Not again Taker

[Slyfox696]

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

I'm sure you have a point here...but I'll be damned if I know what it is. Wait, I get it. Since Cena is my favorite, you're clearly insinuating that I'm okay if my favorite wrestler does it, but not okay if someone else does it. Basically, you are calling me a hypocrite, is that right?

Piss off. I've already embarrassed another poster with this. Not once did I say it was okay for Cena to get the shot at Survivor Series, from a kayfabe standpoint. Not once.

But hey, way to completely ignore the fact that I am completely right, and instead presenting a great straw man to get around the fact I'm right. It's just a shame for you I'm not an idiot, and that I recognize piss bucket arguments when I see them.

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.

Great. Who did he beat to deserve a title shot? I'm still waiting.

 

[TwistofRKO]

I'm sure you have a point here...but I'll be damned if I know what it is. Wait, I get it. Since Cena is my favorite, you're clearly insinuating that I'm okay if my favorite wrestler does it, but not okay if someone else does it. Basically, you are calling me a hypocrite, is that right?

Piss off. I've already embarrassed another poster with this. Not once did I say it was okay for Cena to get the shot at Survivor Series, from a kayfabe standpoint. Not once.

But hey, way to completely ignore the fact that I am completely right, and instead presenting a great straw man to get around the fact I'm right. It's just a shame for you I'm not an idiot, and that I recognize piss bucket arguments when I see them.

Great. Who did he beat to deserve a title shot? I'm still waiting.

I just got into the thread, bite me.

Nope, not at all. I like John Cena, I never put words in your mouth. Defensive much?

Why I brought up Cena is because you were acting like Triple H and Undertaker are the only ones who walk into the main event, when Cena has done just that more recently (obviously minus the present with Undertaker).

The Undertaker has never tied up the title belt, there's no reason in this world of wrestling that he cannot do what Cena just did.

Do I have an answer why they get title shots? No, I think it's stupid, too. I just don't see a problem with it for the Undertaker, out of all stars, if it's inevitable for other stars.

 

[slimymeteor]

Even from a kayfabe standpoint, I'm sure Vince cares about the ratings and buyrates. Undertaker is put into a main event championship match because he is immensely popular and would increase said ratings and buyrates. Even in storyline that makes sense.

 

[SSJPhenom]

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

You go and find a post where I ever once said that 'Taker was a huge draw. Right now if you will, don't worry, I'll wait. What's that? You can't find one? That's because there isn't one. I never once stated that he was a huge draw now, I simply asked for proof that he wasn't a huge draw, that's all.

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".

There is nothing more frustrating than a poster who likes to put words in other people's mouth's to fit a point that they are trying to make when their point isn't even valid. Do you actually read what people write or do you just assume?

 

[hArdyPUNKmArk]

This is the best thing for Punk right now with Hardy gone. Taker is going to put Punk over beautifully as he always does. I am hoping for a Taker/Jericho match at WM26 so I'm hoping Punk/Taker will be done by then. Taker will elevate Punk over the next few months and will then move on once Punk has established himself at the top. Then he can feud with whoever is ready first, Morrison or Ziggler.

Taker is amazing at putting people over and this is the best thing for Punk right now.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

You go and find a post where I ever once said that 'Taker was a huge draw. Right now if you will, don't worry, I'll wait. What's that? You can't find one? That's because there isn't one. I never once stated that he was a huge draw now, I simply asked for proof that he wasn't a huge draw, that's all.

So, let me get this straight. You aren't saying that Taker is a huge draw and nor do you believe he is. However, when someone else says just that, you want to challenge that person on the validity of the notion ... which also happens to coincide with your very own thoughts?

Why are you asking for proof for what you apparently yourself believe, then?

 

[SSJPhenom]

I didn't exactly believe that he wasn't a huge draw, but I also don't believe he is. I believe that it dosn't matter wether he is on SD or not as far as ratings and buyrates and such go. I just don't like people saying something against my favorite wrestler. I had to defend him, I just couldn't let it go down like that. I'm sure you undertand. I didn't want to hear anything about him as far as that goes, without proof.

 

[saladin01]

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

i don't think that you get what i was saying. let me break it down. the times cena was out and the time he was in, the overall ratings stays the same, the ratings didn't went to 4.5 when is was in and the ratings didn't went to 2.5 when he was out. its the same fucking ratings when he was in and out, people didn't didn't stop watch raw because he was not there. and i think someone else pointed that out already.


taker de immortal!

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

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.

Well who won that seventh and final match between Booker T and Benoit. Was it Booker T? No it wasn't. It was Randy Orton. What happened soon after that? Orton was fighting Mysterio for the right to face the champion at Wrestlemania and won. Orton was in the main event three or four months after feuding with Taker. Kane was fighting Benoit for the championship a couple of months after WM 20 if you didn't know that which I don't think you did. Wasn't Booker T fighting for the U.S. and World Title after feuding with Taker? I think he was.

Three superstars after feuding with Taker were contending for world titles no less than six months after. So a whole lot of people benefit from a Taker feud and I proved you wrong yet again.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

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.

Why doesn't that mean shit? If you actually read the posts before mine which I don't you think, I was asked to show proof that ratings increased when Cena came back from when Cena was injured and I proved that so your first half of the post is invalid.

It wouldn't hurt to type capital letters once in a while.

 

[Chill]

Let me start things off by saying i am a fan of the undertacker. But it is a mistake to put him in the wold Title pitcher.
Smackdown is throuing away a oppatinty to bring someone new to the title hunt. Taker has a 4 mouth vaction after wrestle mania every year. witch he has earned for being a icon. 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. He won't loose with out some sort of freak deal or punk cheating to set up the next PPV. in the end he always wins. it is pridatable witch makes it borning!
On the outher hand if the Undertacker was busy with a midcar guy this would make room for a new ME player. Matt hardy and JoMo are both ready. 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-

I don't mind Taker returning to face Punk simply because it's never been done before and so in that sense it's not going to be "the same old Undertaker feud". I would also say that with Edge, Jeff Hardy and now Mysterio all gone for the time being, Undertaker is perhaps the most feasible choice to face Punk...why? Well I think it's because 'Taker is massively over, he can still work great matches and he is believable in the main event. Who, if not 'Taker would face CM Punk instead? John Morrison?...as good as he is, I think he still needs to sit in the mid card for a while longer before he finally makes his inevitable transition to the main event. Who else? Matt Hardy?...all I will say is that I know who I would rather see face Punk and it's not Matt Hardy (athough if Matt is now indeed a face, then he could go after Punk and claim revenge for all the things he's done to Jeff, that could work). However, for now I'll happily settle for Taker being Punk's opponent...guys like Morrison and Matt Hardy will still have time to have their Punk feuds and with all the injuries, departures and suspensions, Undertaker is the only legitimate 'superstar' left to face Punk (although it would be nice to see him beat somebody to earn a shot at the belt, but I guess in WWE we don't need explanations, right?)

 

[saladin01]

Why doesn't that mean shit? If you actually read the posts before mine which I don't you think, I was asked to show proof that ratings increased when Cena came back from when Cena was injured and I proved that so your first half of the post is invalid.

It wouldn't hurt to type capital letters once in a while.

we are looking at that rating when cena was out against when he was in. which is unfair because the times when he was in was more than he was out, we can’t compare those two. And as you can see, or not, is the ratings was 3.4 when he was out, when he was in the highest was 3.6 is still unfair because the margin between when he was in is too large than when he was out. If you take the same amount of times when he was in and out the ratings will basically stays the same. And I hope you get what I am saying.

secondly I don’t have time on my hand like you do to make cap letters when needed, if you do then fantastic, but I have a life. and dude chill it’s a fucking blog, everything don’t have to be perfect.

 

[Tastycles]

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?

i don't think that you get what i was saying. let me break it down. the times cena was out and the time he was in, the overall ratings stays the same, the ratings didn't went to 4.5 when is was in and the ratings didn't went to 2.5 when he was out. its the same fucking ratings when he was in and out, people didn't didn't stop watch raw because he was not there. and i think someone else pointed that out already.

Both of you need to be educated on mathematics a little bit, I think. The mystical 3.0 number doesn't really matter, it's the ratings either side of his absence, and the ratings while he was off.

13 weeks before Cena was off TV from 26 May to 18 August

26-May-08 3.1
02-Jun-08 3.1
09-Jun-08 3
16-Jun-08 3.3
23-Jun-08 3.4
30-Jun-08 3.5
07-Jul-08 3.5
14-Jul-08 3.2
21-Jul-08 3.3
28-Jul-08 3.6
04-Aug-08 3.4
11-Aug 3.1
18-Aug 3.3
Average 3.29



13 weeks he was off TV from 25 August to 17 November

Here are the ratings during that period

25-Aug 2.8
01-Sep 2.9
08-Sep 3
15-Sep 2.6
22-Sep 3.1
29-Sep 3.1
06-Oct 3
13-Oct 3.1
20-Oct 2.9
27-Oct 2.9
03-Nov 3
10-Nov 3.1
17-Nov 2.9
Average 2.95 dun dun duuuhhhh less than 3.0?!!?

13 weeks after he came back from 24 November to 16 February

24-Nov 3.3
01-Dec 3.4
08-Dec 3.2
15-Dec 3.3
22-Dec 3.2
29-Dec 3.5
Jan-05 3.4
Jan-12 3.5
Jan-19 3.9
Jan-26 3.6
Feb-02 3.6
Feb-09 3.4
Feb-16 4.1
Average 3.49

What we see there is that the rating dropped by 0.3 when he left, and picked up by 0.5 when he returned. Funnily enough, that quite clearly shows that John Cena affects the ratings, on the other hand we have already seen that the rating remained completely unchanged when Undertaker arrived, and that is why Taker doesn't draw as well as Cena.

 

[saladin01]

Both of you need to be educated on mathematics a little bit, I think. The mystical 3.0 number doesn't really matter, it's the ratings either side of his absence, and the ratings while he was off.

