A Screen Up Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Having verbal confrontations with Triple H and Kevin Nash, and winning the WWE title is a far cry from ending Undertaker's streak no matter how you look at it. Â Nobody even believed that Triple H could do it going into 'Mania last year. The only time that a number of people collectively thought it was going to be ended was the Tombstone Hunter hit. Â Realistically, Ziggler or Sheamus, no matter how talented they may be, are a long stretch from the calibre of Cena etc. Â Batista didn't get it when he was been given a monster push. Orton couldn't get it done. Nor could Edge. Shawn Michaels had two opportunities. Same goes for Triple H. Undertaker's streak won't be ended, I'd put money on it. As I said before, it would take a near-miracle to get people believing that Jericho or Punk could do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsClobberingTime Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 The only person on the roster that I would see as a viable threat to the streak now is John Cena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Screen Up Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 The only person on the roster that I would see as a viable threat to the streak now is John Cena. Â Absolutely. There is no two ways about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted January 24, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 Having verbal confrontations with Triple H and Kevin Nash, and winning the WWE title is a far cry from ending Undertaker's streak no matter how you look at it. Never said it was. I'm noting how quick Punk went from Nexus leader, where he was squashed by a 50 year old Bret Hart and Rey Mysterio to the main babyface on Raw. So its easy to make a list of who isnt a star now, compared to who will be a star in the next 18 months. Â Nobody even believed that Triple H could do it going into 'Mania last year. The only time that a number of people collectively thought it was going to be ended was the Tombstone Hunter hit. Who's nobody exactly? I just told you I personally thought he could, and I bet a lot of those 1,000,000 buyers who dont make fucking lists and dissect everything thought so as well. The world is far bigger than a thread about who cant break the streak. Not everyone is watching with the magic gone. Â Realistically, Ziggler or Sheamus, no matter how talented they may be, are a long stretch from the calibre of Cena etc. Thats what they said about Cena in 2002, until Stephanie all of a sudden thought he was the best thing since sliced bread. The Rock was a complete write off for a while as well (even when he first joined the Nation). Look at Batista in October 2004 and look at him in January 2005. 12 months is a long time in wrestling. Â Batista didn't get it when he was been given a monster push. Orton couldn't get it done. Nor could Edge. Shawn Michaels had two opportunities. Same goes for Triple H. Edge couldn't do it. Undertaker's streak won't be ended, I'd put money on it. As I said before, it would take a near-miracle to get people believing that Jericho or Punk could do it. Just because they didn't get the win over Undertaker, doesnt mean nobody believed it or even that there wasnt talk of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Screen Up Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 I'm far from a fan who watches without any of the magic. I watch two hours of wrestling a week for a couple of months of the year and don't own ten pieces of wrestling merchandise (videos and DVDs included). I love watching wrestling when I do get the chance to and it's not like a dissect it; far from it. I made a statement regarding how I believed that hardly anybody thought the streak would be ended last year because the consensus was that it wasn't going to happen. You edited your post with that statement after I'd read it and began to reply. Â I'm not denying your comments regarding how stars can be made in no time at all. My point is that personally I don't believe there is anybody on the roster who will end the streak (barring John Cena). I'm certainly not alone in this view. Â You think that somebody can end it, Triple H perhaps? Fair play - that's your opinion. But simply because I'm in the percentage who believe that the streak will remain in tact doesn't mean that I can name ever timekeeper who's ever sat ringside at the Budoken Hall and rips the shit out of wrestling when I am the complete opposite. Â I enjoy our debates, Ian. We're usually polar opposites when it comes to our views but it's far better than them being so alike that there's nothing to discuss over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moofasa Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 moofasa, which of the following would you seriously consider putting money on ending Undertaker's streak, should they have a match at Wrestlemania? Triple H John Cena Chris Jericho CM Punk Alberto Del Rio The Miz Kane Wade Barrett Sheamus Dolph Ziggler  For me, only the top two. And even then, Triple H at a very big push. Undertaker pretty much wrestles one match per year these days, it's a completely different kettle of fish to how it was in 2008.  There's two ways to look at that list take out Kane and read it from bottom to top, its a list of people who gain the most from ending the streak. Putting money on, you'd always go for someone who didn't need it the favourite so to speak, but built right and caught up in emotion of the match and the near falls, any of those bottom three long shots could have me believing this was their moment. Alot of legends laid down for Taker to build his streak would be nice if he did the same to build someone elses legend.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Ziggler hitting his bloody 'jump up and yank 'em from behind' to beat Taker for the streak? I will literally upload a video of me having a shit sandwich if it happens. Â Taker will retire with the streak intact. He'll probably beat Cena to retire, perhaps at Wrestlemania XXX. Watching Edge vs. Taker, there was no doubt in my mind that Taker would win. Good near falls and end sequence, but it was a given that Taker would win for me. Michaels had me believing he might break the streak. I didn't believe Triple H would win either, though some moments made me mark out for a split second. And as the other guy said, it's not just people who dissect wrestling that think this. I could watch this with mates who haven't watched wrestling in ages and they'd say the same. I could watch it with mates who watch wrestling regularly and they'd say the same. I'm fine with him retiring with the streak intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members I Bent My Wookie Posted January 24, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 