Why The Undertaker and The Streak SUCKS!!
The Undertaker sucks.While that old washed up has been bald fat@$$ has yet to show up this year but in my opinion I think that he absolutely sucks.
He flat out sucks.
Yeah, you're not proving anything here at all. You're just saying that he sucks throughout this passage and insulting him for being out of shape. There's no way anyone at the age of 48 (soon to be 49) is going to be the peak of their physical form, especially if they've been wrestling for 30 years, with nearly 25 of those years in WWF/E, and while he may be more brittle after those 30 years, he's certainly still able to go in that ring and put on 4-5 star quality matches if asked to.
Other than that, you're just saying "he sucks", and telling us to take your word, so I see no need to address this.
The thing that is really iritating is that he has NOTHING left to prove, he is 48 years old, he should retire.
Actually, he has a streak to defend that can be used to give up and comers rubs regardless whether they win or lose, or to put on highly anticipated matches with other superstars. Who cares if he has nothing to prove, he's still an incredibly vital asset to the company and a massive draw.
Every year it's the same boring story with Taker, there is 0 predictability to his matches, we all know that the streak will NEVER end.
Wrong. The Streak could end at any time, which is what keeps us watching. Even the matches where the streak ending wasn't in the equation could still be considered excellent matches and having great moments. The only one in recent history that sucked on both counts was the Mark Henry match at WM22. Other than that, the matches either had people of the same calibre as Taker, someone that could be given a massive rub by ending the streak, or a compelling storyline that could make you at least question the streak. Who's to say Taker doesn't give Reigns, the ultimate record breaker a rub in the future?
A lot of people say that the streak should never be broken, I disagree.Records are meant to be broken, imagine what would ending the streak would mean to a young guy like Roman Reigns or even Daniel Bryan.
I am in the opinion that the Streak shouldn't end, so I disagree with this point, respectively however (for not being one of your awful points, which we'll get to in a minute)
To call the man that breaks the streak an incredible high risk is an understatement. What if said man decides to jump on board TNA if he feels he has achieved all that he needs to do in WWE? What if he gets critically injured? What if he gets fired? WWE would need to put an unfathomable amount of stock (even more so than John Cena) to have someone break the Streak. That's the only reason Orton didn't break the streak in 2005: WWE didn't want him too. Even Undertaker wanted to put Orton over. If we look now, Orton still has an established career in WWE regardless, but he's also been a hazard, being on the cusp of being fired a few times now. The feud itself turned Orton into a star in 2005, whereas he would have just have very little to do if the Heidenreich/Snitsky match went down (Jesus Christ, that would have been BAD). He didn't have to end the streak to have an established career. The same will go with Roman Reigns and Daniel Bryan.
I wouldn't be vehemently against the streak ending. However, I think it's best that it shouldn't. Taker should defend his streak for quarter of a century, before calling it quits personally. A rub to the guys like Bryan and Reigns would be outstanding for their careers, but a massive, massive risk.
Not to mention, WWE would lose a powerful Wrestlemania draw if they ended it randomly.
Taker marks are so p@thetic, they go crazy when people say this guy should end the streak or this guy should end the streak.
Yeah, if it's someone like Ryback who deserves nothing more than a pre-show match this year or a battle royale appearance perhaps.
Now we get to one of the bad ones.
WWE is a machine, it's going to keep moving forward.It won't stop on one wrestler, not Hogan, not Austin, not Rock and certainly not Taker.
So why not make the most of Taker while he is still reasonably fit and can put on matches of excellent quality every year? Taker won't be wrestling forever, or even much longer to be blunt because of his injuries. Why cut it short while he can still go? Why not make the most of him, because that's what a business should do?
This however, takes the cake as one of the most stupid things I have ever read in my life.
With that being said, Taker should retire already.He's not helping the business in any way, right now he is a cancer to wrestling.
Good fucking grief. Good fucking grief.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Undertaker, one of the most successful wrestlers of all time, a man still capable of putting on matches of excellent quality, a man who has the mystique that he had when he debuted, perhaps more than ever, and most importantly, the man who draws a massive share of the Wrestlemania viewers by defending the streak is a CANCER to wrestling?
This point is a cancer to this entire forum to be honest.
The Undertaker got a huge opportunity to end his career at WM28 with a record of 20-0 at WrestleMania. Now he has an even better opportunity to end his career 22-0 at WMXXX.
No disrespect to Triple H, but do you REALLY want the streak to end with a THIRD rematch with him, after having a previous match with him the previous year?
I also don't see the purpose of ending at Wrestlemania 30. Wrestlemania 30 may be an anniversary show, but if Taker's streak is ending, the show should be focused on an anniversary of Taker's streak, not Wrestlemania in general.
They should just get it over with Taker vs Cena and Taker retires. Why do they keep postponing this match?
I don't know, maybe because Taker hasn't made it clear that he wants to retire yet to anyone? What's more, yes, Cena and Taker should be the final Taker match imo, but there's a reason WWE are saving it, because they also want it to be the final match.
We all know that The Undertaker will retire by defeating John Cena.It's inevitable and extremely and annoyingly predictable.
