The last time the Undertaker lost a feud.

[Beer]

I can't even recall. I was thinking, is this a good or bad thing. It could be a bad thing, because someone needs to lose at some point, it balances the WWE out and doesn't make someone look to strong and unbeatable. At the same time this is the Undertaker we're talking about, no one gets the last laugh over 'Taker. I'm gonna say you can see why they would do that with the Undertaker, however I would like to see him gracefully lose a feud at some point.

Thoughts?

 

[monkeystyle]

Like I said, Brock went over Undertaker in the end but I cannot think of anyone since then who has gotten the last win in a feud with Undertaker.

Could be wrong though.

 

[MizMasta3000]

How many super strong faces lose feuds anyway? Can't recall Cena or Rey losing a feud in a while.

 

[monkeystyle]

You're right on Cena but Rey loses plenty.

 

[MizMasta3000]

I don't remember the last feud Rey lost. Then again, I don't watch SD much so I don't know the status of his feud with Del Rio...

 

[Beer]

I think it's a tad extreme with Take though, I cant recall him losing more than once in the last 10 years.

 

[MizMasta3000]

I guess it's not as bad since Taker doesn't have more than 2 big feuds a year

 

[He who knows more than Nation]

Kane completely dominated their past feud. He won three straight PPV matches, Taker will win the blowoff, but for all sakes and purposes, Kane won that feud.

 

[monkeystyle]

Kane completely dominated their past feud. He won three straight PPV matches, Taker will win the blowoff, but for all sakes and purposes, Kane won that feud.

What about the idea that Kane wins alot of the battles but ultimately doesn't win the war? If the Undertaker and he do have another match to continue this feud and Undertaker wins clearly and cleanly then did Kane really win the feud?

 

[Beer]

Kane completely dominated their past feud. He won three straight PPV matches, Taker will win the blowoff, but for all sakes and purposes, Kane won that feud.

If 'Taker wins the blowoff, he wins the feud. At least that's how most would see it.

 

[He who knows more than Nation]

I don't know, if there wasn't a three + month layover, the belt no longer around Kane's waist and if Taker had taken one of those three matches, had not been pinned cleanly, beaten in a HIAC, or buried alive. There are rubber match blow-offs, there are straight blow offs, and then there are blow offs just to get some heat back.

Look at the Ted DiBiasie-Dusty Rhodes feud of the early 90's. Dusty lost his black woman servant, lost two straight matches, had his son beaten by DiBiasie, lost a tag match, but won the blow off. Did he really win that feud? That's how I'm seeing Kane-Taker. Kane completely dominated him, had Paul Bearer shaft Taker and then buried him alive. Taker's gonna come back and win one blowoff and he's won the feud? I dunno, 3>1 and me thinks most see it that way. It's just going to be a heat saving blow off.

 

[...god...]

I'm kinda seeing it Enzo's way here too, when Undertaker comes back, I think it will be like Kane is much more weaker and broken than before. He's lost Paul Bearer, the world title, and his sanity even more so.

 

[Beer]

Hm, I don't know. I think usually that if you get the last laugh you win the feud, but I guess there could be a few exceptions if the other wrestler shits all over his opponent before losing the blow-off match.

 

[MizMasta3000]

Kane lost the battle, but overall, he won the war. Also look at the aftermath of the feud. Kane walks away with the WHC and Taker disappears once again.

 

[seX-Power]

Bring in Jennifer Hudson.
Make her Otunga's manager.
Give her stereotypical bitchy african american gimmick.

= Rating$$$