Hell In A Cell 2015: HIAC Match - The Undertaker VS Brock Lesnar

[The Brain]

Undertaker going over is best for business because a loss doesn't hurt Brock Lesnar's "mystique", because his fans are going to buy tickets to see him no matter what. Yet another loss to Lesnar is absolutely devastating to Undertaker, because the ridiculous lopsidedness of this feud is overshadowing everything else Undertaker ever did. At this rate Undertaker is going to be remembered more for a dozen losses to Brock Lesnar than ANYTHING else, because they're building the storyline to emphatically state that The Undertaker CANNOT DEFEAT BROCK LESNAR. That destroys everything Undertaker ever did in his entire career. It makes him worthless and it makes everything he ever did worthless.

And why does my naming Bret Hart as one of the legends who went out with major wins instead of losses confuse you? He went out on a streak of three major victories.

You are completely overreacting. Not only that but you are actually underestimating Undertaker. You really think a 25 year career is only going to be remembered for one lost feud? Why? Why does losing to Lesnar take away from anything else he did? Shawn Michaels lost to Taker two years in a row at mania. Did that make the rest of his career worthless? Triple H lost to Taker three times at mania. Does that mean everything else he ever did is worthless? Why are the stakes so high for Taker here? So what if he doesn't beat Lesnar. I don't see how that nullifies any of his other achievements. Undertaker has a strong enough legacy that people will remember him fondly despite the losses to Lesnar. WWE will give him the Andre treatment and always speak highly of him long after his career is over.

Your statement about Bret confused me because his final match during his WWF run was probably the most talked about loss ever. I guess you're counting some special attraction wins ten years after his career ended and after he suffered a stroke which physically reduced him to a shell of his former self.

But if you want to count whatever someone's technical last match is then quit getting so worked up about Taker. Who says this is his last match? He could still win his last match. It doesn't have to be against Lesnar.

 

[Aquaman6686]

You are completely overreacting. Not only that but you are actually underestimating Undertaker. You really think a 25 year career is only going to be remembered for one lost feud? Why? Why does losing to Lesnar take away from anything else he did? Shawn Michaels lost to Taker two years in a row at mania. Did that make the rest of his career worthless? Triple H lost to Taker three times at mania. Does that mean everything else he ever did is worthless? Why are the stakes so high for Taker here? So what if he doesn't beat Lesnar. I don't see how that nullifies any of his other achievements. Undertaker has a strong enough legacy that people will remember him fondly despite the losses to Lesnar. WWE will give him the Andre treatment and always speak highly of him long after his career is over.

Your statement about Bret confused me because his final match during his WWF run was probably the most talked about loss ever. I guess you're counting some special attraction wins ten years after his career ended and after he suffered a stroke which physically reduced him to a shell of his former self.

But if you want to count whatever someone's technical last match is then quit getting so worked up about Taker. Who says this is his last match? He could still win his last match. It doesn't have to be against Lesnar.

Undertaker's inability to defeat Lesnar is a giant shadow that overshadows everything else he ever accomplished. All of it means nothing if he can't defeat Brock Lesnar. It overshadows the World Championships, it overshadows the main event victories, it overshadows The Streak. There is ZERO reason for Undertaker to go out without ever getting a clean win over Lesnar. It won't hurt Lesnar at ALL to lose.

 

[The Brain]

Undertaker's inability to defeat Lesnar is a giant shadow that overshadows everything else he ever accomplished. All of it means nothing if he can't defeat Brock Lesnar. It overshadows the World Championships, it overshadows the main event victories, it overshadows The Streak. There is ZERO reason for Undertaker to go out without ever getting a clean win over Lesnar. It won't hurt Lesnar at ALL to lose.

You keep saying this but you don't explain why. Why does losing a feud to one guy overshadow an entire career? Undertaker has had one of the longest and greatest careers ever in WWE. Why does losing to Lesnar ruin everything else he's done over the past 25 years?

 

[JoeMallard]

Aquaman, if you really cared about Undertaker, you should respect the fact that he CHOSE to put Lesnar over. You want to preserve his legacy? Respect the fact that he is one of the biggest/best superstars off ALL TIME! For someone that is a fan of Taker, you sure don't seem to respect his legacy in the business. You sound like every Punk fanboy, that thinks he was shortchanged on everything. I'm a big Punk fan, sure I was disappointed on some storyline failures, but he left a lasting legacy in the company that I personally won't forget.

