*MERGED* Undertaker's POTENTIAL Wrestlemania Opponents Thread

[Disturbed]

I think that Undertaker should face Randy Orton this year. I think it could play out into a good story.

Undertaker could make his return in the EC World Heavyweight match. The Nexus would run out and attack him before the match but Orton comes out and makes the save. Orton confronts Taker on Raw and asks for the match. Taker says if he proves he deserves it then he will let him try for a second time. Orton and Taker face the whole Nexus with the exception of Punk on Smackdown in a handicap match. They win and Orton RKOs taker after the match. That would be a spark for a feud untill Mania.

I think the crowd would get into this since he is so popular.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

This is a woeful choice on a number of levels, firstly Nexus being involved in burying Taker was barely mentioned, the focus remained on Kane.

And that is what makes it such a perfect choice. Nobody knows why nexus attacked taker but everyone remembers it don't they? Like I said it is useable ammo for the feud to start it off.

Secondly Barrett is not a big star and is zero threat to the streak, basically making the match of little to no interest.

Incorrect to a gigantic extent. Barrett is perhaps the second most watched face on all of WWE TV this year or at least since summer. He is a huge star now and there is no turning back for him. He will have huge heat for a while wherever he goes because he is one of, if not the current biggest heel in the company.

Did you believe for a second that Mark Henry was capable of removing the streak from Undertaker after the wins he had previously. No, nobody did. Yet on the night was it any less of a spectacle, not at all. The only real flaw was the match quality but the build-up still brought us to the same feeling we get every wrestlemania when the lights go down.

Thirdly even taking the other two factors out, the likelihood of it being a good match is slim, Barrett hasn't really looked like much of a worker and is still learning, and Taker is broken down and can't carry a virtual rookie to anything resembling a great match.

I'll give you the taker factor, he has looked pretty bad this year after the last mania match. But your obviously forgetting who he is. No matter how bad he is hurt going in, he'll always pull a stellar performance out the bag on the night because he knows how important it is to do so.

With regards to your comment that Barrett may not be a good worker, you obviously didn't watch the cage match last raw when he went toe-to-toe with two of the WWE's best athletes and never for a second looked out of place. He is not a phenomenal worker but he is at the very least good. I mean he got voted to win NXT ahead of daniel bryan or justin gabriel who is also a very good wrestler by other proffessional wrestlers
such as Chris Jericho and CM Punk and that cannot be entirely because of his undoubtable speaking ability. There is plenty of substance to him in the ring whether you choose to see it is another matter.

I hope this rumour is just that and maybe leaked by WWE to distract from the actual plans they have. The steak is one of the few attractions Vince has going into this Mania with the intention of getting a million buys, if he uses Barret as the opponent he can forget about that buyrate.

Once again, I don't know what wrestling company you have been watching for the last 6 months. Is it the one where a certain Wade Barrett created enough interest in John Cena to ensure steady TV ratings despite rapidly declining PPV buy rates?

But I'm just curious who you believe is a better man for the job? They obviously have to be heel at this point and a big star. So sheamus, CM Punk, Kane, Del Rio? I promise you that Wade will do as well as any of these guys in trying to keep the buy rates from falling. He is a good entertainer in a business where entertaining is the dominant force in the success of a superstar. Even if he isn't a great worker in the ring, what is important is that people are persuaded to watch the match by his promo work beforehand, I have no doubt he will do this.

I personally guarantee that if he feuds with taker into mania it'll be as good and watchable as any other feud going in.

 

[CelticCorey]

Undertaker should face Cena though. I don't want Cena to end it, that would be a crime IMO, but if Vince loves money he needs to pull the trigger. Imagine the biggest superstar in the company vs. the greatest streak in the history of the wrestling industry. Yes I know this is nothing we haven't heard before but WWE could hype the hell out of this thing.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Wrestling wise, Miz garnered more heat than Wade. U only need to listen more.

Guess vickie Guerrero is a better heel than the Miz in that case. Besides that, i disagree with the precedant that Miz gets/has more heat than Barrett. At least up until miz cashed in and possibly even now it is the other way round.

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

So much negativity here. I admit Barrett is not my ideal opponent for Taker at mania, but he’s not that bad of a choice. He has been built up as the top heel for the past six months. The top heel vs. Taker at mania seems ok. This reminds me a bit of WM21. Orton was built up as a top heel. His momentum was abruptly stopped by Evolution just like Barrett’s appears to be by Punk. Realizing he needed to do something to make an impact instead of just fade away Orton challenged Taker at mania. I could see Barrett doing the same thing. He’s been unceremoniously kicked out of Nexus and now he has something to prove. Most of us want Cena vs. Taker at mania. That’s the big money match. If that doesn’t happen Barrett could be a reasonable choice. Again, he’s not my ideal choice but I’ll wait to see what the creative team has planned before I bitch about it. Besides, there may not be any truth to this rumor at all.

U do realize before facing The Undertaker, Orton has won the world title once, and put two matches we can consider as 'classic' against Mick Foley at Backlash 2004 and Chris Benoit at Summerslam 2004? Not to mention hanging on the main event scene with Triple H. I can't remember Wade putting a classic until now...nor has he won any title at all. And besides, Orton was at his peak at The Legend Killer back there.

Barrett is at his peak as....what? Mr. Wrestlemania? Rated R Superstar? The Animal?

Me thinks Wade won't be able to follow those three, let alone surpassing their Wrestlemania classics with The Undertaker.

Really? I knew HBK didn't stand a chance. Why would he be the one to end the streak? Barrett won the first nxt and has feuded with both Cena and Orton during his first few months with WWE. They're obviously high on him. Even though I don't think it's likely he'll end the streak I'd give him a better chance than HBK.

If Shawn Michaels didn't end it after trying twice, Wade is just a waste of time.

Did you ever think this could be Barrett's breakout match? A good contest where he takes Taker to the limit could really establish him even in a loss.

I think it could be otherwise: If Wade can't follow The Undertaker's Wrestlemania matches with Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels twice, it'll only show how bad of a worker he is after so much trust being put on him as the future of WWE. If u read my post above, I personally think Wade vs Taker won't even be as good as Sid vs Taker.

So guys shouldn't get a big push just in case they die young? That doesn't make much sense. Besides wrestling Taker and beating Taker are two different things.

If Wade beats Taker and dies next year, all the push would go to oblivion. Therefore, The Streak shan't be ended.

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

And that is what makes it such a perfect choice. Nobody knows why nexus attacked taker but everyone remembers it don't they? Like I said it is useable ammo for the feud to start it off.

I'll let you in for a secret: Wade is no longer with Nexus.

Incorrect to a gigantic extent. Barrett is perhaps the second most watched face on all of WWE TV this year or at least since summer. He is a huge star now and there is no turning back for him. He will have huge heat for a while wherever he goes because he is one of, if not the current biggest heel in the company.

Huge star, eh? How many legendary matches has he been in? How many legendary feuds has he been in? How many titles has he won? Not so huge compared to the three names he has to follow in The Streak: Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels.

Did you believe for a second that Mark Henry was capable of removing the streak from Undertaker after the wins he had previously. No, nobody did. Yet on the night was it any less of a spectacle, not at all. The only real flaw was the match quality but the build-up still brought us to the same feeling we get every wrestlemania when the lights go down.

So you're saying it wouldn't matter if Taker vs Wade sucks?

And yes, Taker vs Henry was less of spectacle of course. After all, the match was the worst casket match of all time and eventually one of the worst matches of the year. The bored crowd durng the match should have shown u that much. It's not comparable at all to The Streak match one year earlier, Randy Orton vs Undertaker, which brought The Streak as the vital point of The Undertaker's career.

