"Current Creative Plans for CM Punk vs. The Undertaker at WrestleMania"

[Big Nick Dudley]

F4WOnline is reporting that current creative plans could see WWE Champion CM Punk defeating the Rock at the upcoming Royal Rumble in their highly anticipated match, and going on to face the Undertaker at WrestleMania 29 with the championship on the line.

One major reason WWE is hesitant to put the belt on the Rock going into WrestleMania, is the lack of title matches at house shows between January and April, as well as the company's Elimination Chamber pay-per-view.

According to the report, the WWE's concern for house shows is also a big reason they have not unified the two major World titles, as they feel a championship match should ideally close out each local event.

Wrestlezone will have more on this report and all WWE news leading into the 2013 Road to WrestleMana as it becomes available.

Killam - Do you guys actually have sources? I'm not being cynical, I'm legitimately curious. Because this stuff usually reads as a common sense, hypothetical situation that is entirely possible... but probably didn't come from an inside source. You seem like an honest guy, so what's the deal here?

As for general analysis, if this is true, wouldn't that mean one of two things - 1. The Undertaker wins, and has to return almost full-time to defend the title (if they won't give it to Rocky because he can't do house shows, wouldn't the same be true for Taker?). 2. CM Punk wins, and The Streak ends.


http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/264...estlemania-why-wwe-hasnt-unified-world-titles

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

There's too many hypotheticals to really buy into any of these articles or "sources." How many have we seen already saying something different?

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

People constantly crack jokes at the expense of the WZ Staff, but Killam doesn't seem like a liar, not to me anyway. That's why I'm curious.

Oh, and Rocky's definitely takin' that strap

 

[Coco]

How many house shows did Taker work during his 2009-2010 title run?

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

How many house shows did Taker work during his 2009-2010 title run?

Is this rhetorical? Because my guess would be very few. Another reason I agree with Nick that Rocky's walking out of RR with the belt. No reason they can't feature the WHC during house shows for, what I'm guessing, the time between he gets it at RR and loses it at WM29.

 

[hatehabsforever]

People constantly crack jokes at the expense of the WZ Staff, but Killam doesn't seem like a liar, not to me anyway. That's why I'm curious.

Oh, and Rocky's definitely takin' that strap

Totally agree on both points. The Rock is definitely taking Punk's title at the Rumble, setting up the Once In A Lifetime match for the second consecutive WM. But with a different outcome this time.

The report seems very flawed to me. I can't see Punk being the one to end the streak. I can't see Taker in a title match at this point, never mind successfully. Personally I think we will see Rock/Cena at WM29, no Taker at all, and CM Punk having his hands full with a certain Rattlesnake.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Killam - Do you guys actually have sources?

F4WOnline is reporting...

.

 

[Coco]

Is this rhetorical? Because my guess would be very few.

It's not a rhetorical question. And I don't care about your guesses. Just the facts, ma'am.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Why do you guys insist on acting like total dimwits?


If Taker wins, he simply drops it three weeks later, at the next ppv, or possibly forfeits it the next night on RAW, due to being killed. etc etc. Three weeks or less of house shows is survivable financially for the WWE, I would assume.

Not rocket science, or splitting neutrons here.

 

[Coco]

Survivable?

Do you really believe not having the belt available hurts house show business in 2013?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Survivable?

Do you really believe not having the belt available hurts house show business in 2013?

Did the context of the rest of my post not give marked sarcasm to the word survivable?

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

How many house shows did Taker work during his 2009-2010 title run?

I'm guessing very few or none, given the non-verbal tone of your comment. So we're in agreement about titles meaning nothing at house shows? Good.

I think we will see Rock/Cena at WM29

Yep.

no Taker at all

I think he'll face Brock. Could be wrong, obviously.

CM Punk having his hands full with a certain Rattlesnake.

Don't get my hopes up. It's not likely.

.

He's part of that fraternity, that's where my question comes from, Samuel.

Do you really believe not having the belt available hurts house show business in 2013?

Oh, good, we are on the same page. I don't read ahead, I hate spoilers.

 

[Uncle Sam]

He's part of that fraternity, that's where my question comes from, Samuel.

Blokes who wear suits for no discernible reason?

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Blokes who wear suits for no discernible reason?

Would you want to be caught looking less than sharp when you meet a major star like Luke Gallows or Yoshi Tatsu? I know I wouldn't.

 

[Coco]

Did the context of the rest of my post not give marked sarcasm to the word survivable?

No...

 

[Danger Burger]

No reason they can't feature the WHC during house shows.

