigns or even daniel bryan being the one to end it? giving that honor to a newer guy puts way too much pressure on him - he can't ever job again without it seeming ridiculous, basically, and you don't know whether he'll work out as a top star in the long run. the problem with continuing a winning streak this long is that you leave yourself with almost no credible ways of ending it. a "special attraction" type like brock (or andre in his prime, etc. etc.) is really the only good option there, as you at least know what you're getting with those guys and they haven't been as deeply mired in the 50/50 booking as the rest of the roster has. the only alternative i see an argument for is never ending the streak, which is honestly what i was expecting. Very good point. Only an established talent in a class of their own could have gone over Taker last year, narrowing it down, only three (active - thereby excluding Michaels) men on the roster could have ended the streak without it potentially negatively impacting upon them in years to come: Brock Lesnar (as it happened, a special attraction type with nothing left to prove or accomplish, just a guy with a huge name that shows up to deliver awesome special exhibition matches) John Cena (although this would make him an instant heel, something which WWE wants to avoid, it seems) Triple H (somewhat of an equivalent of Ric Flair in the late 1990's, in his formative wrestling years, with an awesome career legacy behind him. Although unlike Flair, Hunter is in a lot better shape, limits his wrestling appearances so they all become meaningful, and isn't so profoundaly affected by taking time away from the spotlight.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts