Liam O'Rourke Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Surely having Undertaker legit quitting for the first time ever, to the best of my knowledge, only for the red to not see it is all the leverage that Lesnar needs for a rematch It should be, but with Taker as more heelish in the match and Brock screaming for the rematch, they can either scream controversial finish and bloody murder to get Taker to have to settle the score where it matters most, the scene of the original crime, Wrestlemania. Or Taker doesn't want to do it because he beat him, and Lesnar wins the belt to entice Taker for one more match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Â If Lesnar vs Taker III happens at WrestleMania - and (1) I don't see why the finish to SummerSlam was booked like that if it isn't and (2) assuming the match DOES happen, I can't imagine it doesn't happen at Mania - (pause for breath) it won't be for the title. It doesn't need the title. The title will be on some other match to enhance it's special WrestleMania worthiness. See Rock vs Cena at Mania 28 with Punk/Jericho for the title underneath. I'm not sure it would be for the title, but Taker/Lesnar III would be more like Rock/Cena II, which was for the title because we'd seen it before and it needed extra spice. Â Â Cena vs Rock needed it in storyline terms as well. One winning the Rumble and one having the belt got around the ONCE IN A LIFETIME cop-out, in the sense of "well it's been done, yeah, but now there's a reason for it to happen again." Undertaker and Lesnar has all the justification it needs to exist already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted September 7, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted September 7, 2015 Undertaker might be dead after another round with Lesnar. He never leaves the arena on his own two feet. I think the last two matches are a sign he should probably put his career on the line in that one. Thing with WrestleMania is, like the Undertaker's streak around 07/08, the Brock vs Undertaker match has developed at standard now. The first match was shit with an amazing finish and the second match was absolutely belting with a finish designed to set up a 3rd match. You cant go back to having a shit match after that SummerSlam bout. I think the 3rd match will be insanely good if its Taker's last match. He seems up for really hurting himself at the minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobrydersrentboy Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 That bloke who walked down the ramp on raw as if he was Rollins tag team partner is hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Scott Malbranque Posted September 9, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Not to be "that cunt" but if your man had a knife or a spatula, Rollins was exposed and on his tobler. Security were very poor there. Edited September 10, 2015 by Scott Malbranque Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted September 9, 2015 Author Paid Members Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) The first half of 1995 in the WWF is crazy for vignettes and debuts. Sid, Henry Godwinn, Waylon Mercy, Hakushi, Lafitte, Techno Team 2000, Savio Vega, Kama, Man Mountain Rock off the top of my head. Â Roster must have been seriously depleted at the end of 1994. Â Mentioned this a while ago. I'd forgotten Triple H as air_raid pointed out. It doesn't let up. Bertha Faye, Rad Radford, Skip & Sunny, Make a difference Fatu, Dean Douglas, Isaac Yankem. Â Goldust & Ahmed Johnson are on their way soon (I'm up to the start of August) and Steve Austin before the end of the year. They ever had a year like it? Apart from 2001 for obvious reasons. Edited September 9, 2015 by tiger_rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted September 10, 2015 Author Paid Members Share Posted September 10, 2015 Is pro-wrestling the only "sport" where when scouting a rival/future opponent a person, who is at the venue, will choose to watch a little monitor backstage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyattSheepMask Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 So long as you're watching it from a weird 45 degree angle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshC Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Seems already that the whole 'Sting in WWE' project is heading to the same file occupied by 'Goldberg in WWE', 'nWo in WWE' and 'WCW in WWE'. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted September 10, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Sting's a 56 year old man, though. For them to be featuring him so much is quite stunning to me and says a lot about how he's been able to keep himself healthy over the years (there are few people nearing 60 that could pass a fitness test). I'm surprised he's back after WrestleMania. It always had one and done written all over it. He's in a main event position right now he arguably shouldnt be anywhere near. Edited September 10, 2015 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted September 10, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted September 10, 2015 My mate reckons Sting wins the belt and then Sheamus cashes in. Which leads to Rollins asking Trips why he wasn't better protected from losing the belt to Sting and their eventual falling out. Â My mate is a bit nuts. Seth losing to Sting would be like..... well, the hot new heel losing to the 56 year old senior partner in Borden, McManaman & Fowler on his day off from flogging houses. Nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobrydersrentboy Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I don't want to see another cash in win for the belt, I wanna see a failed cash in but it doesn't seem like there gonna go that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinc Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Why the fuck does Sheamus have the briefcase. The MITB holder has been one of the more interesting storyline elements in each of the last few years. Giving it to a momentumless spent force like Sheamus has deprived them of a really easy way to make things more interesting. Who's dying to see what happens when Sheamus cashes in? Fucking no one. Â And all that when Reigns and Wyatt were right there. I'm not even that big a fan of either, but they'd both make far more intriguing briefcase holders than Sheamus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanoTheGame Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 To be fair, when they gave him the briefcase I thought he was in the form of his career. He was great those first few months of his comeback, as the big bully throwing around Ziggler, Bryan and Neville. It was just as soon as he won the briefcase and started that useless 50/50 rivalry with Orton, his momentum disappeared. Â They really should've given it to Reigns though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TildeGuy~! Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Â Just subscribed to the network and have been skipping through most of the pay per views and I completely forgot how good Awesome Truth were Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts