Agreed, Vince is much more credible than Barrett. I wouldn't want to see Barrett vs Taker either. The problem with the timeline is that both Vince and Taker would be a thrown together fued in a desperate move by WWE. Its also not easy for Vince to associate himself with Barrett too. The last time i checked, before this week's RAW, the last time Vince appeared in the squared circle, he was at the receiving end of a Nexus beatdown. It is still possible for Vince to be the mastermind of Nexus burying Taker at Bragging Rights, however, it will not be too logical.
History book says Taker nearly sacrificed Stephanie in 1999 after beating the life out of Vince. Who was the higher power of The Ministry again?
The difference between Hogan-Vince and Taker-Vince is the history that Hogan and Vince have together.(I'm in no way implying that Vince and Taker have no history together) It is simple to make a fued out of Hogan and Mcmahon because they have so much history together, much bigger than Vince and Taker have.
History is a good thing, but not infinitely necessary to make one cares for something. For a start, before Wrestlemania 23 Batista's history with Taker was virtually zero compared to his history with HHH, but who can deny Batista's feud with Undertaker in 2007 is his best feud and the match at Wrestlemania 23 is perhaps the only classic and the best match in Batista's career? And I believe I can say the same about (at least) Diesel in WM 12, Flair in WM 18, Orton in WM 21, and Edge in WM 24 if we're talking about Undertaker's Wrestlemania experience.
As long as it involves a legend and a very very well known name, it's big. History or not it will be big it's almost "set in stone big".
Regarding Vince status as a legendary heel boss, there is not a shadow of doubt about it. He is one of the best heels in the history of the business, however, you have to take into account that Vince is 65 and it has been ages since he last step foot in the squared circle bar being beaten up by 21 chair shots at last year's Mania. He is in great shape for a man at his age, but people might not buy him as a legitimate threat for Taker's Streak, although he is the Chairman of the Company, there is just No Chance In Hell that Taker will have his streak ended by him.
At this point, I think people pretty much realized The Streak will never end although The Undertaker goes against the entire WWE roster or the whole WWE HOF class.
But for argument's sake, like u mentioned Vince is one of the finest heel ever....AND a very sly person. He has every trick in the book up his sleeve to end The Streak. So oh yeah, he's a big threat for The Streak indeed.
I agree with you too about every Wrestlemania match involving Vince being Big Time, but every match involving Vince is Big!, he is the Chairman of the company.
That's why matches like Taker vs HHH or Taker vs HBK worked while matches like Taker vs Gonzales or Taker vs Henry didn't. People cared for the former kind but not for the latter kind.
And being BIG TIME it is, I believe Taker vs Vince belongs to the former. Meaning, another memorable battle.
Vince Mcmahon vs The Undertaker - Wrestlemania XXVII?
- The last time Vince had a great match was against Michaels which was 4 years ago. Now at 65, I'm not entirely convinced by his in-ring skills. His heat have also died down in recent years, having their target audience shifted to kids. He has not appeared for a long before this week and he actually got a decent reception on RAW.
WM 27 will be held in Georgia, the former home base of WCW. Imagine the heat u would have if you were the chairman of a rival company who purchased your rival company and was about to have a match with the biggest WWE legend in the roster.
Don't hold your breath.
I am not too sure that he will draw the same kind of heat like when he fueded with Austin , Hogan or even Michaels. A match against Taker might have worked several years ago, but I am not too sure ATM and especially at this Wrestlemania with a huge possiblility of being the weakest Wrestlemania in recent times.
Say, if Sheamus feuds with Heath Slater, do u think he would have the same heat like, say, if he feuds with Orton? Heat come and go depends on your opponent. Vince is GREAT at making the crowd hate him. That, plus the fact his opponent is the most over guy in the company.
If anything, Taker vs Vince might even be the stand out match of the, as u say it, weakest Wrestlemania in recent times.
Taker will have to be at a 100% and bring his A game to carry Vince to a solid bout, I am not sure if he can.
Well, when fought HBK twice his legs were injured and he had to ice both of them on daily basis. Look how both matches turned out to be?
Taker is a pro, mate. And above all others, a warrior with an astronomical pride. Remember last year when he suffered third degree burn all over his body minutes before his match started but still managed to give a match of the night at Elimination Chamber?
HBK fought with a broken back.
Austin battled with a broken neck.
What makes Undertaker any different than the two?
I doubt people will buy Mania for this match or one against Barrett, fully aware that it will not be anything near spectacular to Taker's previous 2 at Mania with HBK or a dream clash such as one against Sting or even HHH with HBK being the guest referee. But, i say lets wait until 2 21 11 before that we can't rule anything out.
I'm still hoping for Taker vs Sting. If not, then I'm content with Taker vs Vince. Well, anything but Taker vs Corre or another rematches anyway. As for the buyrate....it's a shame, but it's WWE's own fault for not having the balls to book Taker vs Cena while they still can. As the saying goes, u reap what u sow.
