Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted March 30, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted March 30, 2014 I think the real deciding factor for him would be when he feels he could no longer live up to the standards he's previously set. Â I hope he feels less pressure and eases off the "has to be match of the night" thing. His matches with HHH and HBK were amazing but I'd rather see 55 year old 'taker getting wheeled out for a fun squash match and going 28-0 than never see him again because he would only wrestle if he thought he put on a match of an impossibly high standard. Â I hope Sting has a few matches in WWE, I agree it won't do his mystique for the 'Taker match any favours if he's around for a bit before but he's the biggest non WWE guy ever and this is his one run in WWE, he's more than cannon fodder for 'Taker. I'd love to see him against Cena and a couple of others. Â I'd like it if they gave Sting's gimmick a tweak too, nothing major but they could give him slightly different gear, makeup and hair, make WWE Sting recognisable from TNA Sting. Â A feud between Silent mysterious Sting and silent mysterious 'Taker sounds good on paper but the buildup could be dull, I'd rather have Sting be a bit wild and lively like he has been on occasion in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I'd wager Sting is in far better shape than Taker as this stage, far less injured. Sting will surely get into the best possible look if he's coming in to WWE, and as his runs in TNA showed, with the paint (and even without it) he still looks good. Â I agree though that it doesn't have to be at WM, it's a match that will pop a big butyrate on another PPV, a Summerslam perhaps. It doesn't have to be a tough match either, with Sting now (as always really) it's about the spectacle. Â I've almost completely stopped watching wrestling now, and there's only a few matches I'm interested in seeing, and this is one of them. Sad to say, but in the next 5 years I think all the big stars will finally have retired and there'll be no reason for a fan like me to tune in. With the business to themselves, WWE has failed to make any big stars since Cena, in my eyes. That's shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Arch Stanton Posted March 30, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted March 30, 2014 I've almost completely stopped watching wrestling now... Â ...WWE has failed to make any big stars since Cena, in my eyes. Not debating the point you're making, but this isn't a very robust argument is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
METAL ON METAL Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I wouldn't be massively arsed about seeing Undertaker vs Sting at WrestleMania, but I wouldn't be against it either. It's just how many WrestleManias does Undertaker have left in him? I still would love to see him and Cena headline one before he retires. Maybe we can get both if Taker can hang on for another two years. Is that likely, or is next year's probably his last WrestleMania? Â I think he's likely around for at least two more, can't see him wanting to miss out on the rumoured big Cowboys Stadium WrestleMania in his home state of Texas. Â Plus, by then he'd be (likely) 25-0. Best way to go out, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingOfMetal Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 A win against Brock takes him to 22-0. To get to 25-0, he would have to go on and win at Wrestlemania 33. The Dallas show is pegged for WM32 is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I really hope WWE doesn't waste an Undertaker WrestleMania match on Sting. He can't have many left. Why that? Who would you rather see him fight? For starters, a match with Cena would be exactly 5984077863475385347876895347890635789 times bigger than a match with Sting. And WWE has a good handful mo' guys I'd rather see face Undertaker than them do a "dream match" that's only a dream match for Sting himself and a load of berks who saw a beard and assumed Shawn Michaels because they forgot Undertaker had a beard. In particular, Roman Reigns at WrestleMania 32 (or even 31) could seem like a genuine contender to break the streak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosler28 Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I really hope WWE doesn't waste an Undertaker WrestleMania match on Sting. He can't have many left. Why that? Who would you rather see him fight? For starters, a match with Cena would be exactly 5984077863475385347876895347890635789 times bigger than a match with Sting. And WWE has a good handful mo' guys I'd rather see face Undertaker than them do a "dream match" that's only a dream match for Sting himself and a load of berks who saw a beard and assumed Shawn Michaels because they forgot Undertaker had a beard. In particular, Roman Reigns at WrestleMania 32 (or even 31) could seem like a genuine contender to break the streak. Â Â Yes I agree I think Reigns could be the one if anyone who finally breaks the streak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I've almost completely stopped watching wrestling now... Â ...WWE has failed to make any big stars since Cena, in my eyes. Not debating the point you're making, but this isn't a very robust argument is it? Â I know what you mean, but it's a chicken and egg thing isn't it? I only really stopped with WWE about 3 or 4 years ago, which gave them a decade to come up with some other main eventers I want to see in action. And they haven't. The only thing that got me tuning in this year has been Batista's return. Â It's not my job to make the WWE interesting to me; it's their job to make it something I want to watch. The lack of big characters (both literally and figuratively) is what's lost me as a viewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil is brill Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I've almost completely stopped watching wrestling now... Â ...WWE has failed to make any big stars since Cena, in my eyes. Not debating the point you're making, but this isn't a very robust argument is it? Â I know what you mean, but it's a chicken and egg thing isn't it? I only really stopped with WWE about 3 or 4 years