WrestleMania Main Event
- Thread starter Roadster
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
Given how the feud was the main one going in, I understand why it went on last, and as well it should. I wasn't a fan of the match mostly because that countout/DQ stip kinda killed it, if it wasn't for that surely HHH and Orton could've had a better match. I mentioned it mostly because in retrospect the show would've ended on a higher note hadn't it gone last imo but they did the right thing then.
WM29 - CM Punk vs The Undertaker. I could see them using Punk's record-breaking title reign to push Punk against The Undertaker's epic streak to make a match that nobody could predict the outcome of. Imagine seeing Punk, who has just beaten The Rock (obviously outcome changed from RR) twice, take on the man who has never lost at WrestleMania... Can Punk retain the title AND beat The Streak? Or does The Undertaker win one more time at WrestleMania and claim the WWE Championship?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,334
- Reaction score
- 1,703
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 37
It would have been obvious that Undertaker was winning the championship. Not saying it would have been a bad idea (it was actually rumored to be the WWE Title match at WM29, although in that case the Cena/Rock rematch was still gonna be the headline match), but it wouldn't have been hard to predict the outcome of.
Unless they wanted Punk to actually break the Streak, which I wanted to happen until Paul Bearer died and they used him as a plot device for the storyline. I guess if he didn't die, it would be a bit more harder to predict.
Great.
As long as Savage and Steamboat was like Platinum to Gold compared to Undertaker and Punk
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,334
- Reaction score
- 1,703
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 37
Punk ending the Streak would have been absolutely terrible. And I seriously doubt they would have ever allowed that to happen. I know people said the same thing concerning the possibility of Brock Lesnar ending it, but still, comparing the two, I could find Lesnar ending it more plausible than Punk ending it.
The ending of the Streak was based on one person's decision and one person's only.
Rationally speaking, neither Lesnar or Punk had any business ending it. Lesnar was a terrible choice for Undertaker to make. There is some rationality there, but it was stupid of him to choose Lesnar.
If Lesnar respected the business enough or even a little bit more, that might have helped. With him working so few dates he taking a loss in even one calendar year is too many.
Lesnar working more dates may have allowed him to put over Cesaro, which was the original plan. Nope, Taker wanted the big dumb a** meat head to end his streak.
I blame Taker for this. He was successful in getting the most believable competitor to end it, but the payoff sucks.
Rationally speaking, neither Lesnar or Punk had any business ending it. Lesnar was a terrible choice for Undertaker to make. There is some rationality there, but it was stupid of him to choose Lesnar.
If Lesnar respected the business enough or even a little bit more, that might have helped. With him working so few dates he taking a loss in even one calendar year is too many.
Lesnar working more dates may have allowed him to put over Cesaro, which was the original plan. Nope, Taker wanted the big dumb a** meat head to end his streak.
I blame Taker for this. He was successful in getting the most believable competitor to end it, but the payoff sucks.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2014
- Messages
- 44,470
- Reaction score
- 4,214
- Points
- 118
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Would you rather have Undertaker lose to a random pro wrestler or lose to an amatuer wrestler turned pro wrestler turned UFC champion. Even though I hated it and I still kinda do that makes sense.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,334
- Reaction score
- 1,703
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 37
Who cares about Lesnar's accomplishments outside of wrestling? Pro wrestling is all fake anyway. The Streak didn't have to end to someone just because that someone went and made a name for themselves outside of wrestling. I'm open-minded and perceptive enough to see the positive side of Brock ending it, but still.
Also, "a random pro wrestler"? That's what full-time members of the roster are now? A long string of victories over a bunch of random pro wrestlers is why the Streak ever existed in the first place.
Yes.
I would have preferred losing to somebody who epitomized commitment and integrity. F*** Brock Lesnar. You people need to stop trying to convince this guy is a human being deserving respect.
It would be too easy to nit pick what kind of complete a**hat Lesnar is. Look at his career and that speaks for itself. Undertaker made a sh** head choice, plain and simple.
I DO see the bright side, but Lesnar still finds a way to f*** things up. Then again its not Brock's fault. He doesn't work dates. This was why I blame Undertaker.
I struggle to see MANY positives because Lesnar will only work 'Slam, maybe NoC, Royal Rumble is likely and WM for sure. That's 4 matches. Losing his first bout would be asinine.
What about Cesaro? What about the WWEWHC? WWE has to collect their marbles and ask Lesnar if he'll make more dates. It shouldn't be this way, not now. Lesnar is a child.
Lesnar wasn't the worst choice but far, far from the best. LOL To think, as we speak, Vince is on farm crouched on his knees begging this a**hole to work more dates and to even come back at all after WM.