-
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
The last time the Undertaker lost a feud.
- Thread starter Beer
- Start date
Nice evasion.
Well if anyone knows about those, it's you. I'm only following in the footsteps of the best.
But to the point, I'm always going to remember Kane burying Taker (both times) as those are the kind of things I love in the WWE. The over the top, cartoonish stuff. Not dry but not quite Katie Vick or Mae Young birthing a hand. But the bottom line is that Taker could lose every match for the rest of his career and it wouldn't matter, he'd still come out a winner because he's that over. If all you remember is what happened yesterday or recently, you may need to stop smoking tree.
Well if war comparisons are going to be made, then I'll make a boxing comparison. If a guy is winning the fight on the scorecards and has basically won every round and his opponent comes back and wins the last two rounds after getting pounded, did he win the fight? Fuck no. Can he still look good in the process ? Yes. And fans are closer to judges than they are to the UN.
The foregone conclusion was that this fight went to the cards.
Bad comparison. Those are the rules of boxing.
So if kane-taker was a war and kane won 3 straight, had his father betray the undertaker and retained the world title and thne burried taker and taker comes back to win one match four months later, how is that define winning a war? Sounds more like the confederates who kept on fighting because they had pride and were unaware of the war ending. The boxing comparison is meant as the way we are arguing it. To myself I see it as kane winning because he dominated the entire feud from start to end. Taker coming back months later is a little irrelevant to what happened months before and he winning the feud.
And what if Undertaker comes back and retires Kane (equivalent of a knockout in your analogy)?
Also, the casual fan views it as they're told to. If the announcers or the WWE brings up the fact that Kane DOMINATED Undertaker, his win won't matter as much. Or even if Kane brings it up.
Just to comment on the whole Kane an Taker thing. Now I can't recall very much but didn't all of their matches end with some kind of dubious circumstances?
Their matches in their recent feud that is.
Their matches in their recent feud that is.