 

[OYDK]

Undertaker's inability to defeat Lesnar is a giant shadow that overshadows everything else he ever accomplished. All of it means nothing if he can't defeat Brock Lesnar. It overshadows the World Championships, it overshadows the main event victories, it overshadows The Streak. There is ZERO reason for Undertaker to go out without ever getting a clean win over Lesnar. It won't hurt Lesnar at ALL to lose.

Man, you are completely over-reacting... like a two year old throwing a fit over dropping their ice cream cone. Listen I'm not even going to try and convince you that what you're spewing is total and utter garbage (which it is), because its obvious you have no sense of rationality whatsoever. If you want to live your life believing Taker's 25 year legacy will be overshadowed by losing to Lesnar a few times throughout his career than go ahead. The rest of us REAL Taker fans will go on remembering him for the real moments that defined his legacy like his defeat of Hogan to capture his first title, going 21-0 at Wrestlemania, and having two of the greatest matches of all time at two consecutive Wrestlemanias, to name just a few. For all your preaching of the Undertaker and how great he is, I think you're the only one here who has absolutely no faith in his longevity and legitimacy in the business. If you were a real fan you surely wouldn't be as dense as believing the crap coming from your keyboard.

 

[Navi]

If you want Undertaker to lose to Brock Lesnar and be made to look pathetic AGAIN, you're not an Undertaker fan, and to call yourself one is an insult to Undertaker fans. Undertaker has very little left to his legacy thanks to Lesnar. Yet another loss to Lesnar would just ensure that Undertaker will be remembered more for his inability to defeat Lesnar than anything else. 21 years of WrestleMania victories were already rendered irrelevant in 3 seconds. They might as well just take what's left, because it's VERY clear that Vince and WWE have no respect for Undertaker.

Oh you are very much mistaken that the loss to Lesnar wiped away year's of the Undertaker's career, including the 21 victories at Wrestlemania.

Let me ask you a question? Let's go outside the sport of wrestling for a moment and use another example. American swimmer Michael Phelps won a record 8 gold medals in one Olympic games. A great achievement for any athletic. So does that means that Michael Phelps has to win every single swimming race he's in from that point on until he retires. Because using your analogy he would have too otherwise his record setting 8 gold medals would be rendered meaningless. So I would be interested in hearing your answer to that.

I look at Taker's career over the last 25 years as on of the best that the WWE has ever seen. His 21 straight Wrestlemania victories will go down in the record books, and it's a record that will probably never been broken. To say that one loss negates the whole thing is just well ******ed to say the least. By all accounts he's the one who picked Lesnar to end the streak it wasn't a WWE management decision. So who are we to question what the Undertaker wants and how he wanted to be remembered.

 

[SAMOAJOE187]

I feel like Undertaker is going to win this in someway that still makes Lesnar look strong. This match probably won't be the same level as their match in 2002, but it still could be a fun and enjoyable match. Undertaker seems to be heading towards a slight heel turn, even though Undertaker is never going to get booed. WWE were playing up that he continues to low blow Lesnar, so it should lead to something. iHopefully this end the feud, but I think that this match should've happened at Survivor Series in a Last Man Standing match.

 

[Aquaman6686]

You keep saying this but you don't explain why. Why does losing a feud to one guy overshadow an entire career? Undertaker has had one of the longest and greatest careers ever in WWE. Why does losing to Lesnar ruin everything else he's done over the past 25 years?

I've explained it in every single post. I don't know how I could POSSIBLY be more clear. It's not ONE loss to Lesnar, it's the fact that the entire storyline is booked to prove that Undertaker CANNOT DEFEAT BROCK LESNAR. That destroys Undertaker's character, his gimmick, his legacy, and everything he ever did in his career. It all means nothing if this one guy can decimate and annihilate him almost effortlessly every single time they fight. To use another sport as an analogy (someone else mentioned Michael Phelps but I don't know crap about swimming so I have no base of knowledge with which to respond to that), let's look at Muhammad Ali. Was he unbeatable? No. He lost several fights in his career, but he's still called one of the greatest boxers of all time, if not THE best. Now imagine if there was a boxer named Joe Something. Every single time Ali fought Joe Something, Ali didn't just lose, he got DESTROYED. No matter how many times they fought, Joe Something beat Ali, decisively, and with ease. Muhammad Ali wouldn't be remembered as the greatest of all time, he'd be remembered as the guy who couldn't beat Joe Something. All of his other wins, all of his championships - meaningless. That's exactly what the Undertaker/Lesnar storyline is. No matter how many times they fight, Lesnar DESTROYS Undertaker every single time. Even the one "win" Undertaker has was booked to show decisively that he is inferior to Brock Lesnar in every way, and had to resort to cowardly tactics and cheating to win. If Undertaker doesn't get at least one clean victory over Brock Lesnar, his dozen or so losses to Lesnar completely overshadow everything else he ever did. I don't see how anyone could possibly see it otherwise.

 

[Aquaman6686]

Aquaman, if you really cared about Undertaker, you should respect the fact that he CHOSE to put Lesnar over. You want to preserve his legacy? Respect the fact that he is one of the biggest/best superstars off ALL TIME! For someone that is a fan of Taker, you sure don't seem to respect his legacy in the business. You sound like every Punk fanboy, that thinks he was shortchanged on everything. I'm a big Punk fan, sure I was disappointed on some storyline failures, but he left a lasting legacy in the company that I personally won't forget.

Undertaker chose to put over Lesnar, but even the greatest of all time can make a mistake, and that's what Undertaker did. He made a mistake. If Undertaker was ABSOLUTELY adamant that he didn't want to retire with The Streak intact, then there were better times and better choices. That moment could have been used to create a megastar for the company who would be there day in and day out for years to come, and instead it was wasted on a guy who wrestles barely more than Taker does, peaked 12 years ago, and has already proven that he has no passion for the business and will go wherever the money is. The second any other sport or business offers Lesnar more money than what WWE is paying him, he's gone.

 

[The Brain]

I've explained it in every single post. I don't know how I could POSSIBLY be more clear. It's not ONE loss to Lesnar, it's the fact that the entire storyline is booked to prove that Undertaker CANNOT DEFEAT BROCK LESNAR. That destroys Undertaker's character, his gimmick, his legacy, and everything he ever did in his career. It all means nothing if this one guy can decimate and annihilate him almost effortlessly every single time they fight. To use another sport as an analogy (someone else mentioned Michael Phelps but I don't know crap about swimming so I have no base of knowledge with which to respond to that), let's look at Muhammad Ali. Was he unbeatable? No. He lost several fights in his career, but he's still called one of the greatest boxers of all time, if not THE best. Now imagine if there was a boxer named Joe Something. Every single time Ali fought Joe Something, Ali didn't just lose, he got DESTROYED. No matter how many times they fought, Joe Something beat Ali, decisively, and with ease. Muhammad Ali wouldn't be remembered as the greatest of all time, he'd be remembered as the guy who couldn't beat Joe Something. All of his other wins, all of his championships - meaningless. That's exactly what the Undertaker/Lesnar storyline is. No matter how many times they fight, Lesnar DESTROYS Undertaker every single time. Even the one "win" Undertaker has was booked to show decisively that he is inferior to Brock Lesnar in every way, and had to resort to cowardly tactics and cheating to win. If Undertaker doesn't get at least one clean victory over Brock Lesnar, his dozen or so losses to Lesnar completely overshadow everything else he ever did. I don't see how anyone could possibly see it otherwise.

Let's say Lesnar beats Taker at HIAC. I'm sure the match will be competitive and not the squash you think it will be, but for argument's sake let's say it is somewhat of a squash. Now let's do a little time travel. It's 20 years later. Taker is long gone. Most people are going to remember him as one of the greatest and most beloved characters in WWE history. I doubt many people besides you will remember him as the guy who couldn't beat Brock Lesnar.

Nice avatar. Who is that anyway? Oh yeah, it's that guy who couldn't beat Hulk Hogan. You remember Hulk Hogan, right? No. He's that guy who couldn't beat The Rock. Your signature says you were at SummerSlam 2007. Who was it that returned from injury that night? Oh yeah, that guy who couldn't beat Batista.

Just about everyone in this thread has said you are overreacting to this. You're the only one who is going to view Taker as worthless if he loses again. It's one thing to say Lesnar is a black mark on Taker's career. That's fine, but to say Taker's entire career is meaningless because he didn't beat Lesnar is ridiculous.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

This aquaman idiot is getting me more excited for this match than any wrestling angle ever could. When Brock Lesnar wins, seeing this mark bitch about it is going to be amazing. Even if somehow they book Undertaker to go over its going to be amazing, because aquaman is going to shoot hot jizz all over this place.

