You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: The Wrestling thread
Taker's mystique would not be tarnished at all because his streak would be ended in an unlegit way. Plus it creates the possibility of having an incredibly angry and pissed off Undertaker. Then to follow it up the year later with his all out destruction of all the main guys from the Attitude era would only increase his mystique. He'd be 20-1 and that one loss woud be the motivation to his destruction of the attitude era roster. In my opinion its perfect.
And no offence but we just disgaree on this part about new gusy needinga push from the older guys. I don't want any of the old guys jobbing to the fucks on the roster now. There isn't anyone on the roster that is worthy of tarnishing the legacy of any of the names mentioned. I sure as shit don't want to see Dolph Ziggler get over on The Rock. I would puke is CM Punk got over on Austin. I definitly don't want to see the Miz get over on HBK. The new generation needs to build their own legacy. I don't want them buidling it off the Attitude era at all.
And where did those guys you mentioned get the key wins they need. Austin got his in matches against Jake The Snake, a great feud with Bret Hart and finally winning by beating an on the way out HBK.
Taker got a rub early on by coming in and being pushed to the moon beating Hogan, THE GUY, in his first year to win the WWF Championship.
Short of these guys going over Cena or Orton and maybe eventually Punk once he's more established these old veterans could be useful in having high profile feuds with younger talent and doing the job in their last match on the way out.
Cena will go over Rock. It makes no sense not to because it basically says that Cena and everyone below him is not at the level of the past generation, and regardless of whether that is true or not it makes no sense to do it.
I understand that the talent may not be there, they definitely aren't being showcased as well as the Attitude era and the booking is a lot worse now than it was. But these guys need to be given a chance or else the WWE are screwed because these old guys are going to move on very soon and then there will only be the new generation of talent.
Their lack of talent building from 2001-2004 was shocking. Only one guy- Brock Lesnar, who turned out to be a waste for them as he split. Then from 05-06 they invested their time into Cena, Orton and Batista. Wasn't a bad idea except Batista was old and is now gone and Orton is a blackhole of charisma. They also built Edge up in this time- unfortunately injuries got in the way and he's gone. Jeff Hardy- left and they look like fools for investing in a highly unreliable worker. That's it.
Cena just needs a character overhaul to be interesting again whether that's a heel turn or some time off to come back with a more interesting character as a face.
Fact is they've failed to make a good new set of stars and it wasn't lack of talent it was lack of pushing new talent. Now they're having to and these old guys could really help out.
Hopefully Cody goes over Big Show at Mania, that should then give him a wave of momentum to ride all the way to a World Title hopefully by the end of the year.
Punk needs to go over Jericho to finally get himself that proper Wrestlemania victory. He's been in three Money In The Banks, and two singles feuds at mania. He needs a win this time.
Bryan and Sheamus need some good screen time on RAW because no one watches Smackdown.
And I really don't see the point in having Taker lose and then go on a rampage. Rock's not back full time. Austin at best could come back for one match, one with no crazy bumps. Triple H is transitioning to a more off-screen role. Kane is the only guy who might be around for a bit longer in an active capacity and HBK doesn't want to come out of retirement he has said he wants to stay retired and not be like a Flair or Hogan.
Under those circumstances where is the need for Taker to lose? So he can come back next year and fight HHH again at Mania for Taker Vs HHH IV? I'd rather see him do something else maybe Taker Vs Cena next year. Or maybe finally end it all and have Taker Vs Kane and it be the last match for both of them. It's took risky to have a young guy break the streak at this stage because the pay off could be a complete waste and it doesn't make sense from a legacy stand point to end it. The amount of money the WWE could also have in Streak Boxset when Taker retires is fairly sizeable as well. The only time I could have seen there been a worthy payoff for ending it, was at Wrestlemania 21.
Taker Vs Orton. The streak was only about 12-0 at that stage and Taker still had some years left in him. Orton was in full on Legend Killer mode and that win could have cemented him as something huge for them to use and market for years to come. That said I don't disagree with the decision to have Taker win that match, but it's the only Mania I can think of where it would have made sense.
Re: The Wrestling thread
I think you over value the streak. It's nto like an Undertaker boxset wouldn't sell or coudn't be calld the Streak just because he "lost" one match. It's also not like fans would think less of him because of a 20-1 record.
