Not again Taker

[Phoenix]

The aim of this feud for Punk & Undertaker is for Punk to get a rub, while I support this idea, I think it has come abit too soon by a month. The other problem i thought about after reading Paul Heyman's column. While it's good for Punk to get a rub, the next PPV is Breaking Point, a submission based theme in each match. If you have Punk vs. Taker, how does that work for Punk? Taker can't submit as the Deadman and he's only just came back, but Punk can't lose the title so early in the feud, DQ win maybe? In fact has a submission match ever ended by DQ for that matter?

Where I welcome the Taker/Punk feud, I'd rather hold this off for a month, let Taker run rampage to earn his spot at HIAC, where Punk can get the real rub off of this feud. I thought Matt Hardy would get a run in at Breaking Point so to cap off Punk's long feud with Jeff, "I beat one Hardy, I can beat the other". I think Punk could develop into an Edge style heel, not afraid of Taker and will really take it to him. I just think that you can't put Punk & Taker into a Submission Based PPV where the most likely outcome cannot benefit Punk unless it's through a DQ win.

I don't see Punk getting buried, but Taker won't be getting the title out of it, that's for sure!

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Well it is difficult to prove that he does draw in recent PPV's since he doesn't wrestle much anymore and the fact that he hasn't been in a world title match since One Night Stand last year.
But the best I can give you is this, Wrestlemania 23 and 24, both headlined by Undertaker, were two of the biggest selling Wrestlemania's ever. You can make of that what you will, and I'm sure Trump and Mayweather had something to with it. But you can't deny the possibility that Undertaker MIGHT still be a draw.

Unless you're talking about undertaker in the last year. In which case it's impossible to determine whether or not he is a draw.

We can try and prove each other wrong all we want, or we can see how well his feud with Punk does so we can actually find out who's wrong.

Backpeddling? Already?

Yes, those boosts in buyrates for those Wrestlemanias should be credited to Trump and Mayweather ... and the media attention they garnered.

If Undertaker is such a draw, why is he not routinely in the Main Event at just about every Wrestlemania like Triple H, Cena, Randy Orton, Edge, or Shawn Michaels?

But I would look at Smackdown ratings and attendance for House Shows for shows that Undertaker headlines vs the shows he is not there for, and do a comparison/contrast between the numbers ... and let's see if we see a noticeable increase or not.

I know there are a lot of Taker fans out there that want to defend his legacy. Unfortunately, my motto is "Tell it Like it Is" ... and that supercedes defending any character I may enjoy, regardless.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Absolutely absurd. Of anyone to think this is a bad idea.

Great matches. Great promos. Further strengthening Punk. A mega star challenging for the title. The lack of anyone else even remotely ready to step into the spot Taker currently fills. This is gonna be awesome, and is a fantastic direction for them to travel. Im not sure if I see Taker winning the title or not, but I know the matches are gonna rock everyones socks. This also gives Morrison more time t come of age. Personally, I would much rather see a Morrison - Ziggler IC title program, as a last step before they REALLY go with Morrison up to the ME. We could very well end up with Taker Vs Jericho for the title AND the streak come Mania time through this, and thats what my ultimate goal is. Its tough for me to tell why people think they need to shit on this.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

The only way Taker will lose the Submission match at the PPV, assuming they do this, is that he is going to have to be absolutely knocked out cold. It will be a cold day in Hell before the Undertaker taps the mat.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Backpeddling? Already?

Yes, those boosts in buyrates for those Wrestlemanias should be credited to Trump and Mayweather ... and the media attention they garnered.

If Undertaker is such a draw, why is he not routinely in the Main Event at just about every Wrestlemania like Triple H, Cena, Randy Orton, Edge, or Shawn Michaels?

But I would look at Smackdown ratings and attendance for House Shows for shows that Undertaker headlines vs the shows he is not there for, and do a comparison/contrast between the numbers ... and let's see if we see a noticeable increase or not.

I know there are a lot of Taker fans out there that want to defend his legacy. Unfortunately, my motto is "Tell it Like it Is" ... and that supercedes defending any character I may enjoy, regardless.

Well then you tell it like it is brother!

Fact is, if we use your logic of thinking what is a top draw in the company these days, then we would really have no top draws. The only thing that we can really go by these days is merchandise sales and 'Taker doesn't even top that list.

When Cena was gone last year from Raw, the attendance didn't go down, nor did the ratings. They all stayed around the same, but we are all ready to call Cena the top draw in the company. Batista isn't affecting the ratings or the attendance either. I'm just saying that we can't look at buyrates, attendance, and ratings only. We have to look at all of it as a product.

 

[TM Punk]

I have no interest in seeing this feud cause Punk won't benefit from it. Taker is a corny, childish, old man. I want to know how Taker will legitimize Punk as a top guy when Taker is so damn corny. Randy Orton got buried and looked like a complete idiot when he feuded with Taker. Afraid of caskets, fire that came out of nowhere, and stuff like that..I was embarrassed for Orton. People talk about Cena being corny, but Taker is on another level. Taker will come out, cut his over the top promos, tell Punk that he is going to send him to hell, tell him he loves demons, and proceed to bury Punk in a squash match. It took 5 man to take out the Undertaker last year at One Night Stand. Punk's gonna get buried by this corny old man. I wish Punk could feud with someone new and fresh.

What Randy Orton vs Undertaker feud were YOU watching? There were no squash matches. Undertaker plays "mind games" with people. Been that way since he's been in WWE. Orton beat him twice. Punk isn't gonna get buried. Undertaker doesn't do that, he's not HHH.

 

[JBK2008]

Morrison wil get his chance soon enough. Until he's properly built up, Taker will feud with Punk. Morrison I think needs to face off against Ziggler or Kane or someone big before he's really put into the main event scene. His time is def coming though. Just wait a little longer.

 

[JBK2008]

Undertaker is the best man suited for the title picture with Jericho defending the tag titles. Until Morrison and Ziggler are ready and Matt's back in form, this is how it'll be. I'm just glad to have Taker back on SmackDown!

 

[Milkyway!]

Let me start things off by saying i am a fan of the undertacker.

HAVE NO FEAR! The Undertacker is here!

But it is a mistake to put him in the

wold

Title pitcher.

Wheres Woldo?

Really? Its a mistake to put your 2nd biggest face on the brand, in place of your first biggest face on the brand, thats currently leaving? The same man, who hasn't been in the title picture in a year now, the same man, who hasn't fued with CM Punk.


That fued would tottally be stale, its been done way too many times! Right?

Smackdown is throuing away a oppatinty to bring someone new to the title hunt.

Sigh...I thought my spelling was bad. Seriously. How old are you?

No, SmackDown is making the correct choice, business wise, and entertainment wise. The Undertaker will ALWAYS work, under any circumstances. Don't you forget it, either.

Taker has a 4 mouth vaction after wrestle mania every year.

Fuck off, its The Undertacker!!!!

Well, whats your point? The guys old, he can't go like he used to.

witch he has earned for being a icon.

Witch witch! Stone him!

Damn straight the Undertaker has earned his ability to take time whenever he wants to. He brings in shittons of money, draws decent crouds from what I've seen. Who doesn't pop for The Undertaker?

but this should take him out of the title hunt. he is a big enought name to bring a mid card mach up to glory but he drags the World title down a notch.

The Undertaker is in his wrestling prime. He has become much more quick, and much more agile with his old age. Before hand he was slow, and boring. Even as The American Badass, The Undertaker didn't wrestle as well as his is right now. If anything, hes boosting the World Title scene.

He won't loose with out some sort of freak deal or punk cheating to set up the next PPV.

CM Punk is a HEEL, thats his JOB!

in the end he always wins.

More often than not, The Undertaker wins, but his opponents certainly look damn good. This is supposedly The Undertakers last couple of years, if I were the WWE I'd sqeeze every penny I could out of the man.

On the outher hand if the Undertacker was busy with a midcar guy this would make room for a new ME player.

Like who? John Morrison? The guy isn't ready to be a face of a company. Hes just becoming a main eventor. You just can't rush such things.

Matt hardy and JoMo are both ready.

Matt was ready 3-4 years ago, now his time has allready passed. Sorry Matt Hardy.

John isn't ANYWHERE near ready to carry a company, either.

and i would much rather see one of them fight punk. but instead the writers will use the same script with the taker that thay alsways do. Punk will susfully def. his belt once maby twice then a hell in a cell match or casket match. taker will evenchly win the belt only to loose it in a stupid fluck tipe deal so he can get more time off after wreael mania. This is why no one new can get a break in wwe. this is one of the reasons the wwe ME is stale. its sad to say but wwe would be better of without Taker.
So my questin? is what would you reather see the same old undertaker fude or a new guy in the title hunt??and who would you like to see there?
as always sorry about my spelling-

Once I saw the word sucessfully spelt susfully, I stopped reading. Sorry.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I have no interest in seeing this feud cause Punk won't benefit from it. Taker is a corny, childish, old man. I want to know how Taker will legitimize Punk as a top guy when Taker is so damn corny. Randy Orton got buried and looked like a complete idiot when he feuded with Taker. Afraid of caskets, fire that came out of nowhere, and stuff like that..I was embarrassed for Orton. People talk about Cena being corny, but Taker is on another level. Taker will come out, cut his over the top promos, tell Punk that he is going to send him to hell, tell him he loves demons, and proceed to bury Punk in a squash match. It took 5 man to take out the Undertaker last year at One Night Stand. Punk's gonna get buried by this corny old man. I wish Punk could feud with someone new and fresh.

Seems like people still need to be educated.

The Undertaker did everything but bury Randy Orton. If it wasn't for Taker, Orton will be drifting around somewhere or probably released by now. It took Undertaker basically all of 2005 to bring him up from where HHH buried him in one month. Orton won over Taker twice and vice versa. Orton came out of that looking better than he's ever been. Even though Punk isn't in the position Orton was in, Punk will probably come out looking better after feuding with an established veteran.

And to Milk, I don't think the Undertaker brings in a lot of money or is a huge draw based on the fact that he is mainly a special attraction. I would say Jeff Hardy drew more crowds and Rey Mysterio and plenty others have made more money than him.

 

[tyler.durden]

this is going to be a good feud and will be perfect for punk to cement his heel role against the biggest face in the wwe. i'm looking forward to this feud. taker is going to push punk to the next level.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Frankly, I'm tired of people saying that 'Taker isn't a huge draw for the WWE. Can anyone prove that 'Taker isn't a huge draw? When 'Taker's name goes up in lights, everyone wants to see the match. Idc who it is against. If you know that the Undertaker will be performing at an event, you want to see it.

BTW, who on here can say that they don't want to see a 'Taker/Punk feud and matches and really mean it? If this is the case, then you probably shouldn't watch wrestling as this will likely be the best series of matches that we will have all year.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Frankly, I'm tired of people saying that 'Taker isn't a huge draw for the WWE. Can anyone prove that 'Taker isn't a huge draw? When 'Taker's name goes up in lights, everyone wants to see the match. Idc who it is against. If you know that the Undertaker will be performing at an event, you want to see it.

That doesn't equate to people being motivated enough to dig deep in their pockets and necessarily attend a show if he is on it.

I'm going to be frank. The claim was first made in this thread that Taker is a huge draw. Here were the comments:

Where is your proof that The Undertaker has earned as much money as Mysterio ... Check yourself before you post first!

The Undertaker is a big DRAW! YOU ARE WRONG! I know many people that don't even watch Smackdown since he left! Now that he has returned they are talking about checking it out! YOU ARE WRONG!

If someone is going to make a lofty claim like Taker is a "Huge draw", then they should be able to defend and provide proof of their claim if asked, just to prove that they aren't talking out of their ass. All I simply did was ask the poster to produce some evidence that showed that Taker was still a "Huge Draw", and thus far ... nothing. I don't feel that is an unfair request in the slightest.

I am simply asking you to take off your "Undertaker Fan hat" for a moment and be neutral about the situation. Can you produce examples that show that Undertaker increases attendance of PPV Buyrates in this day and age? If you want to make the claim that he is, than I feel you should be able to justify your position to prove your credibility.

BTW, I want to correct you on one thing you said earlier ...

Well then you tell it like it is brother!

Fact is, if we use your logic of thinking what is a top draw in the company these days, then we would really have no top draws. The only thing that we can really go by these days is merchandise sales and 'Taker doesn't even top that list.

When Cena was gone last year from Raw, the attendance didn't go down, nor did the ratings. They all stayed around the same, but we are all ready to call Cena the top draw in the company. Batista isn't affecting the ratings or the attendance either. I'm just saying that we can't look at buyrates, attendance, and ratings only. We have to look at all of it as a product.

When Cena left, ratings for Raw actually dipped below a 3.0 and actually down as far as a 2.8. When he returned, they rose by .5 ratings points.

 

[byrnside]

Where to begin with this one? I for one, am a pretty big C.M. Punk fan. But I am a much, much, much, much bigger fan of the Undertaker. He deserves a year long title reign in my opinion, with both belts.. OK, maybe I'm being unreasonable in going that far, but you guys [and girls] get my point. The Undertaker is a freaking legend. Absolutely he is bigger than the WHC. Which is what I, and I'm sure others, would like to call Andre Status.. [Andre never won a world title/didn't need to.] And he's grown to Andre status, no doubt in my mind.

If he wrestled C.M. Punk for the title one time, and C.M. Punk lost by DQ [keeping the belt, obviously.] The amount of credibility C.M. Punk would gain from that one match alone would be ridiculous. Not to mention the things that he would learn. It's obvious to me that, if they're to keep this program going for a couple months, that C.M. Punk is either going to drop the title from the gate and have to battle to win it back. Or, and IMO more probable that C.M.'s going to have to win in various dastardly and underhanded ways over the next couple months, thus building him as a main event heel, until finally dropping the belt at say, Survivor Series. Either way, I like where Smackdown's product is heading. 'Taker is back, and it's about time. Plus, I got chills when someone before mentioned a Jericho/Undertaker program.

 

[SSJPhenom]

That doesn't equate to people being motivated enough to dig deep in their pockets and necessarily attend a show if he is on it.

I'm going to be frank. The claim was first made in this thread that Taker is a huge draw. Here were the comments:




If someone is going to make a lofty claim like Taker is a "Huge draw", then they should be able to defend and provide proof of their claim if asked, just to prove that they aren't talking out of their ass. All I simply did was ask the poster to produce some evidence that showed that Taker was still a "Huge Draw", and thus far ... nothing. I don't feel that is an unfair request in the slightest.

I am simply asking you to take off your "Undertaker Fan hat" for a moment and be neutral about the situation. Can you produce examples that show that Undertaker increases attendance of PPV Buyrates in this day and age? If you want to make the claim that he is, than I feel you should be able to justify your position to prove your credibility.

BTW, I want to correct you on one thing you said earlier ...



When Cena left, ratings for Raw actually dipped below a 3.0 and actually down as far as a 2.8. When he returned, they rose by .5 ratings points.

Fair enough, you want proof that he is and I want proof that he isn't. I never said that he was a huge draw at all, but you claimed that he wasn't and I want you to prove to me that he isn't.

BTW, prove to me that Cena dropped the ratings when he left and that he rose the ratings when he came back because as I remember it, checking on WrestleZone all the time, that ratings changed about as much as they do now. What if it had dropped below 3.0 while Cena was active? I'm sure that it has, but we won't comment on that will we?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Fair enough, you want proof that he is and I want proof that he isn't. I never said that he was a huge draw at all, but you claimed that he wasn't and I want you to prove to me that he isn't.

BTW, prove to me that Cena dropped the ratings when he left and that he rose the ratings when he came back because as I remember it, checking on WrestleZone all the time, that ratings changed about as much as they do now. What if it had dropped below 3.0 while Cena was active? I'm sure that it has, but we won't comment on that will we?

This is where I come in.

- January 7: 3.2
- January 14: 3.6
- January 21: 3.5
- January 28: 3.9
- February 4: 3.6
- February 11: 3.4
- February 18: 4.0
- February 25: 3.5
- March 3: 3.5
- March 10: 3.6
- March 17: 3.6
- March 24: 3.4
- March 31: 3.9
- April 7: 3.3
- April 14: 3.2
- April 21: 3.0
- April 28: 3.3
- May 5: 3.2
- May 12: 3.3
- May 19: 3.2
- May 26: 2.9
- June 2: 3.1
- June 9: 3.0
- June 16: 3.3
- June 23: 3.4
- June 30: 3.5
- July 7: 3.5
- July 14: 3.2
- July 21: 3.3
- July 28: 3.6
- August 4: 3.4
- August 11: 3.1
- August 18: 3.3
- August 25: 2.8
- September 1: 2.9
- September 8: 3.0
- September 15: 2.6
- September 22: 3.1
- September 29: 3.1
- October 6: 3.0
- October 13: 3.1
- October 20: 2.9
- October 27: 2.9
- November 3: 3.0
- November 10: 3.1
- November 17: 2.9
- November 24: 3.3
- December 1: 3.4
- December 8: 3.2
- December 15: 3.3
- December 22: 3.2
- December 29: 3.5

From Wrestling News World

As you can see when Cena got injured, the ratings dipped 0.5 from August 18 to August 25. The highest when he was out was a 3.1 numerous time. The RAW after he came back, the ratings went from 2.9 on November 17 to 3.3 on November 24. The only time in 2008 that ratings went below 3 when Cena was active was May 26 when RAW scored a 2.9

Proof is good.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Finally, some proof. Outstanding as you are the first person to ever, and Undertaker's#1fan means ever provide me with any and this is the first time that you have ever done it aswell. Now, show me proof on how 'Taker isn't a huge draw anymore, please, I am dying to see that.

BTW, you highlighted a 3.4 in there aswell, thought I would bring it up. There were more at or above 3.0 more than there were below it, so what is your arguement? I said that it stayed around what it is now and by your records, it did, and I said that it has dropped below 3.0 with Cena before and by your records, it did. So were you agreeing with me or what?

 

[Proof]

Seems like people still need to be educated.

The Undertaker did everything but bury Randy Orton. If it wasn't for Taker, Orton will be drifting around somewhere or probably released by now. It took Undertaker basically all of 2005 to bring him up from where HHH buried him in one month. Orton won over Taker twice and vice versa. Orton came out of that looking better than he's ever been. Even though Punk isn't in the position Orton was in, Punk will probably come out looking better after feuding with an established veteran.

And to Milk, I don't think the Undertaker brings in a lot of money or is a huge draw based on the fact that he is mainly a special attraction. I would say Jeff Hardy drew more crowds and Rey Mysterio and plenty others have made more money than him.

Do you remember that after Taker buried Orton, Orton then entered the Booker/Benoit fued as a lackey to Booker T? Let me give out another example.. Who do you think killed DDP's career in the WWE? After Taker buried the Dudelys in a handicap match, what happened to them? I think they were fired. Where did Kane go after jobbing to Taker at WM 20? I think he main evented Sunday Night Heat a few times for a few months. No one benefits from a Taker feud. Just ask Booker T.

 

[saladin01]

This is where I come in.

- January 7: 3.2
- January 14: 3.6
- January 21: 3.5
- January 28: 3.9
- February 4: 3.6
- February 11: 3.4
- February 18: 4.0
- February 25: 3.5
- March 3: 3.5
- March 10: 3.6
- March 17: 3.6
- March 24: 3.4
- March 31: 3.9
- April 7: 3.3
- April 14: 3.2
- April 21: 3.0
- April 28: 3.3
- May 5: 3.2
- May 12: 3.3
- May 19: 3.2
- May 26: 2.9
- June 2: 3.1
- June 9: 3.0
- June 16: 3.3
- June 23: 3.4
- June 30: 3.5
- July 7: 3.5
- July 14: 3.2
- July 21: 3.3
- July 28: 3.6
- August 4: 3.4
- August 11: 3.1
- August 18: 3.3
- August 25: 2.8
- September 1: 2.9
- September 8: 3.0
- September 15: 2.6
- September 22: 3.1
- September 29: 3.1
- October 6: 3.0
- October 13: 3.1
- October 20: 2.9
- October 27: 2.9
- November 3: 3.0
- November 10: 3.1
- November 17: 2.9
- November 24: 3.3
- December 1: 3.4
- December 8: 3.2
- December 15: 3.3
- December 22: 3.2
- December 29: 3.5

From Wrestling News World

As you can see when Cena got injured, the ratings dipped 0.5 from August 18 to August 25. The highest when he was out was a 3.1 numerous time. The RAW after he came back, the ratings went from 2.9 on November 17 to 3.3 on November 24. The only time in 2008 that ratings went below 3 when Cena was active was May 26 when RAW scored a 2.9

Proof is good.

first of all, that does not mean shit, the ratings stays the same even when cena was out. also when HHH was out the ratings stays the same, and same with HBK, and don't worry, i will get proof. another thing is, most people go to see wrestling as a whole, some might want to see are who is performing tonight, but most are looking for a good show. why do think vince had to bring diffrent hosts to raw every week? you guess it, because the ratings and attendence was crap, even with cena & HHH.

and to all you douche out there, ut is getting the title shot whether you like it or not, kayfab or not, that feud is a money maker, and even if its not, it certainly won't lose audiences and viewers. so if you don't like it and want j'mo or mysero or who the fuck else face's punk, don't watch it and wait till they get a shot at main eventing a pay-per-view then you can tune in. and good luck with that.


taker forever.

 

[Tastycles]

Finally, some proof. Outstanding as you are the first person to ever, and Undertaker's#1fan means ever provide me with any and this is the first time that you have ever done it aswell. Now, show me proof on how 'Taker isn't a huge draw anymore, please, I am dying to see that.

Ask and ye shall receive...

Ratings for the 9 weeks Taker was off Smackdown last year...