I'll give you the taker factor, he has looked pretty bad this year after the last mania match. But your obviously forgetting who he is. No matter how bad he is hurt going in, he'll always pull a stellar performance out the bag on the night because he knows how important it is to do so.

His performance with Giant Gonzales (WM 9), King Kong Bundy (WM 11), Big Boss Man (WM 15), Big Show & A-Train (WM 19), and Mark Henry (WM 22) wasn't stellar at all, but u said he would always pull a stellar performance. Hm, that's weird...

Look, mate, Taker is the only reason I started watching wrestling and still watching. But even I admit he can't carry anyone with just mic skill to a legendary match. After all, I'm yet to see Barrett putting a classic match. Unlike, say, Triple H, Ric Flair, Randy Orton, Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels before their respective Wrestlemania match with The Undertaker.

With regards to your comment that Barrett may not be a good worker, you obviously didn't watch the cage match last raw when he went toe-to-toe with two of the WWE's best athletes and never for a second looked out of place. He is not a phenomenal worker but he is at the very least good. I mean he got voted to win NXT ahead of daniel bryan or justin gabriel who is also a very good wrestler by other proffessional wrestlers
such as Chris Jericho and CM Punk and that cannot be entirely because of his undoubtable speaking ability. There is plenty of substance to him in the ring whether you choose to see it is another matter.

Yeah, but do u believe his performance on the so called cage match is worthy enough to follow, say, Shawn Michaels' retirement match?

And, based on my experience of watching wrestling, mic skill is useless when it comes to the actual match itself. It's not like Wade can speak with a mic on his hand during his match against Taker.

Once again, I don't know what wrestling company you have been watching for the last 6 months. Is it the one where a certain Wade Barrett created enough interest in John Cena to ensure steady TV ratings despite rapidly declining PPV buy rates?

RAW's rating in 2010 was the same with RAW's rating in 2009 = Horrible. not much of a draw at all.

And the declining PPV buyrates showed that Barrett doesn't seem to be much of a draw in PPV matches.

But I'm just curious who you believe is a better man for the job? They obviously have to be heel at this point and a big star. So sheamus, CM Punk, Kane, Del Rio? I promise you that Wade will do as well as any of these guys in trying to keep the buy rates from falling. He is a good entertainer in a business where entertaining is the dominant force in the success of a superstar. Even if he isn't a great worker in the ring, what is important is that people are persuaded to watch the match by his promo work beforehand, I have no doubt he will do this.

Who says it has to be a heel?

Batista wasn't a heel during his Wrestlemania 23 match with Undertaker.

Shawn Michaels wasn't a heel during his Wrestlemania 25 & 26 match with The Undertaker.

The man I see fit? John Cena.

Cena vs Taker = Easy 1 million PPV buys, easy sold out crowd.

I personally guarantee that if he feuds with taker into mania it'll be as good and watchable as any other feud going in.

The Streak at Wrestlemania can't be considered as a sideshow anymore. The Undertaker's last 4 Wrestlemania matches should have shown us that much. the Streak has surpassed both title matches at Wrestlemania. It can't be just as good as the other feuds anymore. If it does, it only proves that Wade doesn't have what it takes to make a legendary feud. U know, unlike his 3 predecessors in The Streak.

 

[DirtSheet]

You say Mark Henry took out the face of Smackdown but Barrett took out the face of the WWE and fired him. Barrett and his lackeys helped take out Orton for a week. Thats why Barrett so much more momentum than Henry.

You say also that you don't think it'll be a good match because you don't think Barrett is a good worker. Well the WWE certainly does and other people do as well. Why couldn't both men put on a near-enough classic? You're underating Barrett's wrestling skills here I feel and if he could get this match then it would be a big push.

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

You say Mark Henry took out the face of Smackdown but Barrett took out the face of the WWE and fired him. Barrett and his lackeys helped take out Orton for a week. Thats why Barrett so much more momentum than Henry.

Hm, yes. That's why the face of WWE kept appearing week after week and returned before even a month after screwing Barrett and his stable. Very credible indeed. And not to mention Wade has never won against the guy he put out for a week.

Pfffft! And I thought the ending of The Skeleton Key was lame.

You say also that you don't think it'll be a good match because you don't think Barrett is a good worker. Well the WWE certainly does and other people do as well. Why couldn't both men put on a near-enough classic? You're underating Barrett's wrestling skills here I feel and if he could get this match then it would be a big push.

Oh? Then mind telling me one classic match Barrett's has done? If he's 'the good worker' you actually mentioned then I'm sure you wouldn't find it difficult to point one to me.

BTW, near enough classic is apparently not good enough, seeing how Taker's last 4 WM match was indeed classics. Near enough classic is definitely inferior to actual classic. It ain't no rocket science, matey.

And about the big push....Henry also had a Wrestlemania match with Undertaker, but he's still jobbing on RAW as lower mid-carder. Not much of a push to me.

 

[The Brain]

U do realize before facing The Undertaker, Orton has won the world title once, and put two matches we can consider as 'classic' against Mick Foley at Backlash 2004 and Chris Benoit at Summerslam 2004? Not to mention hanging on the main event scene with Triple H. I can't remember Wade putting a classic until now...nor has he won any title at all. And besides, Orton was at his peak at The Legend Killer back there.

Barrett is at his peak as....what? Mr. Wrestlemania? Rated R Superstar? The Animal?

Me thinks Wade won't be able to follow those three, let alone surpassing their Wrestlemania classics with The Undertaker.

I am well aware of the push Orton received in 2004 before fighting Taker at mania. I think Barrett got a similiar push in 2010. Sure Orton won the title, but that wasn't much of a reign. Triple H put a stop to that in a hurry. Barrett debuted on Raw in June and feuded with Cena and Orton right away. He's been built as a main event star.

If Shawn Michaels didn't end it after trying twice, Wade is just a waste of time.

I guess we could say that about anybody.

I think it could be otherwise: If Wade can't follow The Undertaker's Wrestlemania matches with Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels twice, it'll only show how bad of a worker he is after so much trust being put on him as the future of WWE. If u read my post above, I personally think Wade vs Taker won't even be as good as Sid vs Taker.

That's a big if. Maybe he can't follow those matches but we won't know if he's not given the chance. You mentioned there is trust being put on him as the future. If they trust him as the future what's the problem with facing Taker? I am quite confident it would be better than Taker vs. Sid.

If Wade beats Taker and dies next year, all the push would go to oblivion. Therefore, The Streak shan't be ended.

This comment is just absurd. You could say this about anybody. WWE better not push Del Rio, Punk, Sheamus, or anyone else just in case they die next year.

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

I am well aware of the push Orton received in 2004 before fighting Taker at mania. I think Barrett got a similiar push in 2010. Sure Orton won the title, but that wasn't much of a reign. Triple H put a stop to that in a hurry. Barrett debuted on Raw in June and feuded with Cena and Orton right away. He's been built as a main event star.

He still won the title. Barrett didn't.

I guess we could say that about anybody.

I wouldn't say that about legit main-eventers like Cena or Jericho.

That's a big if. Maybe he can't follow those matches but we won't know if he's not given the chance. You mentioned there is trust being put on him as the future. If they trust him as the future what's the problem with facing Taker? I am quite confident it would be better than Taker vs. Sid.

Okay, say it's better than Taker vs Sid. But if it's not better than any of Taker's last 4 WM match that pretty much says Barrett has betrayed the trust given to him. Like Henry did at WM 22. It's too risky, and Taker vs Wade isn't a big draw at all, compared to Taker vs Cena or Taker vs Jericho or Taker vs Lesnar.

Defeating someone who hasn't won anything, who's yet to have legendary match and feud, and who's been with WWE barely a year would add nothing for the credibility of The Streak. Unlike defeating people like Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels.

If Barrett fails to follow any of The Undertaker's last 4 WM match, not only it won't benefit The Streak, but he would also make a fool of himself because it will be obvious he's not ready to be bigger than he is now, like his 3 predecessors in The Streak.

Undertaker has missed too many greats like Hogan, Bret, Owen, Rock, Mankind, Angle, Austin, Eddie, Benoit, and Savage in order to do Vince a favor and push Gonzales, Bundy, Boss Man, A-Train, and Henry to main-event scene (which in actuality, ended in oblivion).

It would be a shame if he misses Jericho or Cena only for Wade.

This comment is just absurd. You could say this about anybody. WWE better not push Del Rio, Punk, Sheamus, or anyone else just in case they die next year.

Ah-ah, I didn't say not push. I said "not ending The Streak". A push doesn't always have to do with The Streak.

Oh, and I still don't think it will make it the Top 10 Taker WM match I presented in one of my earlier posts. You're free to comment on it if you'd like

 

[DirtSheet]

Barrett actually did beat Orton at BR, yes it was by DQ but he still won. He also didn't lose cleanly at SS as Cena pushed him into Orton. The point is that Henry wasn't built up and didn't have his own faction, but Barrett did and thats helped alot. Fans now recognise the name Wade Barrett and its tough to argue that 2010 was Barretts year. He won the first season of NXT ahead of a few talented wrestlers including the US Champion. He then took his own groupies and caused chaos. The only thing missing is the title but I can see why WWE done that.

Barrett vs Cena was an exciting match. To me it was and I know alot of people who also think so. You mighn't agree though and like I said everyone has their own opinions

What you said about Barrett dying in a year was really childish and the same could be said just about every oother wrestler on the roster. If that was the situation no-one would get pushes incase they died

 

[The Brain]

Okay, say it's better than Taker vs Sid. But if it's not better than any of Taker's last 4 WM match that pretty much says Barrett has betrayed the trust given to him. Like Henry did at WM 22. It's too risky, and Taker vs Wade isn't a big draw at all, compared to Taker vs Cena or Taker vs Jericho or Taker vs Lesnar.

Defeating someone who hasn't won anything, who's yet to have legendary match and feud, and who's been with WWE barely a year would add nothing for the credibility of The Streak. Unlike defeating people like Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels.

If Barrett fails to follow any of The Undertaker's last 4 WM match, not only it won't benefit The Streak, but he would also make a fool of himself because it will be obvious he's not ready to be bigger than he is now, like his 3 predecessors in The Streak.

Undertaker has missed too many greats like Hogan, Bret, Owen, Rock, Mankind, Angle, Austin, Eddie, Benoit, and Savage in order to do Vince a favor and push Gonzales, Bundy, Boss Man, A-Train, and Henry to main-event scene (which in actuality, ended in oblivion).

It would be a shame if he misses Jericho or Cena only for Wade.



Ah-ah, I didn't say not push. I said "not ending The Streak". A push doesn't always have to do with The Streak.

Oh, and I still don't think it will make it the Top 10 Taker WM match I presented in one of my earlier posts. You're free to comment on it if you'd like

The streak doesn’t need added credibility. It’s already talked about as if it’s the greatest achievement in wrestling history. That’s despite Bundy, Bossman, and Henry being on it. Adding Barrett to the list certainly won’t hurt the streak.

You’re just assuming Barrett would have a horrible match with Taker. Why? I highly doubt it will be as good the previous four matches you keep bringing up, but it doesn’t have to be. Those were great matches and to judge Barrett against them isn’t really fair. He could still go out and give Taker a good match even if it’s not as good as others have been. For example, you rank WM21 ninth on your list. That doesn’t mean the match wasn’t good. It just wasn’t as good in your opinion as the eight you rank above it. If the match cracked the top ten of your list it could be considered a good match.

I would absolutely prefer Cena vs. Taker at mania. I wanted that at mania last year too. I think that would blow Taker vs. Barrett out of the water. It just doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. I’m just saying given the proper build and storyline Taker vs. Barrett could be ok. It’s not what we want but that doesn’t mean it can’t be good.

I’ll forget you mentioned the part about Barrett possibly ending up dead next year. The rest of your argument is ok. That comment was just silly.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Oh, and Barrett isn't the biggest heel in the company. Vickie is.

Don't fool yourself. Vickie gets the most heat out of anyone mostly but not always, and it is not brought out of genuine distain for the character like it is when people boo wade of the miz, it is simply a knee-jerk reaction. It is comparable to when people boo michael cole when he makes an announcement or when people say what as a legacy to stone cold after someone speaks.

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

Barrett actually did beat Orton at BR, yes it was by DQ but he still won. He also didn't lose cleanly at SS as Cena pushed him into Orton. The point is that Henry wasn't built up and didn't have his own faction, but Barrett did and thats helped alot. Fans now recognise the name Wade Barrett and its tough to argue that 2010 was Barretts year. He won the first season of NXT ahead of a few talented wrestlers including the US Champion. He then took his own groupies and caused chaos. The only thing missing is the title but I can see why WWE done that.

Barrett vs Cena was an exciting match. To me it was and I know alot of people who also think so. You mighn't agree though and like I said everyone has their own opinions

What you said about Barrett dying in a year was really childish and the same could be said just about every oother wrestler on the roster. If that was the situation no-one would get pushes incase they died

Sorry about the dying part. I wish ill towards no man.

So, I take it you believe:

1. Barrett is a better choice to be added to The Streak than anyone else because he is known to the fans, although Cena and Jericho are more known to the fans.
2. Barrett doesn't need a title to be worthy of facing The Undertaker at Wrestlemania, unlike Randy Orton, Triple H, Diesel, Edge, and Shawn Michaels who have won world titles before they faced The Undertaker at Wrestlemania.
3. Barrett only needs one exciting match against Cena to ensure people he can pull out a legendary match with The Undertaker. Weird, because Khali vs Cena in Anywhere Falls is perhaps Khali's greatest match but Khali's matches with Taker sucked.
4. Having his own group is good enough (although the group was nowhere near the level of legendary stables like Evolution, DX, or Ministry of Darkness) and he was later kicked out from it.

He doesn't have any clean victories at main event level so how are WWE going to convince anybody that he's anywhere near the level of the undertaker competitively or even have a chance at winning. Just seems like a pointless match with people hoping Taker to carry Barrett to a legendary watch.

I'm sure IWC will start bashing Taker for burying Barrett if he does defeat Wade and stop his so called momentum.

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

The streak doesn’t need added credibility. It’s already talked about as if it’s the greatest achievement in wrestling history. That’s despite Bundy, Bossman, and Henry being on it. Adding Barrett to the list certainly won’t hurt the streak.

Oh, really? But whenever people point out to the weak point of The Streak, they point out to the matches with Gonzales, Bundy, Boss Man, A-Train, and Henry, no? They didn't point to the matches with Orton or Batista. That pretty much says that The Streak still needs more big names to be added in order to improve it's lost credibility taken by adding the 5 talentless giants.

