I'm sorry in advance

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

I never said they weren't fitting of the character but that doesn't change the fact that the music and the acts that produced it SUCKED then and they SUCK now. If that makes me a music elitist then so be it. You call me a music elitist and I could just as easily call you a fan of mediocre mainstream non-sense that amounts to very little more than beating on shit with spoons and walls of noise.

We're talking about WRESTLING entrance music for god's sake. If he didn't come out to that, it would've just been some other WWE produced "noise". Now THERE is some REAL nonsense huh? I guess wrestlers should come out to some Arcade Fire...that'll really get the place pumped.

 

[AhSpicyDrop]

We're talking about WRESTLING entrance music for god's sake. If he didn't come out to that, it would've just bee some other WWE produced "noise". Now THERE is some REAL nonsense huh?

Except his "Big Evil" theme was more than acceptable, and much more fitting of his Biker character than 'American Bad Ass' or 'Rollin'... How you somehow figure that "Rollin'" was fitting of his character is beyond me, by the way. Was it because the wheels on his motorcycle roll or what? I think it was more than they were shilling shitty Limp Bizkit music.

"You're Gonna Pay" was a perfectly acceptable theme song that was made in-house, and was way better than either of those commercial monstrosities that he rode his bike out to. Tell me more about how I don't know shit about "entrance themes", troll boy.

 

[AhSpicyDrop]

OK, which one is it?

How is that even a question? You just deflected my argument by bringing up nonsense to try and re-create the argument. I said I never stated in my original post that they weren't fitting, but never said that they were either. And then I called you out to tell me how you feel 'Rollin' is fitting of his character, which you clearly cannot. It's not my fault that your reading comprehension and debating skills are on the level of Sasquatch.

My point is 'Rollin' and 'American Bad Ass' were shitty songs written by shitty artists with very little talent, and you called me a music elitist because I didn't fall in line with what was fed to me for entrance themes. I also think the song Rob Zombie did for Edge was a piece of shit, wanna fight about that too?

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

It's the 30th anniversary of Wrestlemania, you can't have Undertaker walk out there in a gimmick he only worked for 3 or 4 years. The traditional Undertaker is required.

Yeah, this old, bald Undertaker really looks like the 'traditional' Undertaker...

Keep living in the 80s. Idiot fans like you are the reason wrestling is what it is right now.

I hope they don't mention any past Lesnar/Taker matches from 02-03 because it only reminds people that this isn't a first time encounter. It would lessen the big epic feel they're going for.

No, it would make the feud more intriguing. They can build a great storyline around the fact that Undertaker has never defeated Brock Lesnar before when they wrestled 11 years earlier etc... but no, some fans like you love to have their intelligence insulted.

 

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

How is that even a question? You just deflected my argument by bringing up nonsense to try and re-create the argument. I said I never stated in my original post that they weren't fitting, but never said that they were either. And then I called you out to tell me how you feel 'Rollin' is fitting of his character, which you clearly cannot. It's not my fault that your reading comprehension and debating skills are on the level of Sasquatch.

My point is 'Rollin' and 'American Bad Ass' were shitty songs written by shitty artists with very little talent, and you called me a music elitist because I didn't fall in line with what was fed to me for entrance themes. I also think the song Rob Zombie did for Edge was a piece of shit, wanna fight about that too?

Saying "I never said they weren't fitting of his character" would lead someone to believe that you DID think it was fitting of the character since you didn't expand on it further within that particular response.

Your argument about why "Rollin" is not fitting of his character would have been appropriate at that time, not a couple of posts later when it makes it look like you're contradicting yourself.

Debating skills of "Sasquatch". Thats good. Would you like to accuse me of living in my mother's basement now?

 

[Sabutage]

I dont get why Heyman and Lesnar couldn't have chosen the Undertaker themselves? That is to say, why couldn't they have said, if we cant have the title, we're going to conquer something no one else has done, the streak. I think that makes much more sense in the promo of conquering and being the first to do something.

 

[An Angry Blonde]

The feud legitimately JUST started last night.

If this was a week before Wrestle-mania 30 and no answer was given, then sure I could get it why and people have a sorta legitimate reason to bitch about it. But (once again) it just started. To me, personally, it would make no sense for them to explain everything from the beginning and leave the next 8(?) weeks of mind games and promos/interactions between the two. Not that I would be against that, just feel it would get old after awhile if they didn't save something to help develop the feud along the way.

They have offered no explanation as to why undertaker came out ( though I'm sure most of the viewers are able to connect the dots.) And you know why? Because it creates interest and reason for people to view in next week and find out why. There will be a reason given as to why undertaker came out ( will they address UFC 121 or ABA vs Lesnar feud? probably not) but for Christ sake, at least give them a chance! If you just go and shit on anything before it has a chance to get going chances are you'll never enjoy it because you never gave it a chance. At the very least, give them 2 weeks before you start the " This is why Taker vs Lesnar Feud" is total shit."

Personally, I have no issue with how was started and enjoyed it. I thought the way Taker came out and didn't say word, how Lesnar studied taker as he walked, the interaction involving the contract signing and the stabbing of the hand and chokeslam through the table was all entertaining and well done. Only issue I had really was the open contract concept itself , but not enough to take away from the segment as a whole. It's simple, makes sense in context yet leaves for questions to be answered and keeps the audience interested even if it is only temporary.

Also,
I'd like to say that, for the record, Kane and Bryan did in fact address Team Hell and their past on smackdown a couple weeks ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2V1k29X_Co

It's been awhile since I did this, and don't remember how to link the video in the post and yes, I understand that it isn't the best , but only one I found online.

But that's just my opinion on that matter.....

 

[L@RISANO]

I dont get why Heyman and Lesnar couldn't have chosen the Undertaker themselves? That is to say, why couldn't they have said, if we cant have the title, we're going to conquer something no one else has done, the streak. I think that makes much more sense in the promo of conquering and being the first to do something.

Again, simple to understand why it was done the way it was done.

The Undertaker was the one returning last night, NOT Brock Lesnar. So Taker being called out after a year out would not have much sense.

 

[jeffrey9800]

Again, simple to understand why it was done the way it was done.

The Undertaker was the one returning last night, NOT Brock Lesnar. So Taker being called out after a year out would not have much sense.

You're confusing "simple" with "predictable" and "We saw that before".

Come on man, you're better than these "so simple" comments

 

[L@RISANO]

You're confusing "simple" with "predictable" and "We saw that before".

Come on man, you're better than these "so simple" comments

How so?

I am just explaining the logic behind what was done last RAW with regards to setting up the rumoured Lesnar vs Taker match at Wrestlemania.
Thus, I regarded it as simple to understand.

Was it predictable? Indeed, even that dumb crowd at the show were chanting before Taker came out.
That simple setup would have worked wonders in years past, but with dirt sheets and the internet,etc. It is hard for any such surprises.

Also, knowing how lazy the WWE Creative can be, I think the way the match was setup was perfect as it essentially involves two part-timers and both guys played their part well enough to hype what is to come until Mania. That's all there is to it,really.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

The start of the feud was fine. People need to give it some time before they shit all over it.

Yeah, this old, bald Undertaker really looks like the 'traditional' Undertaker...

Keep living in the 80s. Idiot fans like you are the reason wrestling is what it is right now.



No, it would make the feud more intriguing. They can build a great storyline around the fact that Undertaker has never defeated Brock Lesnar before when they wrestled 11 years earlier etc... but no, some fans like you love to have their intelligence insulted.

Well he sure doesn't look like the ABA either. BTW UT pinned Lesnar twice so saying that he can't beat Brock would insult our intelligence.

 

[James]

From what I have seen, whilst UT still carries his Supernatural persona quite a bit.
Since he returned as the Deadman in 2004, he has incorporated parts of the American Badass persona in how he fights and such.
Also, Taker is a huge fan of MMA, and has been seen at UFC quite a few times. I doubt that confrontation with Lesnar will be brought up too much,if at all.


However, from what I observed last night, the Segment was done perfectly to setup the match:
Lesnar wants World title chance,
the Authority says no,
Lesnar threatens to not wrestle at Mania unless he gets his way,
to avoid an HHH v Brock again,
Taker comes out and proves that there is something bigger than the World title for Lesnar to conquer,
short action sequence.

Simple and Perfect. Match Setup, and now let's watch the build-up because I believe it will be a super match.

Also, did anyone realise, that like HBK x2, HHH x2....it is Heyman x2 for the Undertaker also?

Did you also realize that it's HHH?


But this feud makes sense to me because of the fact that Taker couldn't beat Lesnar without "The darkness", so him going back to his other side makes more sense.

 

[L@RISANO]

Did you also realize that it's HHH?


But this feud makes sense to me because of the fact that Taker couldn't beat Lesnar without "The darkness", so him going back to his other side makes more sense.

LOL.

Didn't point it out but yeah, I did see that it was H.H.H.
Coincidental really.

as for the other point. Agreed. The ABA was Taker being back to mortal form, which is why that part of his history is largely ignored nowadays, and it makes sense.
That said, the feud has just begun, let's wait and see, since WWE seems to embrace reality nowadays more than ever(see Randy's promo last RAW).

 

[nightmare]

Yeah, this old, bald Undertaker really looks like the 'traditional' Undertaker...

Keep living in the 80s. Idiot fans like you are the reason wrestling is what it is right now.

Well sure, lets bring back the version of the gimmick that was the least popular because PWF likes it. Lets ignore the fact that the segment was badass last night because PWF thought it should have had more motorcycles.

No, it would make the feud more intriguing. They can build a great storyline around the fact that Undertaker has never defeated Brock Lesnar before when they wrestled 11 years earlier etc... but no, some fans like you love to have their intelligence insulted.

What is insulting is your lack of intelligence. Hey, for someone who loves the American Bad Ass gimmick you sure have a bad memory of it. Taker pinned Brock twice during that time, once in a handicap match after a shot with the chain & once in a triple threat when Taker pulled Lesnar off the turnbuckle and hit a Last Ride.


They should keep doing what they are doing. This works & the confrontation Monday was great. So I would say idiot fans like you are the reason wrestling is what it is right now- People with no memory & bad ideas.

 

[Bdubbs]

The next time I am trying to get people to pay $10 a month for a new network I am starting, be sure to remind me to remind all my fans that two people that I am trying to help sell my new network had a confrontation on one of, if not my biggest sports and entertainment competitors years ago. It would be a great idea to get my fans to watch UFC, that could never hurt WWE's bottom line.

GSB gets it. It would be ridiculous for WWE to use the Taker/Lesnar staredown at a UFC PPV from a couple years ago in the storyline. Handing Dana White and the UFC free publicity during WM season: Not happening.

If WWE is going to use the past in the storyline, which they should, the build should focus on how dominate Lesnar has been against Taker in previous matches. In televised matches, Brock Lesnar is undefeated against Taker(3-0), with one victory being Lesnar's brutal Hell in a Cell victory.

My prediction is Brock runs through people with lots of violence over the next few weeks, similar to what he did to Big Show at the Rumble. Taker will pop up here and there to spook Lesnar(lights going out, gong sounding, lightning bolts etc). Instead of being scared/cowardly, Lesnar will play the aggressive "Brock Smash" role. I think last night's Raw segment was perfect, as it fuels Lesnar to not only seek revenge and end the streak, but to destroy the legend that is The Undertaker.

 

[Sabutage]

Again, simple to understand why it was done the way it was done.

The Undertaker was the one returning last night, NOT Brock Lesnar. So Taker being called out after a year out would not have much sense.

But WWE is all about realism now, or at least the acknowledges partly that the audience knows the ins and outs. Its not that much of a stretch to have Heyman say he knows the
Undertaker will come back for Wrestlemania, and Brock wants to be the one to make sure he never comes back again etc.

I know both have the same result, but to me it doesnt make sense that someone like Heyman (in character) wouldnt have thought of the streak as a way for brock to conquer history.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Well sure, lets bring back the version of the gimmick that was the least popular because PWF likes it. Lets ignore the fact that the segment was badass last night because PWF thought it should have had more motorcycles.