ago, which gave them a decade to come up with some other main eventers I want to see in action. And they haven't. The only thing that got me tuning in this year has been Batista's return. Â It's not my job to make the WWE interesting to me; it's their job to make it something I want to watch. The lack of big characters (both literally and figuratively) is what's lost me as a viewer. Â The thing I've never understood about the whole "there's no new stars" arguement is, how do you actually go about making new stars? Do they just pick someone and say "he's going to win lots of matches and hopefully the fans will cheer for him and buy his stuff"? For them to make a new star, surely someone who looks, talks and wrestles like a star has to show up and be committed to the job. It's not as simple as them just pulling the next Cena out of the air. I'm not saying it isn't a valid reason for no longer watching by any means, I just don't think making new stars is as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum1993 Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I think them putting so much stock into Lesnar as their next big star only for him to walk out so suddenly really soured WWE on building new stars. I mean how many bonified stars have WWE really created since 2004? Really there's only been Cena, Batista, Orton and Edge and to a lesser extent Punk in the last 10 years. Vince probably fears that putting all that impetus into one guy could backfire if they fuck off like Brock again. That's not to say that they won't create new ones in Bryan, Reigns, Wyatt etc but you can see why there's apprehension there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted March 30, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted March 30, 2014 The thing I've never understood about the whole "there's no new stars" arguement is, how do you actually go about making new stars? Do they just pick someone and say "he's going to win lots of matches and hopefully the fans will cheer for him and buy his stuff"? Â Don't be silly, someone comes along like Ryback who the fans seem to like, momentum starts to build for them and then instead of trading wins and losses in the midcard forever or burying them for 6 months just to see if they can take it you give them decent booking and make them look good. If they take off they take off and go from strength to strength, if they don't it's no great loss. Look at the Shield, everyone thinks any of them could be a big star and if they're booked well it could easily happen, if you give them shit angles and fights that mean nothing with the same guys every week then they'd be hard pressed to shine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The thing I've never understood about the whole "there's no new stars" arguement is, how do you actually go about making new stars? Do they just pick someone and say "he's going to win lots of matches and hopefully the fans will cheer for him and buy his stuff"? Â Don't be silly, someone comes along like Ryback who the fans seem to like, momentum starts to build for them and then instead of trading wins and losses in the midcard forever or burying them for 6 months just to see if they can take it you give them decent booking and make them look good. The thing is, that involves abandoning any long-term planning. Ryback got really hot because they booked themselves into a corner with him, and then they either had to fuck him or fuck the plans for a CM Punk t-shirt that says "434" on the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The thing I've never understood about the whole "there's no new stars" arguement is, how do you actually go about making new stars? Do they just pick someone and say "he's going to win lots of matches and hopefully the fans will cheer for him and buy his stuff"? Â Don't be silly, someone comes along like Ryback who the fans seem to like, momentum starts to build for them and then instead of trading wins and losses in the midcard forever or burying them for 6 months just to see if they can take it you give them decent booking and make them look good. The thing is, that involves abandoning any long-term planning. Â Of course it doesn't. Â Sure, they booked Ryback into a corner like idiots and squandered his momentum, but that doesn't mean they should never try and capitalise on a sudden surge of fan-support or momentum ever again. If they did that no fucker would ever get over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Sure, they booked Ryback into a corner like idiots and squandered his momentum, but that doesn't mean they should never try and capitalise on a sudden surge of fan-support or momentum ever again. I never said that they shouldn't. I said that doing so causes a conflict with sticking to plans, and WWE aren't afraid of killing sudden momentum. Booking Ryback into the corner wasn't idiotic. The buyrate proves that. Fucking him for the sake of a CM Punk t-shirt was. And WWE might well make similar mistakes again to protect guys on Punk's level and higher. Â My point was that Ryback didn't really have a "momentum starts to build" thing. He got hot when they suddenly threw him against CM Punk for a planned slow-burner feud, and then had to hotshot that match because of Cena's injury, which killed Ryback when they were too scared to pull the trigger. It was a perfect storm of talent, gimmick and situation that could've made the big guy the new megastar but that was definitely going to destroy him if they didn't go all the way with it. It was essentially a one-off. That kind of make-or-break scenario just doesn't fall in their laps often. Edited March 31, 2014 by King Pitcos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Punk didn't keep the belt to sell a t shirt. He kept it as the rocks story was that he was coming back to beat the guy one else could get the belt from. Telling the casual audience that rock is Going against a guy who has has the belt for over a year is a bigger sell than, oh he won it back a few weeks ago. Ryback was over because he was a different guy going against punk. He's not good enough for a long term push as he's limited in ring and on mic Edited March 31, 2014 by Louch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts