Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

JANUARY PRO WRES YAMMERING


Recommended Posts

Source for the going out on a loss thing and offering it up to those guys please

Sounds like shit Scott Keith says

 

Well now that I look for a official source I cannot find anything beyond heresy, so take my previous words out of the equation. I still say he is going out losing and his last match will be at Wrestlemania, no way Vince lets that go out on anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I figured the concussion stuff was overblown, and no updates at the end of the week can't be anything but positive. But, you know. The internet.

Also, if Taker is retiring, he HAS to lose to Bryan. Perfect storm. If not? He shouldn't lose ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Taker actually does want to go out on a loss, then Bryan's about the best person for him to lose to, but for people who want this because it will "make" Daniel Bryan, then I've got a question:

Who "made" Hogan? Shieky? You can make the argument for Andre, but really Hogan was massively over even before WM3.

Who "made" Austin? HBK? Nah, Austin was already the guy, then. Hart? Well maybe, but Austin LOST that match.

Who "made" Rock, Cena, Flair, etc.

If Bryan is going to be one of those guys, he's gonna do it on his own merits whether or not he ends the streak or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation comes up every few months about the streak, and it's always the same points back and forth.  I fall into the "it shouldn't be broken" crowd for a few reasons. 

 

But overall, I think the best reason not to do it would be because the fans would hate it.  I just really don't think that the fans, as a whole, want to see Taker beat at Wrestlemania, and I imagine the reaction to it happening would either be a total deflation of energy of the crowd that was present or a backlash of heat against whoever does it.

 

That being said, I figure Taker will do whatever the hell he wants to do and no one will really argue with him if he puts his foot down one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Brock had properly brutefucked Triple H and Punk like the corny pushovers they are (well, compared to Brock anyways) Bryan would've gotten just as much out of a win over him at WM. And if Brock wrecks some top guys on the road to 'Mania, it would still be a big deal for Bryan to pick up a win over him at 'Mania.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the current kayfabe hierarchy of power in the WWE?

 

Vince

Triple H/Stephanie

Kane/Brad Maddox (who can overrule the other?)

Vickie Guerrero (since she comes to RAW and makes decisions sometimes, I don't even know if she should be below Kane/Maddox)

Booker T?? (Can't remember if he's still supposed to be an authority figure)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I'm assuming that was their 2nd WM match where 'Taker was allegedly willing to do the honors, that Kane rumor makes no sense. I mean hadn't Triple H already unmasked therefore deballed him by then anyways? Ending the streak wasn't going to do shit for Kane. Besides he and Big Show were settled well into their Kolchak phases by then where they'd be the monster of the month at best whenever the champ had nobody else to face on some filler PPV. So Kane ever being considered to end the streak was kind of ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the current kayfabe hierarchy of power in the WWE?

 

Vince

Triple H/Stephanie

Kane/Brad Maddox (who can overrule the other?)

Vickie Guerrero (since she comes to RAW and makes decisions sometimes, I don't even know if she should be below Kane/Maddox)

Booker T?? (Can't remember if he's still supposed to be an authority figure)

 

I think Booker T just hangs around. He's kinda like Tony Garea now.

 

As for the GM's. Maddox can make rulings/matches. But Kane can in turn supersede those rulings and matches. I assume the same applies to Vickie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered what the big deal about someone breaking Taker's streak is. I'll admit, I've fantasy book'd a guy or two in a Taker WM match, but this whole streak must end to be mean anything seems like a bunch of hog wash.

This is pro-wrestling.  You don't build something up that much without paying it off, and letting Undertaker retire undefeated is exactly what that is.  Ideally, the streak should be broken by someone, and Undertaker tries to avenge the loss the next year and loses again.

 

 

If Taker actually does want to go out on a loss, then Bryan's about the best person for him to lose to, but for people who want this because it will "make" Daniel Bryan, then I've got a question:

Who "made" Hogan? Shieky? You can make the argument for Andre, but really Hogan was massively over even before WM3.

Who "made" Austin? HBK? Nah, Austin was already the guy, then. Hart? Well maybe, but Austin LOST that match.

Who "made" Rock, Cena, Flair, etc.

If Bryan is going to be one of those guys, he's gonna do it on his own merits whether or not he ends the streak or not.