Adding Wade won't hurt, but it won't help either. Just like adding Kane the second time and Michaels the second time, they didn't hurt but they didn't give new credibility either because they have been added before. At least Kane and HBK are former world champs and both are legends, not to mention the latter was retired by Taker. Barrett? Hm? Do I need to list Batista's, Edge's and Shawn Michaels' accomplishment for us to compare and see if Wade's can be compared with any of theirs?

TheYou’re just assuming Barrett would have a horrible match with Taker. Why? I highly doubt it will be as good the previous four matches you keep bringing up, but it doesn’t have to be. Those were great matches and to judge Barrett against them isn’t really fair. He could still go out and give Taker a good match even if it’s not as good as others have been. For example, you rank WM21 ninth on your list. That doesn’t mean the match wasn’t good. It just wasn’t as good in your opinion as the eight you rank above it. If the match cracked the top ten of your list it could be considered a good match.

Of course my top 10 list isn't absolute, but I believe it's pretty reasonable. Just like The Eighties' list.

By your comment, I assume you'd settle for an inferior match then the four previous matches, then? Too bad, it seems that our taste of enjoyment is different. I never settled with so-so match.

And why it isn't fair to judge Wade against them? Isn't he being entrusted by WWE to follow them? So a judgment sounds fair enough to me. Because if you don't know how to put the show on the road, then you might as well hide in the rear. If Wade wants to make it big, he better be ready with the consequences. If Wade can't follow any of the last 4 match, that pretty much tells us how overrated he is.

But, I'd laugh my a** off if he couldn't even follow Taker's match with Batista, seeing how Wade is being labeled as the future of WWE and supposedly far more talented than Batista.

TheI would absolutely prefer Cena vs. Taker at mania. I wanted that at mania last year too. I think that would blow Taker vs. Barrett out of the water. It just doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. I’m just saying given the proper build and storyline Taker vs. Barrett could be ok. It’s not what we want but that doesn’t mean it can’t be good.

One thing for sure, there's no way Taker vs Wade can outdraw Taker vs Cena. That means, Vince will have to forget the 1 million buyrate he's been missing for the last two years.

And it seems to me Wrestlemania will yet suffer a no sold out crowd for three years in a row. Last year WWE had to giveaway 10,000 free tickets to fill out the empty seats. This year, I predict more than 30,000 free tickets.

I

The’ll forget you mentioned the part about Barrett possibly ending up dead next year. The rest of your argument is ok. That comment was just silly.

LOL, sorry.

But if Barrett can actually walk the talk, I hope he becomes as big as Edge or Batista in the future. So that him being in The Streak instead of people like Cena or Jericho will at least mean something, unlike Gonzales, Bundy, Boss Man, A-Train, and Henry being in The Streak instead of people like Hogan, Bret, Owen, Eddie, Angle, Rock, Austin, Benoit, and Lesnar which pretty much means nothing at all.

 

[DirtSheet]

Well don't twist my words anyway whatever you do

If you read my post you'd realise I think Barrett is a better choice than Henry was not Cena or Orton. I was giving point as to why Wade Barrett vs Undertaker is far,far more appealing than Mark Henry vs Undertaker.

Alsoo, you told me to name one match that Barrett had that was exciting and I answered you. But you then claim that I said as a reason for Barrett to face Undertaker which I didn't. I answered your question

Next time read my post before you answer it back thanks.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I'll let you in for a secret: Wade is no longer with Nexus.

I appreciate the condescention. He will be eternally linked with the faction though and is it likely the returing Undertaker is going to forget that, the same way a returning HHH will not forget who put HIM out of action.

Huge star, eh? How many legendary matches has he been in? How many legendary feuds has he been in? How many titles has he won? Not so huge compared to the three names he has to follow in The Streak: Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels.

Wade Barrett debuted on raw's main roster on the 7th of June, just over 6 and a half months ago. In that time he defeated mark henry in his first single's match (and no japes about him being a jobber, it looks darn impressive when you can wasteland a 400 pound man off your shoulders as he did), he was in the main event of the first PPV he was a part of, something not even Sheamus can boast.

He beat the Randy Orton last in a 5 on 5 elimination match on the 900th raw episode. He then got him title oppertunity at Night of champions, once again main eventing but was unsuccessful. He then got an official victory over John Cena at Hell in a Cell with interference. He also beat Randy Orton at Bragging rights by DQ due to cena's interference. (I hope your taking note, that's two victories over randy orton and one over cena). He headlined Survivor series losing to randy orton when cena was guest referee. the list goes on and on. In fact Wade Barrett has main evented every single PPV he has been a part of, nobody else in the history of proffessional wrestling can make that claim.

He has indeed won no titles. Let me ask you a question. How long has Wade Barrett been on TV?... answer is about 8 months at most with NXT included. Your asking for classic matches already?!?! In fact he has been in one legendary feud, the one he's just coming out of now. Produce me a classic match Bret Hart was in in 1986 please, or one from shawn michaels in 1987...... You can't because your simply asking too much too see a classic match from Wade Barrett already. But despite that, the man has had arguably the most impressive debut year in wrestling history next to sheamus, kurt angle, brock lesnar and few others, and it's isn't even over with yet.

You can say he is a step down from his last few competitors which is arguable and yet leaning on the side of truth, but the same would be true of almost the entire roster with one particular exception which I saw you mention and I'll come to later down the passage.

So you're saying it wouldn't matter if Taker vs Wade sucks?

I am saying exactly that. Sounds very confusing to come from a wrestling fan but it is true. What is important is that the match does not bury Wade. It doesn't have to be fancy or memorable or especially not have him win, it just have to get him over and therefore be back-and-forth action. The majority of the feud, as is usually the case at mania, will come from the build-up though as I said.

And yes, Taker vs Henry was less of spectacle of course. After all, the match was the worst casket match of all time and eventually one of the worst matches of the year. The bored crowd durng the match should have shown u that much. It's not comparable at all to The Streak match one year earlier, Randy Orton vs Undertaker, which brought The Streak as the vital point of The Undertaker's career.

Well yes proving my point, you can't always have what you want. The streak match following the previous years is not always going to be better and you have to look at the entire streak in retrospect as I'm shortly coming to.

His performance with Giant Gonzales (WM 9), King Kong Bundy (WM 11), Big Boss Man (WM 15), Big Show & A-Train (WM 19), and Mark Henry (WM 22) wasn't stellar at all, but u said he would always pull a stellar performance. Hm, that's weird...

In pretty much every example you posted he had very little to work with. It probably appeared as if he wasn't doing a good job but you have to be careful to judge the performance of the superstar and not the quality of the match. For example, the WM9 match against giant Gonzalez was appauling but if you watch you'll see that firstly Giant Gonzalez is a terrible worker, marginally better than the great khali is now. Secondly you'll note that taker did the job, his performance in itself was fine not sub-standard in the slightest and average at worst.

Look, mate, Taker is the only reason I started watching wrestling and still watching. But even I admit he can't carry anyone with just mic skill to a legendary match. After all, I'm yet to see Barrett putting a classic match. Unlike, say, Triple H, Ric Flair, Randy Orton, Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels before their respective Wrestlemania match with The Undertaker.

Tell me about it, taker is my favorite wrestler as well but I'm trying to view all of these things in perspective and alter yours. I did explain about the classic matches point but with regards to him being just a talker? Look you can argue he isn't a great worker which I would disagree with thoroughly. But even if you did and claimed that he was average as a worker (because he damn sure isn't worse than that) you'd have to concede he has average in ring-ability and good mic skills which makes for a good all round wrestler.

Consider the possibility that this IS Barrett's first classic match. Where better? He puts on a 20 minute show with taker and it'll be something nobody will forget in a hurry.

Yeah, but do u believe his performance on the so called cage match is worthy enough to follow, say, Shawn Michaels' retirement match?

It's yet to see how he will fare in a long contest but once again, nothing is going to compare to shawn michael's retirement match short of john cena (which is what I want to talk about) as a next leap, that's just something we have to accept.

And, based on my experience of watching wrestling, mic skill is useless when it comes to the actual match itself. It's not like Wade can speak with a mic on his hand during his match against Taker.

Like I said, he isn't useless in the ring. When he has to perform he can. It isn't like the completely relies on microphones to succeed.

RAW's rating in 2010 was the same with RAW's rating in 2009 = Horrible. not much of a draw at all.

Indeed but notice that I said the ratings were steady, as opposed to a drawn out decline over recent years meaning that it has stabilised in his prescence.

And the declining PPV buyrates showed that Barrett doesn't seem to be much of a draw in PPV matches.

Or simply the continuation of a trend, the man's not a miracle worker.

Who says it has to be a heel?

Batista wasn't a heel during his Wrestlemania 23 match with Undertaker.

Shawn Michaels wasn't a heel during his Wrestlemania 25 & 26 match with The Undertaker.

The man I see fit? John Cena.

Cena vs Taker = Easy 1 million PPV buys, easy sold out crowd.

Now we hit the crux, what I wanted to talk about. I agree. John Cena is the ideal choice and the last dream match for us to see in WWE. But your forgetting something. If Wade Barrett is facing Undertaker at Wrestlemania, there is no way in hell he is going to retire this year. This is the penultimate match in taker's wrestlemania career for certain so there is nothing to lose. Let Barrett have this match and for it to get him over and the following year we get a more awaited contest between cena and taker.

I agree wholeheartedly that cena will be a better match because he is still a bigger star but there is nothing to lose even if you consider this contest worse than most he has had which is still up for debate.

And just to cover your two examples, HBK and taker was a rare breed of feud, it was about two legends and respect, there didn't need to be opposing sides in it because it was all about the match. In fact for the WM26 build-up you'll see that HBK is actually quite heel anyway. The batista one is still valid though so I'll give you that. But you pit those rare examples against the rest of his matches which were all heel v face matches whichever side he was and you'll it just makes more sense.

I mean you don't wanna risk a feud failing and pit two faces against each other and see it fail. The proven format is heel v face, and only under rare circumstances is the template broken, this need not be one of them when there is a mere 4 months left until the event.

The Streak at Wrestlemania can't be considered as a sideshow anymore. The Undertaker's last 4 Wrestlemania matches should have shown us that much. the Streak has surpassed both title matches at Wrestlemania. It can't be just as good as the other feuds anymore. If it does, it only proves that Wade doesn't have what it takes to make a legendary feud. U know, unlike his 3 predecessors in The Streak.

True enough. All that means is that Wade has a lot to live up to, and it comes down to whether you believe he can put on a great feud and contest. I think he will, and you obviously disagree. All there is to it really.

*Now I've gotta go wash my hands, sore fingers. Please ignore the numerous spelling errors which are likely abundant

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

Well don't twist my words anyway whatever you do

If you read my post you'd realise I think Barrett is a better choice than Henry was not Cena or Orton. I was giving point as to why Wade Barrett vs Undertaker is far,far more appealing than Mark Henry vs Undertaker.

Alsoo, you told me to name one match that Barrett had that was exciting and I answered you. But you then claim that I said as a reason for Barrett to face Undertaker which I didn't. I answered your question

Next time read my post before you answer it back thanks.

You're welcome.

I said this on my reply for The Brain, and I'm going to say it again:

If Barrett can actually walk the talk, I hope he becomes as big as Edge or Batista in the future. So that him being in The Streak instead of people like Cena or Jericho will at least mean something, unlike Gonzales, Bundy, Boss Man, A-Train, and Henry being in The Streak instead of people like Hogan, Bret, Owen, Eddie, Angle, Rock, Austin, Benoit, and Lesnar which pretty much means nothing at all.

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

I appreciate the condescention. He will be eternally linked with the faction though and is it likely the returing Undertaker is going to forget that, the same way a returning HHH will not forget who put HIM out of action.

Well, the fact that he was kicked out of his own stable wouldn't be forgotten either. Less credibility for Wade there.

Wade Barrett debuted on raw's main roster on the 7th of June, just over 6 and a half months ago. In that time he defeated mark henry in his first single's match (and no japes about him being a jobber, it looks darn impressive when you can wasteland a 400 pound man off your shoulders as he did), he was in the main event of the first PPV he was a part of, something not even Sheamus can boast.

He beat the Randy Orton last in a 5 on 5 elimination match on the 900th raw episode. He then got him title oppertunity at Night of champions, once again main eventing but was unsuccessful. He then got an official victory over John Cena at Hell in a Cell with interference. He also beat Randy Orton at Bragging rights by DQ due to cena's interference. (I hope your taking note, that's two victories over randy orton and one over cena). He headlined Survivor series losing to randy orton when cena was guest referee. the list goes on and on. In fact Wade Barrett has main evented every single PPV he has been a part of, nobody else in the history of proffessional wrestling can make that claim.

He has indeed won no titles. Let me ask you a question. How long has Wade Barrett been on TV?... answer is about 8 months at most with NXT included. Your asking for classic matches already?!?! In fact he has been in one legendary feud, the one he's just coming out of now. Produce me a classic match Bret Hart was in in 1986 please, or one from shawn michaels in 1987...... You can't because your simply asking too much too see a classic match from Wade Barrett already. But despite that, the man has had arguably the most impressive debut year in wrestling history next to sheamus, kurt angle, brock lesnar and few others, and it's isn't even over with yet.

In case you didn't notice, nor Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels was put on a match bigger than both world titles at their first Wrestlemania. So, since Wade is going to be put on the biggest match on the card, why is it so bad for me to hope for a classic from him?

You can say he is a step down from his last few competitors which is arguable and yet leaning on the side of truth, but the same would be true of almost the entire roster with one particular exception which I saw you mention and I'll come to later down the passage.

Tut-tut, HE IS INDEED A STEP DOWN! There's no need to deny that fact. That is pretty much obvious.

I am saying exactly that. Sounds very confusing to come from a wrestling fan but it is true. What is important is that the match does not bury Wade. It doesn't have to be fancy or memorable or especially not have him win, it just have to get him over and therefore be back-and-forth action. The majority of the feud, as is usually the case at mania, will come from the build-up though as I said.

First The Brain, and now you u. Good God almighty, what's with people settling for average matches? Too bad, it seems that our taste of enjoyment is different. I never settled with so-so match.

If we go by this logic, I think it's fair to label Wade as a failure if he can't follow at least Undertaker vs Batista (the least of the 4 classics).

After all, isn't he being entrusted by WWE to follow them (Tista, Edge, HBK)? So a judgment sounds fair enough to me. Because if you don't know how to put the show on the road, then you might as well hide in the rear. If Wade wants to make it big, he better be ready with the consequences. If Wade can't follow any of the last 4 match, that pretty much tells us how overrated he is.

But, I'd laugh my a** off if he couldn't even follow Taker's match with Batista, seeing how Wade is being labeled as the future of WWE and supposedly far more talented than Batista.

Well yes proving my point, you can't always have what you want. The streak match following the previous years is not always going to be better and you have to look at the entire streak in retrospect as I'm shortly coming to.

It's not always going to be better, but it could have been and it still can be with the right booking. And such a shame if Barrett is added over people like Cena or Jericho.