I also think you over estimate the current talent on the roster. I don't agree that it's all been a product of bad booking and terrible writing. That's part of it but the talent is boring. They may have in ring skill but they are fucking boring. Even Punk is boring these days. they lack charisma and no amount fo writing or booking can fix that.
And truth be told the scenario I just outlined would be amazing in my opinion. It would do nothing to tarnish the legacy of the Undertaker, it would be a great way to cap his career and it would also be a huge tribute to the attitude era. Then the slat is clean and the new era guys can just build their own legacy.
It's like Guns N' Roses. You aren't gonna create somehting off the backs of guys from the past at thsi point. They gotta do it on their own. Having this new talent get over on guys from the attitude era would just be crap.
Like I've mentioend in the past the company is too spread out. Smackdown needs to go away and RAW needs to be the home for all the top level main event guys. The rest of the roster can go on some late night saturday show and be used as a farm system.
That'd be a start to resetablishing a new era. Make RAW matter again.
Re: The Wrestling thread
That I agree with. The roster is too thin right now for a brand split. And again regardless of how you feel your scenario isn't plausible because you are using two guys who are retired, one guy who so far only seems to be coming back for dream matches, two guys who are phasing themselves out of the scene into either other roles or retirement and one guy who is active but again is old (43) and is no doubt thinking about retirement very soon.
I know you want these guys to build their own legacy but a passing of the torch with the right build would do wonders for these guys. I'll grant you that I may be over estimating the talent but I would also say you are greatly under estimating the current crop of talent.
I'd say that there are guys on the roster that are just as talented as the likes of Cena and Orton, and say what you will about those guys being boring- I would especially agree with you about Orton- but those guys are two stars the company have and they became huge stars by having high profile feuds with HHH, Undertaker, Kurt Angle and The Big Show. With those guys doing the job OR making them look like a million bucks.
I think a young heel on the roster could get a lot of mileage out of a feud with Mick Foley, for just a couple of matches if Mick can still go well enough.
I think Austin if he can do one match the only sensible opponents for him would be Punk, Cena or Orton (preferably Punk) and he should do the job in that scenario to either of them. There's NOTHING to gain by having these old guys who are out the door within the next year or two going over the young talent. These guys are already over and always will be they've had numerous world titles and don't need more, the young guys do need a chance to shine and I hope this year that they do.
And I don't feel I over value the streak. It's the single most greatest accomplishment in wrestling, and going 20-0 would be huge. If you want to have him lose after he's going 20-0 I can understand that at least a little, he's already hit the 20 milestone, but at least have him hold a record of 20 straight wins instead of 19 wins a loss and then a win. It just doesn't sound as impressive and there is something really great about the idea of 20-0.
Re: The Wrestling thread
The weird thing is that they've actually started signing more actual wrestlers instead of guys who look good and can be trained. I'm going to give some props to HHH for this development.
I think you're also underestimating how boring the WWE wrestling style can be at times. I guess they just need to find the right mix of workrate and personality.
It would be better if they let some of the wrestlers cut loose on the promos instead of scripting it beforehand.
Re: The Wrestling thread
Um Jericho's promo was odd. Alcoholism is now a genetic trait apparently oooooohhkay. Glad they're adding something more to this Punk Vs Jericho feud just wish it could get some more TV time. Wasn't a bad promo but a complete swerve in direction from how this feud was going. Hopefully this intensifies and ramps in the next two weeks.
Re: The Wrestling thread
Alcoholism does seem to be genetic. Families with a history of it tend to produce new family members who struggle with the same addiction problems. Are you suggesting alcoholism is a choice? It is a choice to get help or not but it's definitly not a hcoice to become an alcoholic. As someone who's lost his brother(his mom's family are all alcoholics) to it and nearly lost his girlfriend and as someone who's seen first hand how alcohol can completely change a person and the type of vice grip hold it can have over their lives, I can safely say these people are not choosing to be alcoholics.
Re: The Wrestling thread
I never once suggested people chose to be addicts. I just contested that it was a genetic trait. I have read up and there is some evidence to suggest that there is a genetic component to alcohol dependency. Until now I had been under the impression that it was more due to enviromental factors or psychological traits. Sorry if I offended you but please don't put words in my mouth.
