TUP Wrestling Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Wrestling > General World Wrestling Entertainment
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - WWE Wrestlemania 34
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

WWE Wrestlemania 34

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
Author
Message
Fletch View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
TUP Hall Of Fame 2009

Joined: 06/January/2006
Location: Portsmouth UK
Status: Offline
Points: 16407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fletch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/January/2018 at 10:43
The Roman Reigns vs The Undertaker match gets a lot of hate but I thought it was a very reasonable effort where they told a good story.

It’s true Taker was showing his age a bit throughout but the only real botch I remember was when Reigns tried to get Taker up for a tombstone possibly for a reversal spot and Taker was unable to flip his body up into position and effectively became dead weight and they had to abandon the spot.
Back to Top
Tom Colohue View Drop Down
Heat/Velocity
Heat/Velocity


Joined: 24/November/2017
Location: Blackpool, Eng
Status: Offline
Points: 225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tom Colohue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/January/2018 at 13:11
There were also a couple of moments where Reigns came off the ropes and Undertaker simply wasn't ready to receive the attack. I'm also absolutely certain that the final spear came off both sets of ropes because Undertaker wasn't ready the first time and so Reigns improvised.

I believe some of these small moments might actually have been part of the story and if that's true then it was a perfect finale. I cried after that match. I full on cried. The Undertaker was the last bastion of my childhood. The last true immortal.

For him to now walk back into Wrestlemania like nothing happened? I wouldn't be happy with it, personally.
Tom Colohue - Wrestling Journalist (PWTorch)
Follow me @Colohue
Back to Top
Kondor View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Ticket Wars Founder

Joined: 02/June/2010
Location: Right here
Status: Offline
Points: 6283
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kondor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/January/2018 at 13:49
Originally posted by Tom Colohue Tom Colohue wrote:

I believe some of these small moments might actually have been part of the story and if that's true then it was a perfect finale. I cried after that match. I full on cried. The Undertaker was the last bastion of my childhood. The last true immortal.

For him to now walk back into Wrestlemania like nothing happened? I wouldn't be happy with it, personally.

I know exactly how you feel. The Undertaker made his debut when I was 15 years old, and I can feel as if I "grew up watching him." Outside of the newest possible Terry Funk comeback Tongue , Taker is the last guy from my real younger days still actively wrestling. Others make appearances, but Undertaker, at least as of last year, still gets in the ring.  

I get wanting his act of placing his cloak and hat in the center of the ring to mean something. But I also like how he left it open by not announcing anything verbally. Michael Cole ran with that, as he always says that that might have been the last we see of the Undertaker in the ring, but not definite. Because of that open spot per se, I would not have much of a problem with him stepping in the ring again. 

Generally I do want "retirement" matches to mean something, especially if it is a match stipulation. As much as I loved Macho Man Randy Savage, I had an issue with him coming back in the ring after loosing that "Career Match" to Ultimate Warrior in WrestleMania VII, as that made the stipulation meaningless. The looser actually went on to have a longer career than the winner. 

On that note I am also slightly bothered that they (the New Day as WrestleMania hosts LOL) never offered an explanation of how Matt Hardy was reinstated into the WWE after he lost a "looser leaves the WWE match" to Drew McIntyre in 2010. Then again in the territory days there were billions of guys returning after loosing "looser leaves town" matches. 

But yes, of course I do get that you're placing more importance on the impact of the moment and who the wrestler (The Undertaker) is far more than any match stipulation. But like I said, Roman Reigns might have said he was going to retire the Undertaker; but there was no official match stipulation and a return was left open. 

In other words, like Fletch more or less said, it was a way to put Reigns over as much as possible without fully closing the door. 

 

Back to Top
Rico Len View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 23/October/2012
Location: Yosemite Lakes
Status: Offline
Points: 9827
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rico Len Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/January/2018 at 14:38
Quote Maybe it was a case of they wanted the streak finished and at the time Lesnar was the only one considered a dominant enough talent to be able to realistically beat The Undertaker at Wrestlemania after so many top guys had failed previously.

Except that Lesnar was no where near dominant enough to take it from Taker. He looked like shit going into WrestleMania. People gave Shawn Michaels a chance, when he put his career on the line most fans though that was the end of the Undertakers streak. And then HHH? Surely he's going to win? CM Punk even had us talking about him beating the streak. But when Lesnar showed up? It was viewed as Lesnar is going to look even weaker than ever after losing so much. There was never even a question of if Lesnar loses, it's when he loses, and then he didn't.

Quote Generally I do want "retirement" matches to mean something, especially if it is a match stipulation. As much as I loved Macho Man Randy Savage, I had an issue with him coming back in the ring after loosing that "Career Match" to Ultimate Warrior in WrestleMania VII, as that made the stipulation meaningless. The looser actually went on to have a longer career than the winner.

Within the context of the storyline Savage stayed retired, and was fine with it until Jake Roberts started cutting promos on him, and then attacked him at Summerslam after his wedding. Savage had transitioned into being a commentator, and never showed any bit of bitterness or anything of the sort. But once Roberts attacked Elizabeth, WWF made a show of having him go through paperwork, and red tape, and petitioning President Jack Tunney to get re-instated. His retirement felt real, and his comeback felt real, too. 

