Taker vs ???? At Mania

[Loss]

They don't have anyone anywhere near in a position to get over by beating Undertaker, and they don't really have time to get anyone to that point either. That's why, sadly, Cena is the only guy that makes sense as an opponent to me.

[Sidebottom]

Finn needs to go to Dallas, in front of the 93,184 fans, and beat Undertaker clean. Taker retires.

 

[goodhelmet]

They don't have anyone anywhere near in a position to get over by beating Undertaker, and they don't really have time to get anyone to that point either. That's why, sadly, Cena is the only guy that makes sense as an opponent to me.

 

Agreed 100%. It would also be the best way for Taker to get a good match since the Taker match is probably going to go 18-20 minutes. There really is no reason to overthink this Mania.

 

Brock-Reigns Rematch

Taker vs. Cena

 

Sold. Take my money.

[Coffey]

To be honest, I don't think beating The Undertaker at Wrestlemania even matters anymore. Now that the streak is over, he doesn't bring anything to the table. I didn't realize while it was going on how important that Streak was to his Wrestlemania draw. I mean, he gave everything to WWE & had a long & tremendous career. He's had a lot of great matches & feuds & memorable moments. Now he's showing his age & his body is totally worn down. I don't think there's a rub there to give. Just like the Wyatt's beating him wouldn't really matter. I think all that is left for The Undertaker at this point, is to officially announce his retirement, do one last Wrestlemania entrance & go into the Hall of Fame. The Streak can't be broken twice. 'Taker winning anymore now doesn't matter. If someone were to beat him, you're the second person to do so & it was against an old, broken down version of The Phenom. I just don't think that's appealing.

[Slasher]

I understand the WWE wanting to treat Taker right by having him recover from the loss to get a few more paydays but man, if they were ending the Streak, it really should have been held off til Taker and the WWE knows it is his last ever match. Like Coffey said, the Streak was the only thing keeping his career rolling and really, keeping the fans interested in Taker's matches. It was amazing how little I gave a fuck about him after Brock beat him. Didn't care about the Wyatt match nor the Brock rematches. Probably won't even care about his 2016 Mania match, even if it is against Cena and he teases a heel turn harder than ever before.

[Loss]

I do agree that beating Undertaker at Wrestlemania specifically has lost its meaning, but I do think beating Undertaker on *a show*, as opposed to The A Show, still matters.

[Slasher]

I do agree that beating Undertaker at Wrestlemania specifically has lost its meaning, but I do think beating Undertaker on *a show*, as opposed to The A Show, still matters.

Only because for like 5 years he hadn't appeared on any show besides Wrestlemania and whatever Raws they need for the buildup beforehand. 2015 was the first year he actually wrestled in a bunch of shows. That was novelty but if he was doing this in 2016 and 2017 or whatever, that appeal would be gone entirely.

[Matt D]

Better to get the most out of it now then.

[DMJ]

I'm 50/50 on it. For sure, Undertaker's Streak mattered a ton and the question of who/when it would be broken was always a huge, if not *the* biggest factor, but I do think there is a bit of revisionist thinking going on that the Streak was the only thing that mattered. Let's remember, nobody (or very, very few people) believed Edge, Michaels, Triple H, or CM Punk were going to end the streak and, while I wouldn't call them all masterpeices, I personally liked a number of them and definitely would've called a few of them Match of the Nights, even when you consider that their finish was very predictable.

 

So, with that in mind, Cena/Taker still works for me because, at the end of the day, we're talking about whether or not they can deliver a quality, WWE-style spectacle main event match, if Taker has one more left in him and if this will be a character-changing match for Cena in the longterm. If none of those things interest you because "you do your signatures/I do my signatures" matches bore you and WWE's overdramatic "epics" make your stomach turn, I get it. I get it 1000%, especially around these parts where people have so much knowledge of and access to the best stuff ever that they don't need to settle for what the WWE offers.

 

EDIT - If someone wants to move all these comments elsewhere, it might not be a bad idea. Looking at the heading of this thread and I'm not sure we could go off on a bigger tangent if we tried.

[Slasher]

Better to get the most out of it now then.

With the Streak gone, yeah why not? But if he was still undefeated they could probably drag an extra 10 years out of Taker Mania matches. However it is my understanding that a large part of why Vince ordered the loss was he felt the Streak was getting too big for everyone involved and that it was putting a lot of pressure on Taker to keep defending the streak for the fans' entertainment. Vince wanted Taker to feel free sitting out a Mania if he so desires.

[Loss]

It was more simple than that. He thought it would be his last year.

