Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heavyhandscott)
    I always thought Undertaker should have been the American Badass for another stunt or for longer. Its the second best Undertaker since the Late 90s attitude era/ministry of darkness undertaker
    Yeah I agree. The current Undertaker is a bit boring. When he makes his return, I hope he comes out to his 1998 theme.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by K1NG93)
    Yeah I agree. The current Undertaker is a bit boring. When he makes his return, I hope he comes out to his 1998 theme.
    Though it was a great era for him, and his current stuff is boring, i dont think it would be that good.

    I have read a lot latley of people suggesting what WWE should do and its been like return Hogan, Stone Cold, Sting etc things like that.

    I think this is just because they were at their prime just when WWE was (the attitude era). So in order to fix the current wwe we return all the good superstars from then.

    HOWEVER, i think this is a majoy risk and would barely work because these guys are just too old. they wouldnt be as entertaining (though Stone Cold would be great to come back, given his Health, knees etc).

    I think WWE is seen as crap compared to attitude era because attitude era was the time of new stuff and change... We seen things never televised for sports entertainment before. Weve seen it all basically, its the same stuff really, not WWEs fault.

    Anyway im not having a go at you or anything, just giving a suggestion that its not fair to compare WWE with its former self, because new things are hard to find on TV but this was the time where boundaries were pushed.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink Is this a rant? just had to type this up
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heavyhandscott)
    I always thought Undertaker should have been the American Badass for another stunt or for longer. Its the second best Undertaker since the Late 90s attitude era/ministry of darkness undertaker
    Still long for the days that Undertaker comes out as American Badass. Won't happen anymore, but I much prefer that gimmick to Deadman tbh.

    On an emotional level, seeing King return after the heart attack was something else.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heavyhandscott)
    Though it was a great era for him, and his current stuff is boring, i dont think it would be that good.

    I have read a lot latley of people suggesting what WWE should do and its been like return Hogan, Stone Cold, Sting etc things like that.

    I think this is just because they were at their prime just when WWE was (the attitude era). So in order to fix the current wwe we return all the good superstars from then.

    HOWEVER, i think this is a majoy risk and would barely work because these guys are just too old. they wouldnt be as entertaining (though Stone Cold would be great to come back, given his Health, knees etc).

    I think WWE is seen as crap compared to attitude era because attitude era was the time of new stuff and change... We seen things never televised for sports entertainment before. Weve seen it all basically, its the same stuff really, not WWEs fault.

    Anyway im not having a go at you or anything, just giving a suggestion that its not fair to compare WWE with its former self, because new things are hard to find on TV but this was the time where boundaries were pushed.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink Is this a rant? just had to type this up
    Lol no worries. It wasn't a rant. And I wasn't comparing eras. I just think that if they are planning on doing a Sting-Taker feud then Taker should be a heel similar to 1998-99 Taker. I think that would make the whole thing a lot more interesting. And it's been well over a decade since Taker was a heel so it will be cool to see him have one last run as a heel.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by K1NG93)
    Lol no worries. It wasn't a rant. And I wasn't comparing eras. I just think that if they are planning on doing a Sting-Taker feud then Taker should be a heel similar to 1998-99 Taker. I think that would make the whole thing a lot more interesting. And it's been well over a decade since Taker was a heel so it will be cool to see him have one last run as a heel.
    the thing is about 90s taker is he was always the heel but he has never really been hated, similar to Stone Cold really. Ithink it will be Sting HHH due to Sting costing the authority their power.

    The only reason why taker does WM31 is if he loses he retires.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heavyhandscott)
    The only reason why taker does WM31 is if he loses he retires.
    I don't think Taker will have a retirment match. He'll surely want to know he can always come back for one more match (and big money) each year without hurting the retirment stipulation.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    I don't think Taker will have a retirment match. He'll surely want to know he can always come back for one more match (and big money) each year without hurting the retirment stipulation.
    Well his last HHH match was seen as the end of an era, so i dont think he has a problem with it.