I personally believe Undertaker vs Wade Barrett won't be able to follow Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels. But, that's just me, tho.

But it seems to me you're trying to say : It's okay for The Streak match to be bad.

Sorry if I misinterpret it, BTW.

In pretty much every example you posted he had very little to work with. It probably appeared as if he wasn't doing a good job but you have to be careful to judge the performance of the superstar and not the quality of the match. For example, the WM9 match against giant Gonzalez was appauling but if you watch you'll see that firstly Giant Gonzalez is a terrible worker, marginally better than the great khali is now. Secondly you'll note that taker did the job, his performance in itself was fine not sub-standard in the slightest and average at worst.

So u mean....it's ok if a match sucks as long as the competitors do their best?

How generous

Tell me about it, taker is my favorite wrestler as well but I'm trying to view all of these things in perspective and alter yours. I did explain about the classic matches point but with regards to him being just a talker? Look you can argue he isn't a great worker which I would disagree with thoroughly. But even if you did and claimed that he was average as a worker (because he damn sure isn't worse than that) you'd have to concede he has average in ring-ability and good mic skills which makes for a good all round wrestler.

And you believe an average in-ring ability would somehow make his first Wrestlemania match be a very very memorable match defining his career?

It always takes two to tango. Taker tangoed with Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels just fine.

Just remember, Taker won't be 100% fit during the match against Wade. So, I won't expect him to carry Wade to an all-time classic, really.

Consider the possibility that this IS Barrett's first classic match. Where better? He puts on a 20 minute show with taker and it'll be something nobody will forget in a hurry.

No worries, I also consider the possibility of this being a horrible match. I ALWAYS consider both possibilities.

Then again, if the match turns out to be suck, then I can bash Wade to my heart's content till the day I die. There's good and bad in everything.

It's yet to see how he will fare in a long contest but once again, nothing is going to compare to shawn michael's retirement match short of john cena (which is what I want to talk about) as a next leap, that's just something we have to accept.

Yet to see....how heart-throbbing it is that the first chance to see this is on the biggest match in the card, eh?

Good luck, Wade. Something inside me tells me you're going to need a lot of that.

Like I said, he isn't useless in the ring. When he has to perform he can. It isn't like the completely relies on microphones to succeed.

Let's pray for the best.....and let's pray the horrible commentary by Cole and Striker won't ruin the match that much.

Indeed but notice that I said the ratings were steady, as opposed to a drawn out decline over recent years meaning that it has stabilised in his prescence.

True, but then again...ratings don't affect the quality of his first Wrestlemania match.

Or simply the continuation of a trend, the man's not a miracle worker.

Yet he's chosen to follow Undertaker's Wrestlemania match with Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels twice. That's too much for one man.

That's a job only a superman can do.

Now we hit the crux, what I wanted to talk about. I agree. John Cena is the ideal choice and the last dream match for us to see in WWE. But your forgetting something. If Wade Barrett is facing Undertaker at Wrestlemania, there is no way in hell he is going to retire this year. This is the penultimate match in taker's wrestlemania career for certain so there is nothing to lose. Let Barrett have this match and for it to get him over and the following year we get a more awaited contest between cena and taker.

I agree wholeheartedly that cena will be a better match because he is still a bigger star but there is nothing to lose even if you consider this contest worse than most he has had which is still up for debate.

Well, I'm a man, so I'm going to go this far:

If Wade vs Taker at WM 27 turns out to be a match for the ages, I shall admit my mistake and apologize for every bad thing I said about this match on my first post after Wrestlemania 27 is over.

But if it's proven otherwise, then wrestlezone.com will never hear the end of it from me.

I promise.

And just to cover your two examples, HBK and taker was a rare breed of feud, it was about two legends and respect, there didn't need to be opposing sides in it because it was all about the match. In fact for the WM26 build-up you'll see that HBK is actually quite heel anyway. The batista one is still valid though so I'll give you that. But you pit those rare examples against the rest of his matches which were all heel v face matches whichever side he was and you'll it just makes more sense.

Well, as u said it, my example is valid.

And the fact that Taker vs HBK was as great as u said it makes it even harder for Wade to follow.

There's only so much one man can do after all.

That's a job only a superman can do.

I mean you don't wanna risk a feud failing and pit two faces against each other and see it fail. The proven format is heel v face, and only under rare circumstances is the template broken, this need not be one of them when there is a mere 4 months left until the event.

Shawn vs Taker at WM 25 was built in three months.

True enough. All that means is that Wade has a lot to live up to, and it comes down to whether you believe he can put on a great feud and contest. I think he will, and you obviously disagree. All there is to it really.

*Now I've gotta go wash my hands, sore fingers. Please ignore the numerous spelling errors which are likely abundant

I said this on my reply for The Brain, and I'm going to say it again:

If Barrett can actually walk the talk, I hope he becomes as big as Edge or Batista in the future. So that him being in The Streak instead of people like Cena or Jericho will at least mean something, unlike Gonzales, Bundy, Boss Man, A-Train, and Henry being in The Streak instead of people like Hogan, Bret, Owen, Eddie, Angle, Rock, Austin, Benoit, and Lesnar which pretty much means nothing at all.

One thing for sure, there's no way Taker vs Wade can outdraw Taker vs Cena. That means, Vince will have to forget the 1 million buyrate he's been missing for the last two years.

And it seems to me Wrestlemania will yet suffer a no sold out crowd for three years in a row. Last year WWE had to giveaway 10,000 free tickets to fill out the empty seats. This year, I predict more than 30,000 free tickets.

Nice discussion, mate. Can't wait for you to reply.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Well, the fact that he was kicked out of his own stable wouldn't be forgotten either. Less credibility for Wade there.

In case you didn't notice, nor Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels was put on a match bigger than both world titles at their first Wrestlemania. So, since Wade is going to be put on the biggest match on the card, why is it so bad for me to hope for a classic from him?

Tut-tut, HE IS INDEED A STEP DOWN! There's no need to deny that fact. That is pretty much obvious.

First The Brain, and now you u. Good God almighty, what's with people settling for average matches? Too bad, it seems that our taste of enjoyment is different. I never settled with so-so match.

If we go by this logic, I think it's fair to label Wade as a failure if he can't follow at least Undertaker vs Batista (the least of the 4 classics).

After all, isn't he being entrusted by WWE to follow them (Tista, Edge, HBK)? So a judgment sounds fair enough to me. Because if you don't know how to put the show on the road, then you might as well hide in the rear. If Wade wants to make it big, he better be ready with the consequences. If Wade can't follow any of the last 4 match, that pretty much tells us how overrated he is.

But, I'd laugh my a** off if he couldn't even follow Taker's match with Batista, seeing how Wade is being labeled as the future of WWE and supposedly far more talented than Batista.

It's not always going to be better, but it could have been and it still can be with the right booking. And such a shame if Barrett is added over people like Cena or Jericho.

I personally believe Undertaker vs Wade Barrett won't be able to follow Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels. But, that's just me, tho.

But it seems to me you're trying to say : It's okay for The Streak match to be bad.

Sorry if I misinterpret it, BTW.

So u mean....it's ok if a match sucks as long as the competitors do their best?

How generous

And you believe an average in-ring ability would somehow make his first Wrestlemania match be a very very memorable match defining his career?

It always takes two to tango. Taker tangoed with Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels just fine.

Just remember, Taker won't be 100% fit during the match against Wade. So, I won't expect him to carry Wade to an all-time classic, really.

No worries, I also consider the possibility of this being a horrible match. I ALWAYS consider both possibilities.