 

[John McCass]

This aquaman idiot is getting me more excited for this match than any wrestling angle ever could. When Brock Lesnar wins, seeing this mark bitch about it is going to be amazing. Even if somehow they book Undertaker to go over its going to be amazing, because aquaman is going to shoot hot jizz all over this place.

Truth.

Lesnar is being built up to be fed later to Reigns or whoever WWE want as their poster boy. Taker hasn't defeated Lesnar clean and thus, he isn't credible enough to beat Lesnar at the age of 50.

Look at it the other way, Taker lost to Lesnar even in his prime. Not to say, both of them were on the peak of their career a decade ago. A young (relatively) Taker couldn't beat Lesnar, how is he man enough to beat him at 50.

And this is the correct booking. Last match of theirs didn't see a decisive finish. So, there was a need to finish this feud off for good. And at Hell in a Cell, this makes more sense than 1 1=2 does. Hell is Taker's playground. Taker might win but it's highly unlikely.

Just sit there and watch World Wrestling Entertainment, not World Wrestling Judiciary.

 

[Aquaman6686]

Truth.

Lesnar is being built up to be fed later to Reigns or whoever WWE want as their poster boy. Taker hasn't defeated Lesnar clean and thus, he isn't credible enough to beat Lesnar at the age of 50.

Look at it the other way, Taker lost to Lesnar even in his prime. Not to say, both of them were on the peak of their career a decade ago. A young (relatively) Taker couldn't beat Lesnar, how is he man enough to beat him at 50.

And this is the correct booking. Last match of theirs didn't see a decisive finish. So, there was a need to finish this feud off for good. And at Hell in a Cell, this makes more sense than 1 1=2 does. Hell is Taker's playground. Taker might win but it's highly unlikely.

Just sit there and watch World Wrestling Entertainment, not World Wrestling Judiciary.

Seeing Brock Lesnar and Paul Heyman repeatedly shit all over Undertaker's legacy is not entertaining, it's insulting and shows how little respect Vince and Triple H have for their veteran talents.

 

[Navi]

Seeing Brock Lesnar and Paul Heyman repeatedly shit all over Undertaker's legacy is not entertaining, it's insulting and shows how little respect Vince and Triple H have for their veteran talents.

Oh that's not true at all, and where do you get these ideas from? Do you not think for one minute that the Undertaker is involved in any of these decisions? Are you really that insane that you think a man who has had a quarter century career with this company, and all kinds of marquee matches isn't consulted on what may well be his last feud?

I can't believe for the life of me that someone that has followed wrestling, and is such a big fan of Taker's would think so little of him. You do realize that no matter what happens his legacy is there and nothing can take away from it. He also doesn't even have to wrestle anymore, he could just sit back, watch what's going on and say screw it all. He doesn't and I think that he is the one in control not Vince or HHH.

 

[rge2010]

I can only assume Vince has seen sense and having a rematch at his biggest Mania yet isn't such a great idea. I wonder if he is warming to the idea of Sting and Taker doing something together at Mania 32? Not a match with each other but maybe tagging which will still be epic.

Taker vs Brock in the Cell is great for business though.

 

[OYDK]

I haven't seen this thread pop up recently, if it has I apologize in advance. It seems that WWE's original plans for the Undertaker and Brock Lesnar were to have them finish off their storied rivalry with a rubber match at this years Wrestlemania, however the feud has now been accelerated and will come to a head 6 months early inside Hell in a Cell. I know a lot of people including myself were kind of dreading the possibility of Taker vs Brock 3 at Mania 32, so I'm definitely not complaining, but I find it odd that plans seemed to have changed on a dime, especially when that plan included something as big as a Brock/Taker Mania match. Recent rumors have come to light that Vince Mcmahon is reportedly "freaking out" over very low ratings and may look to shake things up a bit. Can this have anything to do with that report?

I find it hard to believe that Vince and the WWE would just scrap this match for no reason, so I'm of the opinion that something big has opened up for either Taker or, the more likely case, Brock Lesnar. Maybe Vince realized that the crowd is just not that into seeing Taker/Lesnar 3 at Mania? Whatever the case may be, it's odd that such a huge match has been so unnaturally sped up... an audible looks to be in the works.

