KB Answers Wrestling Questions | Page 836 | WrestleZone Forums

KB Answers Wrestling Questions

I posted a thread about this in the wrestling section, but I wanted your thought in particular.

I was listening to a part of Jericho's podcast today, and he discussed the ending of the Streak, and how he believed it was Undertaker's last match. Being so, he believed that it was neccessary that Undertaker lost, as Japanese tradition cites that a retiring wrestler go out putting over an up-and-comer, or a star being groomed for bigger things.

I disagree with Jericho. I believe that it's entirely conditional, based on the storyline. While from a kayfabe standpoint a 36 year old Lesnar should have beaten a battered, 49 year old Undertaker, the Streak was built on the idea that Undertaker was superhuman at Wrestlemania, and couldn't be beat. Now, there's no way to redeem this. There will always be a blemish on the Streak, and for what? Lesnar could have beaten up someone else, and Undertaker could have won one last match, retiring with his Streak intact, an enduring and timeless part of Wrestlemania. You were there, and I know you said you were shocked and speechless.

I went on here, but the questions are this: (1) Do you agree with Jericho that a wrestler who is retiring should always lose his last match in order to put someone else over? (2) Having been there, and having time to reflect now, do you believe WWE made the right call to end Taker's streak?(Let's assume Taker didn't insist and the decision was made by someone else.)
 
This is something that comes up every now and then and I've heard two takes on it.

1. A wrestler should go out on his back and put someone over. - Terry Funk et al.

2. "So John Wayne should go out with an arrow in his back so an Indian can get over when he stops making movies?" - Jim Cornette

I have no problem with Brock taking the Streak. That's the kind of rub that no one is ever going to get again and Heyman has milked it hard so far. That being said, I'd have been fine if it never ended either. I'll give Undertaker this though: he closed the door on it and now we don't have to worry about the matches getting embarrassing anymore.

As an answer to your question, no I don't think it always should go that way but there are certain circumstances where it should be the case. This one felt like more like the stars aligning though rather than what had to be done.
 
When did the whole "count a pin if shoulders are down during a submission" start?

And why does it make any sense on moves like the Figure Four?

Has anyone even actually been pinned during such a situation, like the Figure Four one?
 
When did the whole "count a pin if shoulders are down during a submission" start?

And why does it make any sense on moves like the Figure Four?

Has anyone even actually been pinned during such a situation, like the Figure Four one?

It was in the early 90s at the absolute latest.

Why wouldn't it? Their shoulders are down and they're being touched.

Yep, mainly in the figure four.

Did Scott Steiner ever use the Steiner Screwdriver in WWF or WCW?

At least once in WCW but I don't remember it in WWF.
 
Yeah it was but that's not what he's talking about.

This is just two people. The idea is the person in the hold passes out from the pain and gets pinned.
 
^Stop answering KB's questions. It's annoying.

.
.
.

KB, watching HBK - Bret in Survivor Series 1997, why did a small amount of fans chant "Bret sold out"? I thought Bret was loved by all Canadians. Am I wrong?
 
Weirdest pin attempt?

I remember there was a Hardcore match where, I think it was Snow vs. Hardcore Holly and there was a vertical pin attempt against a fence.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top