March 4, 20178 yr comment_5790350 When guys do radio interviews and get asked who they want to face at Mania the answer is always either Undertaker or Brock Lesnar. If you really think a few minutes of Undertaker showing his age in the Rumble undoes the 10+ years of him being presented as THE guy you want to face at WrestleMania you're crazy. The crowds are still going to be super invested in the buildup to his WM match with Roman Reigns and it will likely get the loudest reactions of any match on the show.
March 4, 20178 yr comment_5790354 There's also the weirdness of him being matched up with Roman in the sense that the company's been ramming him down people's throats as THE GUY for over 3 years. So either this is going to be the jumping off point for the long rumored (and much needed) heel turn for him, or they are going to build for another torch-passing "coronation" Wrestlemania moment that will get booed out of the building. So even if Taker was coming in ripped and jacked to the gills, unless they decide to go an avenue they've resisted for years this will not get the reaction previous Taker matches have received.
March 4, 20178 yr comment_5790355 Huh? How is Roman getting booed out of the building and Undertaker, getting heavily cheered because people don't want Roman to beat him, not going to get the reaction of previous Taker matches? It's going to get bigger reactions than at least the last 3 Taker matches at Mania. People didn't really care about the Brock match because no one thought the Streak would ever end until the match was over & Brock had won, Bray match wasn't that hot because they put no effort into building it & crowd would have rather seen Bray win & the Shane match had people invested but suffered from people wanting Shane to win for storyline reasons & mostly just sitting around waiting for the big spot everyone knew was coming. The Roman match will have people doing the yay/boo thing the whole way through.
March 4, 20178 yr comment_5790357 Roman will get booed out of the building at WM no matter who he's matched with though. I don't see people getting hyped for Taker-Roman the same way as previous Taker matches because no one is going to want to see Roman go over in the end unless they are clearly going to go full heel with him. ETA: My basic point here is unless they have some nWo level changing the business type angle in store, it seems like a waste of a Taker match to put him in with a guy who would get the same reaction no matter what.
March 4, 20178 yr Author comment_5790363 There comes a point where people are just being nice because a guy is a legend and don't want to point out how broken down and shitty they are now. Taker hit that point at least 3-4 years ago. At the Rumble he looked Andre 1988-1989 level of "why is this guy still in the ring?".
March 4, 20178 yr comment_5790364 Roman will get booed out of the building at WM no matter who he's matched with though. I don't see people getting hyped for Taker-Roman the same way as previous Taker matches because no one is going to want to see Roman go over in the end unless they are clearly going to go full heel with him. ETA: My basic point here is unless they have some nWo level changing the business type angle in store, it seems like a waste of a Taker match to put him in with a guy who would get the same reaction no matter what. I have no idea how Roman turning can be called an "nWo level changing the business type angle" especially since people WANT Roman to turn heel almost solely so they can start cheering him. WCW diehards hated Hogan and wanted him to get beat and go away. People just want Roman to turn because for some reason they're too insecure to cheer a babyface that Vince is behind and that women & kids like.
March 4, 20178 yr comment_5790365 Roman will get booed out of the building at WM no matter who he's matched with though. I don't see people getting hyped for Taker-Roman the same way as previous Taker matches because no one is going to want to see Roman go over in the end unless they are clearly going to go full heel with him. ETA: My basic point here is unless they have some nWo level changing the business type angle in store, it seems like a waste of a Taker match to put him in with a guy who would get the same reaction no matter what. I have no idea how Roman turning can be called an "nWo level changing the business type angle" especially since people WANT Roman to turn heel almost solely so they can start cheering him. WCW diehards hated Hogan and wanted him to get beat and go away. People just want Roman to turn because for some reason they're too insecure to cheer a babyface that Vince is behind and that women & kids like. It wouldn't be, which is why I feel it's wasting what might be the last big Taker WM match on Roman. At least with Cena it would be a real dream match type build, no one but Vince would buy the same build with Reigns.
March 5, 20178 yr comment_5790367 Why must we always condemn a match/storyline/whatever before it happens? At least let it play out first, and then shit all over it
March 5, 20178 yr Author comment_5790368 I'd like to think we can all agree that regardless of opponent, this should definitely be Taker's last WM.