The point of having two world titles is so they can have twice as many house shows. They cant have the WHC in two places at once.

I'm perfectly fine with punk beating both Rock and Taker.

The streak is nothing. Its only useful as long as they can cash in on it. His legacy cannot be tainted, and keeping a clean sheet a wrestlemania serves no benefit to a man sitting at home on his couch. Like it or not taker is faaaar beyond his physical peak. His one match a year is still high calibre, no doubt, But the likelyhood of him performing is less and less every year. The only way we can let the streak mean something, is if we let it be defeated. Nobody but punk has the right ratio of Deserves:Needs to face and defeat the deadman.

 

[braveh]

I can't wait to see a botched Go to sleep and Taker kicking out of it x 15

 

[klunderbunker]

The point of having two world titles is so they can have twice as many house shows. They cant have the WHC in two places at once.

I'm perfectly fine with punk beating both Rock and Taker.

The streak is nothing. Its only useful as long as they can cash in on it. His legacy cannot be tainted, and keeping a clean sheet a wrestlemania serves no benefit to a man sitting at home on his couch. Like it or not taker is faaaar beyond his physical peak. His one match a year is still high calibre, no doubt, But the likelyhood of him performing is less and less every year. The only way we can let the streak mean something, is if we let it be defeated. Nobody but punk has the right ratio of Deserves:Needs to face and defeat the deadman.

It's fairly clear you don't know what you're talking about with the Streak, so we'll talk about the house show thing. The idea of needing two world titles for a house show is nonsense. Back in the 80s, the WWF would regularly run THREE different house shows a day: world title, tag titles, second biggest face vs. top heel.

 

[Coco]

I don't think anyone needs to end the streak, but I also don't think it needs to continue. It's the ultimate case of Who Gives A Fuck?

 

[Danger Burger]

It's fairly clear you don't know what you're talking about with the Streak, so we'll talk about the house show thing. The idea of needing two world titles for a house show is nonsense. Back in the 80s, the WWF would regularly run THREE different house shows a day: world title, tag titles, second biggest face vs. top heel.

Cool. I'd rather a discussion, but if you find a put down more worthwhile thats you're perogative.

Was running three house shows a day a better system though? Did they cover as much ground as they do now, having two rosters cover two cities/towns? Are they drawing more people to larger shows, or is it much the same? And surely there is less of a strain on the athletes now, allowing them to perform to a higher standard (not in terms of how wrestling has developed, just fatigue etc)

 

[klunderbunker]

Cool. I'd rather a discussion, but if you find a put down more worthwhile thats you're perogative.

Was running three house shows a day a better system though? Did they cover as much ground as they do now, having two rosters cover two cities/towns? Are they drawing more people to larger shows, or is it much the same? And surely there is less of a strain on the athletes now, allowing them to perform to a higher standard (not in terms of how wrestling has developed, just fatigue etc)

It made more money and it was during the golden age of wrestling. you do the math.

 

[Remix]

How many house shows did Taker work during his 2009-2010 title run?

As far as I can tell from profight DB, none.

 

[Remix]

Cool. I'd rather a discussion, but if you find a put down more worthwhile thats you're perogative.

Was running three house shows a day a better system though?

In the modern world, no.

Did they cover as much ground as they do now, having two rosters cover two cities/towns?

I'd imagine that they covered more ground, but since covering ground isn't so important to WWE these days that doesn't really matter.

Are they drawing more people to larger shows, or is it much the same?

They probably drew more to the buildings, but since WWE gets more money out of taping shows that's irrelevant and ticket prices will have gone up (yay inflation!).

And surely there is less of a strain on the athletes now, allowing them to perform to a higher standard (not in terms of how wrestling has developed, just fatigue etc)

 

[Danger Burger]

In the modern world, no.



I'd imagine that they covered more ground, but since covering ground isn't so important to WWE these days that doesn't really matter.



They probably drew more to the buildings, but since WWE gets more money out of taping shows that's irrelevant and ticket prices will have gone up (yay inflation!).

Its not something I agree with entiely either, I was simply asking rather than trying to make a point with the questions because KB would most likely know.

 

[Ricardo Del Rio]

I'd hate to see Punk lose the belt to Rocky, but in reality, it looks like that will happen. I could see Punk losing and then face Taker at Wrestlemania, and Rock defend against Cena. I could also see Punk lose and enter the Rumble later that night to win and have a triple threat match with Rock and Cena at Wrestlemania. Hopefully they won't go the triple threat route but it could happen.