That's why it works maybe? Hogan and Andre had been built up for an incredibly long time, and that was probably the most well known wrestling match of all time. Taker and Cena could possibly reach that level because of that alone, and has a far greater chance of being a well wrestled match because of it.
Many Cena haters hate Cena a lot to the point that they think he'll end the streak but the truth is he won't.
I think Cena will probably kick out of 2 or 3 tombstones in Taker's last match and the crowd will exaggerate like a bunch of crazed manchilds and pretend like The Streak is going to end and it isn't the most predictable thing in the world just like they did last year and just like they will do this year with his match against Brock.
Actually, there's a good chance Cena COULD end the streak.
Think about it, Cena's entire gimmick is to rise against the odds and to prove the doubters wrong. Cena has a good chance to end the streak, far more than anyone else personally. If WWE want Cena to be bigger than Hogan (let's face it, Hogan and Austin are both bigger stars than Cena), that would be the icing on the cake. I'd probably be initially pissed if Cena won the match, but I'd eventually accept it and to say the man doesn't deserve it is sheer idiocy.
Also, Cena has a hell of a larger chance to beat the streak than Punk or Lesnar. Don't even try to use that argument.
I don't think Brock Lesnar has any chance of ending the streak, it's typical of Taker, he couldn't let it go.He put over Brock Lesnar in 2002 and now he wants to bury him, he couldn't let it go.
Another cretinous point. Taker is putting people over just by wrestling them at Wrestlemania. Hell, he gave Ambrose a massive rub by just wrestling him on Smackdown. To suggest that he's burying Lesnar is absolutely absurd.
As for Lesnar ending the streak, no he probably won't. But the question is, how will Taker stop Lesnar, the MMA champion a few years back, and the monster that dispatched Big Show with ease. That's common psychology and that's what will get most people to watch the match with much anticipation.Here is how the Brock Lesnar - The Undertaker will go:
-Taker will return, probably scare lesnar or something.
-Paul Heyman will say something about Lesnar beating Hunter and Punk, the 2 guys who Taker defeated the last 3 years.
-Brock Lesnar will attack Taker.
-Brock Lesnar will attack Taker.WrestleMania: Lesnar beats up Taker the entire match, lots of false finishes, Taker wins.
Taker disappears for the next year.
Your fantasy booking sucks too.
As a guy who attends WrestleMania for the last couple of years, I have 0 interest in seeing Taker taking 20-30 minutes from WrestleMania to his ego.
Oh piss off. Taker doesn't have to give these people a match at all. We've established that regardless of who wins, the opponent gets to look good in losing.
The match with Lesnar will be great, just like it was with Punk.Punk carried Taker, it was just an embarassment seeing Taker last year, he didn't do ANYTHING memorable.
Punk carried him in the entire feud and the match, taker only said his generic "I'm gonna hurt you" WTF is this lame $#!t?
Lesnar this year will also carry Taker this year to a great match, all of Lesnar matches have been great.
You clearly don't understand the concept of the Undertaker character then. Taker doesn't have to say much at all. His presence alone speaks more words than any Punk promo could. What's more, he didn't even have to say much more. Punk and Heyman insulted a man who had passed away recently and a man Taker held dear to him for many years and Taker was pissed off to say the least.
As for the match, it was an excellent match as you said. But to suggest Punk carried it is absurd. Watch the match again more closely, and you'll understand. That is, if you have the perception skills.
Taker feuded with the shield, daniel bryan took the pin on raw in a 6 man tag match then Taker gave the shield their first loss on Smackdown then they beat him up after the match, I guess that's putting them over.
Glad to see you have some common sense, little as it may be.
I guess for Taker marks, it's ok for Taker to come back and bury everyone, he's becoming like Hogan and Flair but the difference is when those guys came back, they were in the mid-card and putting talents over not like Taker, taking a 20-30 minute match at every WrestleMania.
So Hogan and Flair were putting talent over in random matches that will be not be as remembered as an excellent match Undertaker had with X opponent at Wrestlemania? Where the match is more special because Taker tends to fight only once a year?
Even in your own warped logic, you make no sense.
Taker can bury every young talent, he should come back for the next 50 years and beat everyone who becomes a star because it's an "honour" and a "privilege" for anyone to be facing the Holy Taker.
Your sarcasm skills suck too.
Imagine if Hogan kept coming back at WrestleMania, if he beat Austin at WM13 or Rock at WM15 because it's an "honour" for them to be facing Hogan.
If it wasn't one sided like most of Starcade 97's match with Sting, then yeah, it would be a great benefit if those guys got to go all out and have an excellent match.
Taker is boring, his matches are beyond predictable.
Depends on the opponent.
I don't care if the streak ends or not, all I want is just for Taker to retire this year.
Suit yourself. I want to get the most out of the Undertaker while we still can.
I have no interest in seeing Cena vs Taker because we all know that the undertaker will win, I also think that Taker vs Bryan or Taker vs Reigns should NOT happen if Taker is winning.
I've talked about this already, so scroll up.
In conclusion/Tl;dr, you're an idiot who doesn't understand the concept of a wrestling business and rubs.