March 5, 20178 yr comment_5790369 I can guarantee that regardless of match quality if this IS Taker's last WM there will be a large number of people next year saying that Taker should wrestle at WrestleMania 34 for "one last match"
March 5, 20178 yr comment_5790370 Why must we always condemn a match/storyline/whatever before it happens? At least let it play out first, and then shit all over it What percentage of the time do you think WWE storylines payoff in satisfying fashion? I am afraid to provide my answer to that for fear it will be seen as a troll, but I am genuinely curious. I will provide it at some point after other people provide theirs.
March 5, 20178 yr Author comment_5790371 They're probably the same people who thought Sting should have "one last match", too.
March 5, 20178 yr comment_5790372 And for several years, how some people thought Flair should get the run as the veteran going for one last big run as champion that he had already done in 1993 and that wouldn't be topped. Fans aren't particularly good at knowing when it's time for wrestlers to pack up and go home, but it's not really their job to tell wrestlers that either.
March 5, 20178 yr Author comment_5790377 I would say most big names that don't retire due to injuries tend to go 3 years or more longer than they should have. And I mean big names with big legacies, not lower card guys who have no money or other employable skills. Dusty Rhodes Ric Flair Terry Funk Dory Funk Jr. Andre The Giant Hulk Hogan Randy Savage Undertaker Harley Race Kurt Angle Sting Jerry Lawler Giant Baba Misawa Kawada Stan Hansen Taue Mutoh Chono All guys who were big names who didn't know when to hang it up and ended up negatively impacting their legacy.
March 5, 20178 yr comment_5790378 Jerry Brisco is pretty much the only wrestler that retired at the perfect time.
March 5, 20178 yr comment_5790379 Did Ali hurt his legacy by hanging on too long? Did Jordan? Did Willie Mays? Almost all great athletes and performers hang on too long. To portray that as some big negative is silly.
March 5, 20178 yr Author comment_5790381 Ali, absolutely. Jordan, no, because even on the Wizards he was still averaging 20ppg off the bench as a part time player just to help out the franchise. But athletes in actual sports hanging on too long and hurting their legacy is also a negative that is talked about frequently, particularly in combat sports.
March 5, 20178 yr comment_5790383 Why must we always condemn a match/storyline/whatever before it happens? At least let it play out first, and then shit all over it What percentage of the time do you think WWE storylines payoff in satisfying fashion? I am afraid to provide my answer to that for fear it will be seen as a troll, but I am genuinely curious. I will provide it at some point after other people provide theirs. I have no idea, depends on your definition of "satisfying". I just feel that there is way too much hand wringing about hypothetical shittyness
March 5, 20178 yr Author comment_5790384 Why must we always condemn a match/storyline/whatever before it happens? At least let it play out first, and then shit all over it What percentage of the time do you think WWE storylines payoff in satisfying fashion? I am afraid to provide my answer to that for fear it will be seen as a troll, but I am genuinely curious. I will provide it at some point after other people provide theirs. It's definitely pretty low. 1998-2001 WCW lack of payoffs in general. I feel like WWE doesn't even have actual payoffs to anything anymore. Angles just kind of die out after a bunch of rematches and then everyone moves on.
March 5, 20178 yr comment_5790385 Right. Just going from the gut, I think the hand wringing turns out to be correct in hindsight all but maybe 5% of the time. When things are consistently good for an extended period of time, companies tend to get the benefit of the doubt, to the point that their defenders are mocked as "fanboys".
March 5, 20178 yr comment_5790440 RE: "tarnished legacies" In most of those examples, there was money still on the table. Mine and and your warm and fuzzy memories of any legend aren't gonna pay their bills.
March 5, 20178 yr Author comment_5790443 Money left on the table and embarrassing yourself because you were terrible with your money or don't know what else to do aren't the same things.
March 5, 20178 yr comment_5790444 Why must we always condemn a match/storyline/whatever before it happens? At least let it play out first, and then shit all over it What percentage of the time do you think WWE storylines payoff in satisfying fashion? I am afraid to provide my answer to that for fear it will be seen as a troll, but I am genuinely curious. I will provide it at some point after other people provide theirs. Outside of Wrestlemania season, I'd say something like 10-20%. During Wrestlemania season, probably closer to 50-60%.
Create an account or sign in to comment