Then again, if the match turns out to be suck, then I can bash Wade to my heart's content till the day I die. There's good and bad in everything.

Yet to see....how heart-throbbing it is that the first chance to see this is on the biggest match in the card, eh?

Good luck, Wade. Something inside me tells me you're going to need a lot of that.

Let's pray for the best.....and let's pray the horrible commentary by Cole and Striker won't ruin the match that much.

True, but then again...ratings don't affect the quality of his first Wrestlemania match.

Yet he's chosen to follow Undertaker's Wrestlemania match with Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels twice. That's too much for one man.

That's a job only a superman can do.

Well, I'm a man, so I'm going to go this far:

If Wade vs Taker at WM 27 turns out to be a match for the ages, I shall admit my mistake and apologize for every bad thing I said about this match on my first post after Wrestlemania 27 is over.

But if it's proven otherwise, then wrestlezone.com will never hear the end of it from me.

I promise.

Well, as u said it, my example is valid.

And the fact that Taker vs HBK was as great as u said it makes it even harder for Wade to follow.

There's only so much one man can do after all.

That's a job only a superman can do.

Shawn vs Taker at WM 25 was built in three months.

I said this on my reply for The Brain, and I'm going to say it again:

If Barrett can actually walk the talk, I hope he becomes as big as Edge or Batista in the future. So that him being in The Streak instead of people like Cena or Jericho will at least mean something, unlike Gonzales, Bundy, Boss Man, A-Train, and Henry being in The Streak instead of people like Hogan, Bret, Owen, Eddie, Angle, Rock, Austin, Benoit, and Lesnar which pretty much means nothing at all.

One thing for sure, there's no way Taker vs Wade can outdraw Taker vs Cena. That means, Vince will have to forget the 1 million buyrate he's been missing for the last two years.

And it seems to me Wrestlemania will yet suffer a no sold out crowd for three years in a row. Last year WWE had to giveaway 10,000 free tickets to fill out the empty seats. This year, I predict more than 30,000 free tickets.

Nice discussion, mate. Can't wait for you to reply.

Look I can see your rooted to your opinion so I'm going to try to explain myself in one fell swoop. Your cheif concern appears to be the quality of the actual wrestlemania match that Undertaker and Wade Barrett would be likely to have. I'm trying to think about it from an entertainment stand-point and also how it is likely to affect the repspective career's of the two men.

For the last part of your comment, I've already explained that it will likely to be cena next year so there is not much to worry about, the worst that can happen from all this is that it doesn't get Barrett fully over which is very unlikely.The best is that it does draw well, it is a good match, it gets Barrett mega-over and cena faces taker the year after.

I'm curious about this statement: "Yet he's chosen to follow Undertaker's Wrestlemania match with Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels twice. That's too much for one man." Well then aren't you admitting you aren't going to be happy regardless or the scenario, unless as you said it is john cena who we all know would put on a terrible, stagnant match with taker. Let's say that is the case, who does taker then face. Does taker retire this year or does he face someone sub-standard in what is likely his final year?

I mean for christ's sake the man is obviously still green! It's amazing that he has come to the position he has in a short a space of time meaning he is surely immensely talented but regardless, even guys like kurt angle or jack swagger with their extensive amateur wrestling career took a while to produce really good matches and they are better wrestlers than Barrett.

I understand you want the best possible match you can have but look like I said before, the match is not the most important thing, it's the story, the build-up. It's about getting people engaged enough so that they pick up the phone and buy the PPV. There has been some pathetic matches in WWF history that have had ridiculous amounts of buyers and viewers because of how it played out beforehand. Take for instance any goldberg match!

I want the best possible matches also, but I'm being realistic. HBK vs taker will almost certainly be better than Barrett against taker unless miracles strike and pigs decide to sprout wings.

Look you seem to have this idea that a match following a certain other one of the same type ought to be better, and that is conceptually correct. Yet look at the state of decline that wrestling has come into for the last decade since 2000. The expectation of things being constantly better than their predecessor is a lovely thought but can't be an actualisation because there isn't the same quality of stars there once was.

If you want to flaunt the barrett match being worse after manialike you said, after you've seen it, YOU MAY AS WELL BEGIN NOW! Because you know what's going to happen then! But if you decide to be realistic then you'll come to understand it's pretty much what everyone else expects. Thank god your not a booker, you'd be pretty damn hard to work for, it would take nothing short of perfection to impress you!

 

[The Brain]

By your comment, I assume you'd settle for an inferior match then the four previous matches, then? Too bad, it seems that our taste of enjoyment is different. I never settled with so-so match.

I would settle for an inferior match. Inferior is usually a derogatory word but let's be honest. In the wrestling world there is nothing wrong with being inferior to Shawn Michaels. Just about everybody is. I wouldn't expect Barrett to put on as good a match as Michaels did. However, the right build can carry a match. A strong storyline can make a good match great.

And why it isn't fair to judge Wade against them? Isn't he being entrusted by WWE to follow them? So a judgment sounds fair enough to me. Because if you don't know how to put the show on the road, then you might as well hide in the rear. If Wade wants to make it big, he better be ready with the consequences. If Wade can't follow any of the last 4 match, that pretty much tells us how overrated he is.

It's not fair because you're making it sound like anything less than Taker vs. HBK would be a failure. That's like saying Aaron Rodgers will be a failure if he doesn't surpass Brett Favre's numbers. Even if Barrett vs. Taker is Taker's worst mania match in five years it could still be a good match.

But, I'd laugh my a** off if he couldn't even follow Taker's match with Batista, seeing how Wade is being labeled as the future of WWE and supposedly far more talented than Batista

The thing is you're not even willing to give Barrett a chance. You're already saying the match is a bust because on a rumor that the match might take place. Let creative get involved and put a story together and then decide. Years from now Barrett might be a multi time champion and a huge name in WWE. Having Barrett as a victim of the streak may be more impressive than Edge or Batista. Time will tell.

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

Look I can see your rooted to your opinion so I'm going to try to explain myself in one fell swoop. Your cheif concern appears to be the quality of the actual wrestlemania match that Undertaker and Wade Barrett would be likely to have. I'm trying to think about it from an entertainment stand-point and also how it is likely to affect the repspective career's of the two men.

Each man for himself, mate. But one thing caught my mind, tho, how does a victory against Wade Barrett affect The Undertaker's career?

For the last part of your comment, I've already explained that it will likely to be cena next year so there is not much to worry about, the worst that can happen from all this is that it doesn't get Barrett fully over which is very unlikely.The best is that it does draw well, it is a good match, it gets Barrett mega-over and cena faces taker the year after.

Eh, I wouldn't say not getting Barrett fully over is unlikely. After all, Giant Gonzales, A-Train, and Mark Henry didn't get over after a Wrestlemania match with The Undertaker. Just like Wade, Undertaker isn't a miracle worker either. Like I said, he can't carry just about anyone.

But still, if it turns out to be an all-time classic, I'd be more than glad to admit my mistake like I promised. Honest.

And btw, I think if Taker vs Cena happens next year, it wouldn't be as good as if it happens this year. If it happens now, it would Undertaker vs The Face of WWE. But if it happens next year, it would be just another Undertaker vs Another Main Eventer, seeing how the torch will be more than likely to be passed to Miz this year, thus lowering Cena's status and also overall quality, hype, atmosphere, attention, and expectation for the match between Undertaker vs Cena. Can't say if that's a good thing or a bad thing, tho.

Cold harsh truth: The Undertaker has never faced a face of WWE in his prime at Wrestlemania. And most likely never will.