[Jingus]

I don't understand why anyone would think that Taker should be forced to retire forever just because the Streak is broken. So what? He's still tremendously over, as the past year has shown. As long as he's physically capable of continuing in the ring, and as long as the crowd is still giving him such great reactions, what's the problem with occasionally bringing him back for some part-time programs?

 

I don't think Cena would be a good opponent for him at Wrestlemania, though. I don't think it would help either guy to win that match, and it would probably hurt either one of them to lose. Cena is too much of a long-established veteran now for him getting a post-Streak victory to mean much (it would've been different five or ten years ago, but it's too late now) and I think Taker needs to keep winning every Mania match for the indefinite future. Losing again would make him look too washed-up; in some ways having lost once could actually improve future Mania matches, since the fans know he CAN lose here and each nearfall is a more credible maybe-finish.

 

Only because for like 5 years he hadn't appeared on any show besides Wrestlemania and whatever Raws they need for the buildup beforehand. 2015 was the first year he actually wrestled in a bunch of shows.

The weird part is how suddenly his once-per-year deal started. In 2010, according to Cagematch, Taker wrestled 49 matches. Suddenly, in 2011 and 2012, he's only working Mania and nowhere else.

[Slasher]

It was more simple than that. He thought it would be his last year.

I don't believe that. If that was true he wouldn't have had him come back for Bray Wyatt. Or Brock again. Or Brock for the third time. Or the Wyatts again. Or possibly the Royal Rumble. Whoever he is scheduled to face at Mania XXXII. I think if that was the reason given, it was just an excuse to justify the finish without making Taker look bad.

[Slasher]

Jingus- I don't think its weird. In 2010 he was still something like 44 or 45 but after you turn 40, your body can age badly practically overnight for some people...especially in something as physical as wrestling. I think Taker really needed those years to rest up after being in such high pressure matches like the Triple H HIAC, the brutal street fight type match he had the year before and of course...Brock. CM Punk is the odd man out here as IIRC it was a pretty straightforward match but then again Punk hit Taker hard to compensate for whatever perceived size difference there was.

[Loss]

 

It was more simple than that. He thought it would be his last year.

I don't believe that. If that was true he wouldn't have had him come back for Bray Wyatt. Or Brock again. Or Brock for the third time. Or the Wyatts again. Or possibly the Royal Rumble. Whoever he is scheduled to face at Mania XXXII. I think if that was the reason given, it was just an excuse to justify the finish without making Taker look bad.

 

 

Undertaker passed out and was rushed to the hospital before the end of Wrestlemania 30. He was in rough shape anyway before the match, and Vince made a last-minute call that afternoon that if they were ever going to end The Streak, it was their only chance. It's not at all inconsistent with what the thought was at the time that Undertaker was probably done. He ended up bringing him back because Undertaker said he could do it after all. Then at WM31, he told everyone he felt better physically than he had felt in a long time. So they added more matches. Circumstances change.

[Ricky Jackson]

With hindsight you could argue that they shouldn't have ended the Streak when they did, but I think Vince made the right call at the time. He thought Roman was going to be over enough a year later to get the rub from beating the man who ended the Streak, but he was off by a year

[Slasher]

 

 

 

It was more simple than that. He thought it would be his last year.

I don't believe that. If that was true he wouldn't have had him come back for Bray Wyatt. Or Brock again. Or Brock for the third time. Or the Wyatts again. Or possibly the Royal Rumble. Whoever he is scheduled to face at Mania XXXII. I think if that was the reason given, it was just an excuse to justify the finish without making Taker look bad.

Undertaker passed out and was rushed to the hospital before the end of Wrestlemania 30. He was in rough shape anyway before the match, and Vince made a last-minute call that afternoon that if they were ever going to end The Streak, it was their only chance. It's not at all inconsistent with what the thought was at the time that Undertaker was probably done. He ended up bringing him back because Undertaker said he could do it after all. Then at WM31, he told everyone he felt better physically than he had felt in a long time. So they added more matches. Circumstances change.

What was he expecting? This is Brock Lesnar. He hits hard, throws people around recklessly and has insane cardio and endurance that not many people can match, let alone a mostly retired 48 year old guy. I get that if he thought that Taker was out of shape but why didn't he notice that when they talked about ideas for him for that night? You would think he would give him a softball opponent instead of an electrified iron spiked ball like Brock if there were serious concerns. If you are saying that the finish was called on the fly via the ref's earpiece due to Taker's condition, I would doubt that. The finish looked planned all along.