What is insulting is your lack of intelligence. Hey, for someone who loves the American Bad Ass gimmick you sure have a bad memory of it. Taker pinned Brock twice during that time, once in a handicap match after a shot with the chain & once in a triple threat when Taker pulled Lesnar off the turnbuckle and hit a Last Ride.

List of 1 on 1 matches Undertaker had with Brock Lesnar :

1) Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar - Unforgiven 2002 (Double Disqualification)
2) Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar - No Mercy 2002 [Hell in a Cell] (Brock Lesnar Won)
3) Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar - No Mercy 2003 [Biker Chain Match] (Brock Lesnar Won)

Maybe I should have worded it better for some of the dumbasses to understand.

"Undertaker has never pinned Brock Lesnar clean in a 1 on 1 match"

Don't bother replying.

 

[nightmare]

List of 1 on 1 matches Undertaker had with Brock Lesnar :

1) Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar - Unforgiven 2002 (Double Disqualification)
2) Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar - No Mercy 2002 [Hell in a Cell] (Brock Lesnar Won)
3) Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar - No Mercy 2003 [Biker Chain Match] (Brock Lesnar Won)

Maybe I should have worded it better for some of the dumbasses to understand.

"Undertaker has never pinned Brock Lesnar clean in a 1 on 1 match"

Don't bother replying.

Ah, yes. The bitch boy backtrack. A dance you do so well. Shame you are so bad with wrestling knowledge. No need to type out the matches, I remember them. Winning the series is not the same as being undefeated.


You said "Undertaker has never defeated Brock Lesnar". A pretty cut & dry statement. No need to re-word it after you have been proven stupid & attempt to save face by saying "Thats not what I meant"....


First time he beat Lesnar was a Handicapped match. A match where he not only beat Lesnar, but The Big Show as well. One of them alone is hard enough, but both at the same time sure is a task. Especially with Heyman changing the rules & restarting the match every time Taker won a fall. Points go to Taker there.


But wait! The second time was in a triple threat including the same 3 men. The match was won by Taker as well. Lesnar had Taker down & he was beating Show's ass with a clear advantage. He went for another Superplex on Show & Taker pulled him off the top turnbuckle, lifted Lesnar up & dropped him with the Last Ride. Clean. 1,2,3.



So feel free to come back & tell me how that doesnt clearly contradict your original statement. Want to change any other false statements you made so they fit into your idiot box after you have been proven wrong?


Maybe you should just keep quiet about things for a bit & go watch the network to brush up on that memory of yours.....

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Ah, yes. The bitch boy backtrack. A dance you do so well. Shame you are so bad with wrestling knowledge. No need to type out the matches, I remember them. Winning the series is not the same as being undefeated.


You said "Undertaker has never defeated Brock Lesnar". A pretty cut & dry statement. No need to re-word it after you have been proven stupid & attempt to save face by saying "Thats not what I meant"....


First time he beat Lesnar was a Handicapped match. A match where he not only beat Lesnar, but The Big Show as well. One of them alone is hard enough, but both at the same time sure is a task. Especially with Heyman changing the rules & restarting the match every time Taker won a fall. Points go to Taker there.


But wait! The second time was in a triple threat including the same 3 men. The match was won by Taker as well. Lesnar had Taker down & he was beating Show's ass with a clear advantage. He went for another Superplex on Show & Taker pulled him off the top turnbuckle, lifted Lesnar up & dropped him with the Last Ride. Clean. 1,2,3.



So feel free to come back & tell me how that doesnt clearly contradict your original statement. Want to change any other false statements you made so they fit into your idiot box after you have been proven wrong?

Maybe you should just keep quiet about things for a bit & go watch the network to brush up on that memory of yours.....

No ******, you should stop replying to my every post. Its pretty obvious you just want a response from me as you have been specifically quoting me on every thread. Its pretty obvious you just want attention.
It was clear by my first post what I meant but you had to disagree for the sake of disagreeing because it was posted by me.
I am just going to ignore you , you fucking troll.