I'm curious about this statement: "Yet he's chosen to follow Undertaker's Wrestlemania match with Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels twice. That's too much for one man." Well then aren't you admitting you aren't going to be happy regardless or the scenario, unless as you said it is john cena who we all know would put on a terrible, stagnant match with taker. Let's say that is the case, who does taker then face. Does taker retire this year or does he face someone sub-standard in what is likely his final year?

I also admit I'd be more than happy to admit my mistake like a man if Taker vs Wade proves otherwise.

I'm new here so maybe we don't know each other well, but I always try to be fair. If a match against Batista is better than a match against Stone Cold, I shall say so. If a feud against Randy Orton is better than a feud against Bret Hart, then I'll say so.

So if Wade can pull out an all-time classic, then I'd be honored to say so and admit my mistake.

Then again, one classic can still be better than the other. If Taker vs Wade can be as good as Taker vs Diesel or Taker vs Flair, I'll settle with it and I'll admit it. That's enough classic for me. But seeing how I arrange my list, it does have to be better than Taker vs Orton and Taker vs Sid to be a classic. After all, I personally admit only the top 8 matches of Taker can be considered a classic in Taker's case.

I mean for christ's sake the man is obviously still green! It's amazing that he has come to the position he has in a short a space of time meaning he is surely immensely talented but regardless, even guys like kurt angle or jack swagger with their extensive amateur wrestling career took a while to produce really good matches and they are better wrestlers than Barrett.

Sometimes, it's hell getting to heaven. Let's all pray Wade can pull this one out and walk the talk. That's what being entrusted means.

I understand you want the best possible match you can have but look like I said before, the match is not the most important thing, it's the story, the build-up. It's about getting people engaged enough so that they pick up the phone and buy the PPV. There has been some pathetic matches in WWF history that have had ridiculous amounts of buyers and viewers because of how it played out beforehand. Take for instance any goldberg match!

Well, I'm curious how WWE would build Undertaker vs Wade up. But seeing how repetitive WWE can be, I think it'd be the usual "I'm not afraid of Taker thing despite Taker chases me thing". Let's hope I'm wrong and see if WWE can come up with something more original this time.

I personally believe the buyrate won't even touch 800,000 buys. For once, I know I won't buy the PPV. What's the use of live stream and youtube, then?

I want the best possible matches also, but I'm being realistic. HBK vs taker will almost certainly be better than Barrett against taker unless miracles strike and pigs decide to sprout wings.

Ah, miracle. Let's see if she comes out this time. I believe I mentioned at least it has to follow any of the last 4 match, so it can be any of his match against Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels. It's not necessarily has to be the two with Shawn Michaels. If it's better or as good as Taker vs Batista, that's fine enough.

Look you seem to have this idea that a match following a certain other one of the same type ought to be better, and that is conceptually correct. Yet look at the state of decline that wrestling has come into for the last decade since 2000. The expectation of things being constantly better than their predecessor is a lovely thought but can't be an actualisation because there isn't the same quality of stars there once was.

I did sound pretty demanding, eh? Thx for the tip.

But I believe I didn't sound too bad.

If you want to flaunt the barrett match being worse after manialike you said, after you've seen it, YOU MAY AS WELL BEGIN NOW! Because you know what's going to happen then! But if you decide to be realistic then you'll come to understand it's pretty much what everyone else expects. Thank god your not a booker, you'd be pretty damn hard to work for, it would take nothing short of perfection to impress you!

Is the last sentence supposed to be a compliment? Because if it is, then thank you.

Yeah, well, since I already blabbed here and there, I'll make this short.

My personal wish from this match is to find out that adding Wade Barrett to The Streak over Chris Jericho and John Cena is worth it.

Because by now, I think we can all agree that adding Giant Gonzales, King Kong Bundy, Big Boss Man, A-Train, and Mark Henry over Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Bret Hart, Owen Hart, The Rock, Stone Cold, Mankind, Brock Lesnar, Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, and Chris Benoit wasn't worth it. And what a shame it is if another two legends aren't added for the sake of someone who doesn't deserve it.

Of course, to find out whether Wade is worth it or not I'd probably have to check again in 10 years. It's not like he's a multi-time world champion with legendary status ATM.

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

I would settle for an inferior match. Inferior is usually a derogatory word but let's be honest. In the wrestling world there is nothing wrong with being inferior to Shawn Michaels. Just about everybody is. I wouldn't expect Barrett to put on as good a match as Michaels did. However, the right build can carry a match. A strong storyline can make a good match great.

Alright, but I think there's something wrong with being inferior to Batista if you're trusted as the future of the company.

After all, I did point to the last 4 matches.

It's not fair because you're making it sound like anything less than Taker vs. HBK would be a failure. That's like saying Aaron Rodgers will be a failure if he doesn't surpass Brett Favre's numbers. Even if Barrett vs. Taker is Taker's worst mania match in five years it could still be a good match.

Eh? I'm not American and definitely not a native speaker. So, who's Brett Favre? And who's Aaron Rodgers?

Back to the biz, one classic can still be better than the other. If Taker vs Wade can be as good as Taker vs Diesel or Taker vs Flair, I'll settle with it and I'll admit that I've been wrong all this time. That's enough classic for me. But seeing how I arrange my list, it does have to be better than Taker vs Orton and Taker vs Sid to be a classic. After all, I personally admit only the top 8 matches of Taker can be considered a classic in Taker's case.

The thing is you're not even willing to give Barrett a chance. You're already saying the match is a bust because on a rumor that the match might take place. Let creative get involved and put a story together and then decide. Years from now Barrett might be a multi time champion and a huge name in WWE. Having Barrett as a victim of the streak may be more impressive than Edge or Batista. Time will tell.

You're right, And I apologize for it. I should have waited for the actual match to take place before I either praise it to the sky or bash it till the end of days. I'm sorry for sounding like a jerk. Thank you for reminding me

Well, since I already blabbed here and there, I'll make this short.

My personal wish from this match is to find out that adding Wade Barrett to The Streak over Chris Jericho and John Cena is worth it.

Because by now, I think we can all agree that adding Giant Gonzales, King Kong Bundy, Big Boss Man, A-Train, and Mark Henry over Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Bret Hart, Owen Hart, The Rock, Stone Cold, Mankind, Brock Lesnar, Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, and Chris Benoit wasn't worth it. And what a shame it is if another two legends aren't added for the sake of someone who doesn't deserve it.

Of course, to find out whether Wade is worth it or not I'd probably have to check again in 10 years. It's not like he's a multi-time world champion with legendary status ATM.

If anything I said offended u in any way, I'm truly sorry.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Of course, to find out whether Wade is worth it or not I'd probably have to check again in 10 years. It's not like he's a multi-time world champion with legendary status ATM.

Well then lets leave it there and maybe talk again on the subject after mania.

Is the last sentence supposed to be a compliment? Because if it is, then thank you.

And it it was supposed to be a bit of a double-edged one if I'm honest.

And finally I'd just like to say I was totally wrong about the stabilised ratings issue, apparently on average the fell by 8% compared to last year.

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

Well then lets leave it there and maybe talk again on the subject after mania.

Yeah, thanks for the discussion. Sorry if I mentioned anything offensive. Nonetheless, this has been a good discussion. Given another chance, let's do it again

And it it was supposed to be a bit of a double-edged one if I'm honest.

Ah, the beauty of words.

And finally I'd just like to say I was totally wrong about the stabilised ratings issue, apparently on average the fell by 8% compared to last year.

No biggie. I was also wrong to judge Wade vs Taker so quickly. And I apologize for that.