Do you expect Undertaker on screen soon to at least beat up Lesnar?

[capnwillie]

I don't quite get all this "Undertaker-is-so-obviously-done" stuff.

1) We've heard every year since 2009 that he's too banged up to wrestle again.
2) He had a classic with Punk last year and wrestled two strong matches shortly after that.
3) He sustained a concussion against Lesnar and people wonder why he didn't look great in the ring. Even if the showing wasn't stellar until that point, it was a slugfest between two monsters. 'Taker didn't have a Punk or Michaels to bounce off.
4) If he were done, we'd have heard a LOT about it. 30-year vets don't just kick back and not bother appearing again.

Personally I think Sting is more mobile than Lesnar at this point, based on what I've seen over the last year. Lesnar is a completely different animal from what he was a decade ago, while Sting can still throw a dropkick and do the occasional aerial move. I don't see why Sting/Undertaker would be anything less than a three-star match, because both are still capable workers.

In response to your number 4, how many other 30-year vets were in the same company with the same gimmick (aside from a few years as American Badass 'Taker) for the vast majority of that career? Also, how many of them stuck to their persona and protected kayfabe as well as Undertaker has? Answer: Zero. Nobody's saying he won't appear again, but I would bet the house it won't be as an active wrestler.

Also, when was Brock ever the type of guy to do dropkicks and aerial moves? I'll give you the shooting star press that almost broke his neck but that has never been his style and it doesn't need to be. More mobile... HOW? Sting couldn't hang with Brock in terms of cardio and intensity, do not even try to argue that. You'd be a complete fool.

The end of the streak was the end of the road. He's got nothing left to prove and no obligation to explain this to anyone in black-and-white terms. That was never his style. Taker knows how to tell his story without breaking character and that's why he is one of the all-time greats. Just because almost every other wrestler these days likes to break the fourth wall and reveal the secrets of their magic doesn't mean he's got to do it.

 

[Just Do It]

I don't see it. Undertaker can never avenge the loss. Even if there was a rematch - so what. He wins? So what.

If he came back to cost Brock a match - cost a guy who beat him fair and square - Undertaker would look bad for it.

They should never come face to face again if you ask me.

 

[Messiah]

How would he beat up Lesnar?.. If he shows his face again Lesnar will fuck him up, just like he did at WrestleMania.. It would be wise for Undertaker to stay away from Brock Lesnar.

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

How would he beat up Lesnar?.. If he shows his face again Lesnar will fuck him up, just like he did at WrestleMania.. It would be wise for Undertaker to stay away from Brock Lesnar.

You do know it's scripted right? If the booker says "Taker beats up Brock" then Taker beats up Brock. It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to be logical. Hell, it doesn't even have to be remotely believable. If that's the way the booker has the show booked that's what happens. That's the way it works.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

No. I expect Taker to return for 1 or 2 more matches. I expect him to exact revenge on Lesnar. But I would like to see him have his retirement match with Cena.

I do not expect Taker to dillute the attraction of a match with Lesnar or anyone else by conducting a "run in". It would have to be booked seriously from Late February towards WM.

 

[kadroan]

I don't think he'll beat up Lesnar. I think he'll move on. Last thing we need is another Taker/Lesnar match.

I'm sure if Lesnar captures the championship, Heyman will say something else which would make the casual audience forget about the Taker/Brock bout.