Why do you think this program was sped up and what's in store for Lesnar/Taker at Mania? Do you think this has anything to do with low numbers recently?

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

I would hope that this means they are done with this feud and are splitting up the talents to use at Wrestlemania. Since Undertaker seems healthy again and Brock can still gain fan interest with the help of Paul Heyman, why not use both in separate matches ? Brock only fights a few times a year, same with Undertaker...and Taker is getting really old. Why waste so much time fighting the same guy ? Time is running out for other possibilities.

 

[dhines1671]

I think WWE is hoping to use the Lesnar "tour" and the Brock vs Taker HIAC to try and maintain interest in the network headed into the fall against the NFL and new TV season.
It doesn't hurt that HIAC is Taker's gimmick match.

 

[sMark]

There can be several reasons:
1) Vince need to increase buyrates right now for whatever reason
2) Undertaker ultimately will lose this match, people freaked out when Brock defeated Taker at WM before, so the second time can be a disaster for Vince
3) there some other plans for Taker's WM (probably the very last one) match

 

[Mustang Sally]

You'll recall that the Undertaker-Bray Wyatt contest at WM31 was preceded by Bray doing all the promos by himself, with burning rocking chairs the only indication that Mark Calaway had anything at all to do with the pre-match build-up. In the past, we could always count on a couple of non-violent appearances by Undertaker in advance of his match to show us how serious he was about cleaning his opponent's clock. No more.

That could be the factor behind moving the HIAC match between Brock and 'Taker to an earlier date. If WWE wasn't able to contract for Calaway's services in the months leading up to WM32, how could the company reasonably be expected to drum up interest in the rematch? While Bray was capable of handling the publicity by himself, I highly doubt we're going to see Brock Lesnar 'promo-ing' his way into our hearts.

Better to have the match sooner and get it over with.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Easy....ratings.

Have you seen WWE numbers recently....their audience is lower now that at any other time in over 30 years, going back before Bob Backlund!!!

Ratings are barely (sometimes less) of what they were when RAW was head against Nitro BEFORE the NWO Storyline took hold - That means over half the wrestling audience from what was largely considered a down, lower income, less popular period, supposedly the slowest period between 1980-2000, half of THAT AUDIENCE is gone.

This is why Sting was brought back for NOC & why Taker & Lesnar are headed to HIAC - WWE doesn't need a push for Mania season, they have to get fans interested right now or there wont be anyone watching during Mania season.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

One reason is rating because they needed something huge when ratings are down in American football(There is only one football and thats european or how silly americans call it soccer ). Other possible reason is that WWE has something other in store for Brock and Taker at Mania so they would wraped up this feud now.

 

[InZayn]

Maybe they moved it because they wanted Taker to get inducted into the Hall Of Fame by Next Years Wrestlemania. Lesnar would beat Taker Clean in a HIAC Match. And Taker would retire. Thats my theory.

 

[the_peoples_adam]

Reason 1:
As Y2J said on his debut in WWF..What was once a captivating, trend-setting program has now deteriorated into a cliched, let's be honest, boring snoozefest..
Now let's go over the facts. Television ratings, downward spiral; pay-per-view buy-rates, plummeting; mainstream acceptance, non-existent; and reactions of the live crowds, complete and utter silence. So they want to do this for bigger ratings n buyrates..

Reason 2:
I don't want to see Brock vs Taker III at WM32 main event as its already done and will not be so fresh n interesting as before..

Reason 3:
Maybe Taker has after all decided that it will be his last match at WM32 and most probably he will be inducted into the Hall of Fame the previous night. So he wants to retire not against Brock. But in a career on line match against a younger talent or in a buried alive match against Sting or Kane or Finn Balor..I also wants to see him facing John Cena in his last match in maybe a casket match or somethin..

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Because it was never the plan in the first place?

Because Vince is learning that The Network is a different animal than PPV? That he needs to spread his talent out some more to the lower tiered PPVs since it is better to get $9.99 in October and April instead of just $9.99 in April?

Because Taker is surprisingly healthy enough to wrestle again this soon?

Because bigger WM opportunities have popped up for booking Lesnar and/or UT at Mania?

Because Vince just remembered UT is synonymous with HiaC?

Because interest in Lesnar/Taker III is not at a WM level?

Because Taker really wants to get away from Michelle McCool more often?

Yeah, what I'm saying is I don't know. I'm just guessing that the WM rumors were bullshit like so much else we read on these sites.