Surely Ziggler would use the sleeper to finish it? If it was him that hypothetically did it. To break the streak you have to break Taker and take the life outa him kinda thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Ok, the 'jump and yank 'em from behind' would be a rubbish near fall as it's a rubbish finish. Taker's streak ending with a Dolph Ziggler sleeper would sicken me. II agree in principle that it's like squeezing the life out of him and at least that way he's not down for a three count...but it's a sleeper hold at the end of the day. I'll upload the shit sandwich video if he wins by a sleeper too. Â Also, there's no way Triple H is going to win this year. If Taker loses, it's going to be in the main event and Cena vs. Rock is undoubtedly main eventing. Ian, you have a wealth of wrestling knowledge. Surely you can see this much? Sorry to be a killjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members I Bent My Wookie Posted January 24, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 I'm kinda glad I know in my heart I'm about 90% wrong as the day the UKFF has a man eating a shit sandwich with visuals as a discussion point is probably the day to step away from this place all together to regain any sanity left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I do it for effect. It's not that bad after the first bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members GlennCullen Posted January 27, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 They have played up the fact that Taker came within a whisker of losing the streak last year, and hasn't been seen since. He's getting older, and more vulnerable. If built correctly it could be a massive moment having someone like Ziggler beat The Last Cowboy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Screen Up Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 I've taken this quote from the Raw thread as I think it is a point of view which could provoke a strong discussion on here without derailing the other thread further. Â Crap gets churned out an awful lot now on WWE TV, and one of the reasons that can happen is because you guys are prepared to defend and praise the product as it is. I was only really a big fan when they had characters with a consistent constitution. When things developed more logically, like "What will Austin do about X?" When there were intersecting feuds, factions, stories under an umbrella storyline... All of which required a huge amount of creative effort to construct. I want the better, more developed, more thought-through creatively thing. You're defending the current trend which means compartmentalised, simple feuds (often based on creaky ideas which have been pulled out of someone's arse that day) are the norm now. Â In the show I want... Punk would have stuck to the things he said before... He'd have continued to think the WWE title looks ugly, and done something about it. He wouldn't have just started holding it aloft proudly all the time as though he'd never said those things. Logic, consistency and creative effort made Raw must-see viewing at certain times in the past. I want that. You have decided to argue on the side of WWE doing their current shit. So well done you. Â Realise this is deraling the Raw topic, and some of you seem to think I'm a valid target for the 'troll' accusation. So I am happy to leave you guys to it if it's really causing that much heartache. Â I won't deny the fact that certain angles, matches or aspects of WWE programming can at times be deemed "crap". But this is not something that has only occurred within the past five or ten years; it's gone on since the birth of the WWWF. Even when Hogan was on top, or Austin and Rock were in their heydays, there has always been a ton of angles and skits going on that would be considered little more than "crap". Â Your statement saying that the reason it is like it is today is because "guys like (us) are prepared to defend and praise the product as it is" is utterly ridiculous on numerous levels. Firstly, the posters on here are hard to please at the best of times and only praise something if they really do like it. Secondly, and most importantly, our views really wouldn't change a single thing - Read: John Cena circa 2005. Â Inconsistency has always gone on in the Land of the WWE. You're really posting with some heavy rose-tinted glasses on here, aren't you? Was absolutely every aspect of wrestling perfect in '89 and was there not a single thing wrong with the product during the Attitude era? Wrestling is hard to look back on without a ton of sentimentality or nostalgia attached. Â Raw still can be must-see viewing. So many posters, yourself included, believe that Raw was once must-see programming week in, week out. On the contrary, other than for very few (short) periods over the years, it has been much the same as it is today. You still get tremendous episodes today. Â You're one of the posters who cannot stand the current WWE product yet continue to watch it. This is something I've never understood; when it begins to become a slight chore for me to watch then I stop watching for a few months. It's never been easier to get your hands on the older stuff that takes your fancy. Judging by your opinion that it was so perfect back in the day, I presume that you've not gone back and properly visited 90's WWF TV, have you? I don't just mean the good bits, either. Â As Michael Cole loves to tell us, Raw is (one of?) the longest running episodic shows in television history - does every other TV show you watch go from strength to strength and never go through any creative lulls? Â I think the thing I'm not understanding is how you can say the WWE product is so bad today; it's the best that it's been in a long time. Wrestling may not be enjoying a boom period but it certainly could be a lot worse. There are some superb angles starting to shape up now that we're getting onto the Road to Wrestlemania. It is all down to matter of opinion, but if you detest the product so much, why don't you download 1997 Raw or find another company that will cater to your taste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Inconsistency has always gone on in the Land of the WWE. You're really posting with some heavy rose-tinted glasses on here, aren't you? Was absolutely every aspect of wrestling perfect in '89 and was there not a single thing wrong with the product during the Attitude era? Wrestling is hard to look back on without a ton of sentimentality or nostalgia attached. Oddly, he keeps referencing the Mae Young hand thing, then talking like it happened in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-BOW-88 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Wall of text  Game. Set. Match.  Great post lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.