13 weeks before Cena was off TV from 26 May to 18 August

26-May-08 3.1
02-Jun-08 3.1
09-Jun-08 3
16-Jun-08 3.3
23-Jun-08 3.4
30-Jun-08 3.5
07-Jul-08 3.5
14-Jul-08 3.2
21-Jul-08 3.3
28-Jul-08 3.6
04-Aug-08 3.4
11-Aug 3.1
18-Aug 3.3
Average 3.29



13 weeks he was off TV from 25 August to 17 November

Here are the ratings during that period

25-Aug 2.8
01-Sep 2.9
08-Sep 3
15-Sep 2.6
22-Sep 3.1
29-Sep 3.1
06-Oct 3
13-Oct 3.1
20-Oct 2.9
27-Oct 2.9
03-Nov 3
10-Nov 3.1
17-Nov 2.9
Average 2.95 dun dun duuuhhhh less than 3.0?!!?

13 weeks after he came back from 24 November to 16 February

24-Nov 3.3
01-Dec 3.4
08-Dec 3.2
15-Dec 3.3
22-Dec 3.2
29-Dec 3.5
Jan-05 3.4
Jan-12 3.5
Jan-19 3.9
Jan-26 3.6
Feb-02 3.6
Feb-09 3.4
Feb-16 4.1
Average 3.49

What we see there is that the rating dropped by 0.3 when he left, and picked up by 0.5 when he returned. Funnily enough, that quite clearly shows that John Cena affects the ratings, on the other hand we have already seen that the rating remained completely unchanged when Undertaker arrived, and that is why Taker doesn't draw as well as Cena.

i want to see the other ratings for the other years at the same times and you will notice that the ratings were lower when he was on raw. the next factor is the time of the year, the time of the rumble and maina, that's where wrestling is entertaining. and the reason you don't see the changes on smackdown is because what little viewers sd has it keeps, they usaully don't loose viewers, it is what it is, because sd is more entertaining than raw.

and you guys cannot deny the fact that ut is a big draw because the last time i checked mania 23,24 he won the WHC belt, and 25 he and HBK saved the show from being totle trash, even with HHH, cena and orton in one match, mania 25 would have been the worst wrestlemaina ever.

fyi, i don't have any problems with math, i am a collage grad with and associate's going for my bachelor.


taker de immortal!

 

[Tastycles]

i want to see the other ratings for the other years at the same times and you will notice that the ratings were lower when he was on raw. the next factor is the time of the year, the time of the rumble and maina, that's where wrestling is entertaining. and the reason you don't see the changes on smackdown is because what little viewers sd has it keeps, they usaully don't loose viewers, it is what it is, because sd is more entertaining than raw.

and you guys cannot deny the fact that ut is a big draw because the last time i checked mania 23,24 he won the WHC belt, and 25 he and HBK saved the show from being totle trash, even with HHH, cena and orton in one match, mania 25 would have been the worst wrestlemaina ever.

fyi, i don't have any problems with math, i am a collage grad with and associate's going for my bachelor.


taker de immortal!

I cannot believe that I am reducing myself to this, but I will.

The average over the 13 weeks from 30 May to 22 August 2005 was 3.75

The average over the 13 weeks from 29 August to 14 November was 3.76

That's the same, no drop off there at all.

So when Cena stays, there is no change. When he leaves, the rating drops off by 0.3. Cena obviously has no bearing though.

 

[The Five-Star Frog Splash]

But who else could face Punk that is a legitimate contender and has drawing power? Matt hardy, for as big of a fan of him as I am, he's not a main eventer. Morrison is IC champ and not quite ready for the Main Event yet. And Jericho is with Big Show. Undertaker is the only one left that is fresh and new.

 

[TheNextEdFerrara]

The Undertaker is one of thee most famous wrestlers in the history of the wwe. that being said, i think its time for grampa Callaway to either start doin' the job, or "get the F out" (the sad thing is, that 2002 wwe catch phrase is more fresh than the undertaker's gimmick...)

First of all, The Undertaker is incredibly stale. here is the general idea behind every modern Undertaker angle
feeder heel: I am not afraid of the Undertaker
*Undertaker's music plays or the lights go out, heel looks scared
this continues with the heel looking more and more scared until they collide on PPV, with the Undertaker pickin' up the W

now someone please tell me how Undertaker going over benefits anyone? does Taker look more dominate? No, he can't get any MORE over, clearly he does not need it. Does he use the momentum to set up another big feud? No, he disapears for another 6 months. basically that feud was used for a quick ratings boost, and thats it. at least pushing someone new would give u some long term worth from the zombie.

now ppl say "Well the Undertaker is one of their best draws, he can't leave" well hey, you got a point there. but if undertaker draws such a large audience, wouldnt that be an ideal time to establish a new young star in front of the huge drawn crowd? if wwe continues to keep Taker going over, than he will continue to be one of their few draws, which fucks the wwe over when he retires. it would be ideal for 'taker to put over these young guys cuz
a) he doesnt need the win
b) it establishes new stars to replace him

In conclusion, despite his stale gimmick and predictable angles, i see no problem with keeping undertaker around if he is ugnna use his iconic status to push other's. but if he is just gonig to come around and hold new talent down, well good riddance.