 

[nightmare]

No ******, you should stop replying to my every post. Its pretty obvious you just want a response from me as you have been specifically quoting me on every thread. Its pretty obvious you just want attention.
It was clear by my first post what I meant but you had to disagree for the sake of disagreeing because it was posted by me.
I am just going to ignore you , you fucking troll.

Well someone sure is full of themselves. Every post? Every thread? Cant count either huh?



Until you made a pussy out of yourself in your *ahem* wrestling thread, I really never cared about what you say. You have made an ass out of yourself in other threads and then you & Silverback started to go at it. Your stupidity gains attention.



The Taker\Lesnar segment was great. No reason for people to piss about saying "Where is his bike? Why couldnt they play Limp Bizkit & let Taker say biker things?" This WM feud just started & was executed pretty well. Having Taker use the biker gimmick would be nonsense & take it a step backwards.



Other people have given you shit far before you were on my radar. I came in here to make a post & low and behold your blatant false statement stood out. So since you like to be wrong, I thought I would correct you just in case someone left here thinking you were right. Lord knows we dont need anymore kids running around with their history twisted.



I disagreed with you, because you were wrong. Then you decided to change what you said to save face. Try fixing that & more people would have less to say to you. Maybe you should change your user title as well, because there are plenty here who post that are far better than you.

 

[jeffrey9800]

I disagreed with you, because you were wrong. Then you decided to change what you said to save face. Try fixing that & more people would have less to say to you. Maybe you should change your user title as well, because there are plenty here who post that are far better than you.

I didn't want to get involved but nightmare you are wrong,

I understood what PWF was saying and you're probably the only one who didnt understood, handicap matches or survivor series matches don't count in a one on one record.

 

[Eddie Menuek]

At this point of his career, I don't think you can give The Undertaker a makeover and a new persona, regardless of who his opponent is. The bone chilling entrance, the mind games, it's so much of what makes the challenging of The Streak such a showcase on an annual basis. It's what people want, and expect, to see. Taker's entrance - whenever he makes it, but especially at Wrestlemania - is just about as compelling and unmissable as a guy walking down to the ring can possibly be. The backstory between Undertaker and Lesnar would have been a cool route to go down but switching The Undertaker back to just a regular ass kicking guy that rides motorcycles at this point of his career would have ultimately carried a fair amount of disappointment.

Let's not forget that on an annual basis, the psychology of the match is not "Mr X versus The Undertaker, to see who is the better wrestler". It's "Mr X is going to beat the living shit out of The Undertaker - let's see if he can beat the shit out of him enough to overcome this insane, indescribable factor that is 'The Streak' which makes Taker unbeatable on one night of the year". And it's great every single time.

 

[nightmare]

I didn't want to get involved but nightmare you are wrong,

I understood what PWF was saying and you're probably the only one who didnt understood, handicap matches or survivor series matches don't count in a one on one record.

I read English quite well & understand what records mean. Nowhere did he mention or allude to "1 on 1" until after he was called on it. "Has never defeated before" is quite plain and to the point & different than saying "Has never defeated 1 on 1". Go back & read the thread, I am not the only one who called him on it, he just chose to fire back at me because I got under his skin once in an unrelated thread.


That is really all there is to it.

 

[jeffrey9800]

I read English quite well & understand what records mean. Nowhere did he mention or allude to "1 on 1" until after he was called on it. "Has never defeated before" is quite plain and to the point & different than saying "Has never defeated 1 on 1". Go back & read the thread, I am not the only one who called him on it, he just chose to fire back at me because I got under his skin once in an unrelated thread.


That is really all there is to it.

When you talk about a record between 2 wrestlers you're talking about 1 on 1, if not let' include Survivor Series matches, tag team matches, handicap matches, Royal Rumble hell even triple threat,

That's really all there is to it, it's pretty obvious.

 

[LBGetBack]

I liked where they were going with Undertaker when he was coming out to that Johnny Cash song a few years ago. It gave him kind've an old western gunslinger trying to do it one more time, feel. I wish they stuck with that and kind've transitioned that to be his gimmick.