06-Jun-08 2.4
13-Jun-08 2.3
20-Jun-08 2.1
27-Jun-08 2.3
04-Jul-08 1.6
11-Jul-08 2.3
18-Jul-08 2.4
25-Jul-08 2.4
01-Aug 2.4
Average 2.244

It's unfair to include 4 July, so the average without it is 2.325

Ratings for the 9 weeks after he returned

08-Aug 2
15-Aug 2.4
22-Aug 2.1
29-Aug 2.3
05-Sep 2.4
12-Sep 2.5
19-Sep 2.3
26-Sep 2.4
03-Oct 1.9
Average 2.256

In the interest of fairness, we shall remove the lowest value here too to give us an average of 2.3, basically the same as the ratings without him.

first of all, that does not mean shit, the ratings stays the same even when cena was out.

Can you read? Maybe its maths that is your problem, here's a pointer: 3.5 is a bigger number than 2.9.


Now that's out of the way, time for my actual post. Undertaker is brilliant at challenging for titles and crap at holding them. There's nothing particularly earth shattering about that revelation, but it's true. Taker should probably chase Punk for a while, and Punk should dodge him. Give Morrison a shot at Breaking Point, and have Taker switch the lights off when Punk wins. Have Taker win with a ticker tape parade at Survivor Series and then drop it at Armageddon or the Rumble or whatever.

Seems like a pretty good feud to me, but I don't really see what Taker's grievance would be? Maybe people overdosing helps him keep his soul count up or something, so he is pro-drugs. Whatever, Taker is great at dishing out a beating to a whinger, so I'm looking forward to the programme, and what will hopefully be a short title reign for Taker.

 

[SSJPhenom]

You missed the part where I challenged at saying that LJL's proof proved nothing. I said that the ratings stayed at or above 3.0 while Cena was out and there were definately more at 3.0 or higher then there were below 3.0. I said that with Cena the rating had dropped below 3.0 before and it did. So what exactly are you trying to prove by omitting that part of the response. All that I am saying is that one person is not going to effect the rating in a large enough margin to matter. And LJL's post along with your post, proved me right, so what are you trying to do exactly?

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

You missed the part where I challenged at saying that LJL's proof proved nothing. I said that the ratings stayed at or above 3.0 while Cena was out and there were definately more at 3.0 or higher then there were below 3.0. I said that with Cena the rating had dropped below 3.0 before and it did. So what exactly are you trying to prove by omitting that part of the response. All that I am saying is that one person is not going to effect the rating in a large enough margin to matter. And LJL's post along with your post, proved me right, so what are you trying to do exactly?

So in other words, Taker isn't the "Big Draw" you were making him out to be. Got it.

There is nothing more frustrating than dealing with a fan/mark for a certain wrestler, who drinks the Kool-Aid, instead of being intellectually honest and "telling it like it is".

 

[Thriller Ant]

So in other words, Taker isn't the "Big Draw" you were making him out to be. Got it.

There is nothing more frustrating than dealing with a fan/mark for a certain wrestler, who drinks the Kool-Aid, instead of being intellectually honest and "telling it like it is".

You're right. Undertaker is at the point now where when he is off TV, we don't really notice. When he is on TV, there isn't much more of a "Hey look, it's the Undertaker. I didn't know he was on TV again" reaction. I'm not denying his abilities, but with all the time he takes off, he is running on reputation alone. He hasn't earned this opportunity to feud against Punk (which is where I assume this is going) and will probably take another hiatus between now and WrestleMania, before he comes back, wins there, and leaves again.

 

[TwistofRKO]

What I personally love is how, while the other guys in the WWE are working hard every night, and winning matches, the Undertaker can take MONTHS off, and then just get a title match anytime he wants.

Must be nice to not have to prove himself in a kayfabe sense, and still get a title match. I guess the whole "earning" a title shot doesn't apply if your name is Undertaker or Triple H.

Didn't John Cena return from injury and walk into Survivor Series facing and defeating Chris Jericho for the World Heavyweight Championship?

After LOSING three consecutive PPV matches????

The Undertaker has instant credibility, the other talent loves to work with him, he has an array of offensive moves and submissions, and STILL takes bumps.

The Undertaker IS main event in every sense of the main event.

 

[jr7936]

since Rey got suspended, I could see them putting the belt on taker when he faces CM Punk, since there are no other big name main eventers on Smackdown at the moment, other then Taker.
the whole rey getting suspended thing might have screwed over CM Punk's chance at having a long time holding the title.
Bascally this is what I though of when I heard Rey got suspended.