    But im getting a dark cloud over my head as if to say about him and WM, what is the point in him returning? except the fact its the greatest superstar in WWE history IMO.

    I dont like the way taker decided to lose his streak on the basis of letting the winner propel their career in the business. for me, Lesnar wouldve still been a badass regardless if he didnt retunr in 2012 never mind 'conquer' the streak.

    Its like the stream only ends once, when it happens thats it... But i dont like the way WWE did it. I would have loved Austin or Rocky to have did it, since these guys never fueded badly with the undertaker (im not sure ive seen an Austin v Taker match which was main event at PPV) (i bet loads of you start naming them too )

    I just think the WWE decision making is really poor.

    Taker looked badass before WM30 with the goatee, reminded me of Ministry Taker. I was watching some promos build ups etc on youtube this morining
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    BTW I keep having this idea that when I go to Uni I should start a WWE society wherever i go, what are peoples thoughts?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heavyhandscott)
    BTW I keep having this idea that when I go to Uni I should start a WWE society wherever i go, what are peoples thoughts?
    You'll be branded as 'that guy'
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kenan and Kel)
    You'll be branded as 'that guy'
    In a bad way Im guessing? was just an idea
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heavyhandscott)
    In a bad way Im guessing? was just an idea
    I'm just messing. Go for it. You can have WrestleMania parties and ****.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heavyhandscott)
    Well his last HHH match was seen as the end of an era, so i dont think he has a problem with it.
    You mean the match where he came back the next two years? >_>
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    You mean the match where he came back the next two years? >_>
    Yeah i dont really understand that phrase. Both superstars returned and remained busy in WWE (Taker obviously only up to his usuals and Michaels didnt really have anything to do with WWE then anyway)
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kenan and Kel)
    I'm just messing. Go for it. You can have WrestleMania parties and ****.
    Lol I wish i would... I dont think that will ever happen and I dont have the balls or time/energy to start it since ill be a fresher and busy enough anyways
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heavyhandscott)
    the thing is about 90s taker is he was always the heel but he has never really been hated, similar to Stone Cold really. Ithink it will be Sting HHH due to Sting costing the authority their power.

    The only reason why taker does WM31 is if he loses he retires.
    They could save Taker-Sting for Wrestlemania 32 which will be in Taker's home town. I think that will be probably be the retirement match for both.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by K1NG93)
    They could save Taker-Sting for Wrestlemania 32 which will be in Taker's home town. I think that will be probably be the retirement match for both.
    Strong point there.

    Though if they only have Sting for 6 bookings/appearances it may not include sting in the picture. Good argument.

    Id like to know what the health of taker sting and stone cold is like. Them 3 i would say and Hogan arent completely done with WWE.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heavyhandscott)
    Strong point there.

    Though if they only have Sting for 6 bookings/appearances it may not include sting in the picture. Good argument.

    Id like to know what the health of taker sting and stone cold is like. Them 3 i would say and Hogan arent completely done with WWE.
    They could always sign him up for more dates.
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:


    Ambrose's mic skills >
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heavyhandscott)
    Yeah i dont really understand that phrase. Both superstars returned and remained busy in WWE (Taker obviously only up to his usuals and Michaels didnt really have anything to do with WWE then anyway)
    You said Undertaker can have a retirement match because he had a pseudo one in his Triple H match billed as 'An End Of An Era'. Yet he wrestled two WrestleManias and with The Shield after that.

    Also, what's the point in having a retirement stipulation if the wrestler's already 99% retired, might want to wrestle again, and has nothing to defend? Why not have Austin vs Goldberg in a hair vs hair match while you're at it?
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    Why not have Austin vs Goldberg in a hair vs hair match while you're at it?
    Throw in Ryback and you've got yourself a Smackdown main event.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 16, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Quick link:

    Unanswered sport threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.