[Jingus]

From what we've heard in bits and pieces from various backstage reports, the Brock/Taker match was planned months in advance. Taker said, sure, I'll be there; the plan was to have Brock lose and Taker continue carrying the streak onward. It wasn't until after the match was officially announced and hyped that Taker realized (or admitted) that he felt like shit and wasn't sure if he could keep doing this stuff anymore. Being under the gun and fearing that this might be Taker's last match ever, Vince made the impulse call to put Brock over. After a year of rest and recuperation, Taker finally managed to shake off whatever was bothering him at 30 and come back looking much more like his usual self.

 

Going into Mania 30, the timing couldn't have been more perfect anyway; Lesnar and Calloway are friends, Brock is one of the few guys that the fans might actually buy as credibly slaying the Streak, it's the big 30th-anniversary show in front of a gargantuan crowd, and they're sending everyone home happy with D-Bry's impossible title win, so there's room on the card for a huge heel upset in one of the other matches. And looking at the next year of booking: it was the right call. Brock used this unprecedented bit of street cred to go on such a glorious rampage that he became a true star attraction in a way that he never had been before. And it didn't even really seem to hurt Taker in the long term, he's continued doing business-as-usual just fine.

[Slasher]

I agree that Brock was the right guy to break the streak. Like you mentioned, they are friends and Taker certainly respects Brock a lot for his talents and abilities. He is a guy that Taker knows people would buy losing to. There is also the fact Lesnar is already a very special attraction and would not crumble under pressure of being the ender of such a Streak like a 25 year old youngster or a 30 year old upper midcarder looking to break out. Lesnar was really the only choice barring a Cena heel turn. But it should have been saved for when the end really comes for Taker. Now it just feels like Brett Favre coming back after a picture perfect end and people are like..."Oh...its Favre...back...uhhh yeah" awkwardness.

[Jingus]

Maybe it feels that way to you and a few others, but the vast majority of the fans in the arena seem to accept him with open arms. Everyone's been pretty complimentary of his comeback matches with Brock (Summerslam's dumb finish notwithstanding), and they did feel like special occasions. And it's not like Taker losing was a perfect fairy-tale ending anyway, it seemed flat and depressing and people wanted more from him.

 

You want a really great ending which turned into a really lousy comeback? Look no further than the lackluster return of Trish Stratus, who somehow went from OMG TRISH IS BACK into being just-another-diva in the span of what felt like about ten seconds. I think that's a much better example of the Favre Fatigue that you're talking about.

[Slasher]

Yeah I am only speaking for myself. The "people" I referred to was strictly about the Favre situation. I wasn't trying to use an opinion to speak for all. Obviously Taker is a legend and people are always gonna want to see him.

 

I will concede the point to you though. Also I think Flair had a bad thing going too. He retired and had this great sendoff only to be begging the WWE to work again within a few months, being turned down and gokng to TNA where he was treatrd basically like a joke. Now he returns to the WWE and his role is the oddly oversentimental dad who is forcing his daughter upon all of us. At least Shawn Michaels for the most part had the sense to basically stay retired and be kind of choosy about when and how he makes his sporadic appearances.

[goodhelmet]

OK, split this topic off since people were more interested in this than carrying on about NXT.

 

Taker vs. Cena. Book it.

[Slasher]

If its Taker/Cena, Cena has to win. I think the last time they had a meaningful match was 2003 when Cena was the young heel rapper and Taker the grizzled biker veteran. Taker beat him then. Would be a full circle deal if Cena finally beat him with the 12 years of wrestling experience he has gained since then.

[Sidebottom]

I've said in the past Taker vs Cena was a big money match, but that was when the streak was alive. I still think there is a lot of value in this match, they just need a creative reason to book the match. It can be done.

[Jimmy Redman]

Taker definitely loses something without The Streak. I feel like he does anyway. I think it sort of pushed him over an invisible line between "eternal superstar who is an integral part of Mania" to "old man Taker coming back for another short TV run to no consequence". The Streak gave him meaning, a reason for being there, at least for one major match a year, and lately that's all he'd been doing, so thus everything he did was important. Now his annual Mania match means substantially less, and his sojourns throughout the year feel more like nostalgia runs than him being a member of the active roster.

 

And I say this as a HUGE fan of his work, and with a mother who is always happy to see him. It's not that crowds aren't happy to see him. But it's just that he has no stakes anymore. He's become another touring nostalgia act.

 

The Cena Mania match, for example, has about a hundredth of the importance that it would have if Cena beating the Streak and/or turning heel to do so were on the table. As it is, it could still be done, and still be done well, but it's not what it could have been with those stakes at play.