IMO Savage's retirement seemed just as real as that of Shawn Michaels in 1998, and Daniel Bryan's a couple years ago, even though theirs were far more legit than Savage's. 

As far as Undertaker goes. Nothing was ever said first hand, so it's all speculation. He needs to retire sooner or later because this is getting ridiculous, but people are just making an assumption on something never remotely confirmed, so getting upset at this isn't much different than getting upset at Bryan not entering the Royal Rumble or Kenny Omega not debuting last year, etc.


Edited by Rico Len - 12/January/2018 at 14:39
Back to Top
MUSA View Drop Down
Raw/Smackdown
Raw/Smackdown
Avatar

Joined: 06/January/2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 587
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MUSA Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/January/2018 at 16:10
I'm a bit tired of hearing people say "Well, WWE never SAID he retired" - that's, quite honestly, an excuse.  What could the theatrics from the Undertaker following Roman Reigns POSSIBLY have meant other than a bow followed by a curtain finally closing for the last time?  The man ceremonially took off his gear, shedding himself of his character, and walked out of that ring to kiss his wife (something the character Undertaker would not do, given Michelle and Undertaker never had a storyline relationship), and THEN walked to the ramp and sunk into the "depths of hell", arm raised, and closed the show.

All of those theatrics were NOT to "put Roman over", c'mon now...if you're saying that, that's an excuse you're giving to WWE for poor booking and poor planning of the Undertaker.

That was a damn retirement ceremony and no one can deny that.  It's just that either the Undertaker just can't call it quits (ala Terry Funk) or Vince McMahon wants that big money Taker match every year and convinces the man to do it because of their professional and respected relationship.  

If the Undertaker honestly returns to wrestle, that's damn insulting to the fans who were emotionally invested in his retirement that night.  All of those theatrics told a story of retirement, not one of "see you next year, folks!   Until then...BONG!  LIGHTS OUT!".

I honestly think if Taker was gone for a few years and came back for a one-off match years later (let's say 5), people would be more forgiving and thinkin he just wants one last time to go out with a win.  But a year later?  That insults audience intelligence, and nothing can convince me otherwise.

Not only that...but JOHN FUCKING CENA?  Really?!  Can't put over an up and comer, like you always said you would, but put over another part-timer?  And they wonder why people cannot take their current roster seriously...
• Come Back Please Poster 2010 Winner
Back to Top
Rico Len View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 23/October/2012
Location: Yosemite Lakes
Status: Offline
Points: 9827
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rico Len Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/January/2018 at 17:54
Quote That was a damn retirement ceremony and no one can deny that. 

Hold my beer...

Originally posted by MUSA MUSA wrote:

I'm a bit tired of hearing people say "Well, WWE never SAID he retired" - that's, quite honestly, an excuse.  What could the theatrics from the Undertaker following Roman Reigns POSSIBLY have meant other than a bow followed by a curtain finally closing for the last time?  The man ceremonially took off his gear, shedding himself of his character, and walked out of that ring to kiss his wife (something the character Undertaker would not do, given Michelle and Undertaker never had a storyline relationship), and THEN walked to the ramp and sunk into the "depths of hell", arm raised, and closed the show.

Except that it's been done before. Everyone KNEW Undertaker was done when Brock Lesnar beat him.

Everyone KNEW Undertaker was done after his match with Triple H when the match was labeled "End of an era" and all the hype was about the legacy of the Undertaker and what a great career he had.

Then everyone KNEW Undertaker was done after his loss to Reigns.

So no. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice? Shame on me.

WWE wants you to guess, they want you to jump to conclusions, they want you to speculate. Their business model literally depends on you doing just that. They plant a few seeds and the hardcore fans in particular take every possibility out to the Nth degree, and either reach consensus or they develop highly debated differing opinions like with that of Bret & Shawn, and Punk & HHH. 

In this case it was all about is Undertaker retiring NOW??? Surely nothing more can come from his story can there? Oops, except yes it can. WWE is like a comic book series, no one ever dies, no villain is ever bad for ever and every hero has a dark side. Undertaker most certainly COULD come back.

Do I think it's a good idea? No. Do I think he should have retired a long time ago? Yes. Do I think his streak should have come to an end? Yes, by both Mick Foley & Kane with Paul Bearer about 7 years ago and that should have been the end of all of them on TV and/or active competition.

But that's not what happened, and just because I wished it would have gone down that way for a poetic finish to an epic storyline and feud doesn't mean that what came afterwards was what Vince ever had in mind to begin with, or that he even had a grand plot for the Undertaker storyline in his head to come to an end. At the end of the day WWE is his baby and it will do whatever he wants it to, regardless of what we think or even of what he himself was thinking a few hours earlier.

Quote All of those theatrics were NOT to "put Roman over", c'mon now...if you're saying that, that's an excuse you're giving to WWE for poor booking and poor planning of the Undertaker.
 

Exactly right. It IS poor booking and poor planning of the Undertaker, that is EXACTLY what I think it is. There is very little long term planning being done, and Vince is just in the moment booking for 'right now' and nothing more and it's coming at the expense of Undertaker's legacy.


Edited by Rico Len - 12/January/2018 at 18:07
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.066 seconds.