The thing that made Hogan, Austin, and Cena are a combination of them being hot and able to squeeze anything they can out of an angle (both attributes Danielson has) and their being unbeatable.  Rock and Flair are basically just themselves, although it seems weird to say that about The Rock, who had basically a two year grooming period for the main event.  Loses could have hurt Austin, probably would have hurt Cena, and definitely would have hurt Hogan.  Flair and Rock were pretty bulletproof.  Danielson is looking bulletproof, but it's still early, so the WWE could still fuck it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Brock had properly brutefucked Triple H and Punk like the corny pushovers they are (well, compared to Brock anyways) Bryan would've gotten just as much out of a win over him at WM. And if Brock wrecks some top guys on the road to 'Mania, it would still be a big deal for Bryan to pick up a win over him at 'Mania.

Brock losing to Triple H, actually a one arm Triple H was the worst. Brock should just gorilla fuck everyone in his way or keep him far away from anyone like Bryan who has no reason lasting more then 5 minutes with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Streak can be broken as long as it's to the right person and it's done in the right fashion. 

 

Personally, I'd put it at 60/40. Broken vs. Not-Broken. It wouldn't surprise me either way. 

 

At this point, Bryan takes it down, Roman Reigns next year or the year after, or Cena takes it and turns heel. 

 

Cena doing it and turning heel would fucking rule, but it's the least likely option. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether the streak gets ended or not, I've always thought it would be really cool if the Undertaker hands over the urn and the powers to someone else. Someone that has an occult/supernatural gimmick already, or something close enough to it. 

 

What do y'all think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether the streak gets ended or not, I've always thought it would be really cool if the Undertaker hands over the urn and the powers to someone else. Someone that has an occult/supernatural gimmick already, or something close enough to it. 

 

What do y'all think?

and that's how Bray Wyatt became the Paul Bearer for Erick Rowan's Undertaker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether the streak gets ended or not, I've always thought it would be really cool if the Undertaker hands over the urn and the powers to someone else. Someone that has an occult/supernatural gimmick already, or something close enough to it. 

 

What do y'all think?

 

Jason Todd should break the streak.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way somebody might get made by ending the streak is if after it reaches a nice round 25-0 in 'Taker's final match; he goes and stays away for a year or two, long enough to put out a commemorative 25-0 boxset then 3-4 WrestleManias later some uberdouche goads him into coming out of retirement to defend the streak.

 

Taker would be in his late 50's by the time this played out.  Would beating a 58-yr. old Taker carry enough of a rub to justify ending the streak? 

 

I've always thought the streak should have been ended before now.  WWE has let the streak build to the point where whoever ended it would be under enormous pressure to both get over to an insane degree, and already be massively over before the match takes place.  Fans at this point aren't going to accept a new Ryback/Ziggler/ADR-level guy coming in and going over.

 

Truthfully, though, I don't have a lot of faith in the company to pick the right guy to end the streak and follow up strongly.  I'll believe the Taker wants to end the streak/wants to put Daniel over/wants to put Punk over stuff when I actually see it.  Cena makes the most sense, probably as part of a heel turn, but, by the time they turn Cena heel, Taker will be collecting social security.

 

Might be better to let Taker retire with the streak intact.  Truthfully, I'd just as soon not see a physically diminished Taker trotted out every year or two for WrestleMania.  Never really been a fan of the whole act.  He became a damn good worker during the 00's and I enjoyed his run on  Smackdown as Big Evil.  But he's getting past the point where he can get his A game together for WrestleMania (I kinda feel his the Michaels match, and, to a lesser extent, the last match with Trip, were his last hurrahs).

 

I do kinda want to see Davey Richards end the streak just for shits and giggles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean hadn't Triple H already unmasked therefore deballed him by then anyways?

Oh, go back to the time warp you crawled out of. Kane's unmasking led to a renewed monster push that positioned him as a top heel before they started the Shane McMahon nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I mean hadn't Triple H already unmasked therefore deballed him by then anyways?

Oh, go back to the time warp you crawled out of. Kane's unmasking led to a renewed monster push that positioned him as a top heel before they started the Shane McMahon nonsense.

 

I think the fact he didn't have scars, and the angle where he burned a recording of JR screaming pretty much screwed Kane unmasked way before the Shane feud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but we all agree it was awesome when he shocked Shane's balls and that's all that matters

 

How about the obvious reason that him losing to Kane there would make no fucking sense

IT WAS THE FIRST MATCH BACK AS THE DEADMAN AGAIN USE YOUR BRAINS

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...