Will Undertaker wrestle again?

[Franchise]

Undertaker appears to be popping up a lot in these threads and in various rumours especially with Sting's arrival. So I thought maybe we should just lay this out on the table and discuss.

Do you think Undertaker will (or even should) wrestle again?


As you may have gathered from other threads, my personal opinion is that he shouldn't. Truth be told over the last few years his appearances have been few and far between and the loss of the streak and the accompanying piss poor performance to me suggests he shouldn't get back in the ring.

From a physical standpoint, he clearly cannot even reach the physical shape/requirements to wrestle even just once a year without getting seriously injured. We kind of knew that from WM 27 onwards but WM 30 made that crystal clear.

Even so, the excitement of reappearances were still there because we were all enthralled by the streak and whilst we may well have expected it to continue as predicted, we tuned in with anticipation any way. Whether McMahon was right or wrong to end the streak (personally I say wrong) is another debate. But it's gone and it's not coming back and the main reason for his annual return has been extinguished.

No future WM fixture featuring the Undertaker will hold that level of appeal anymore because the streak is gone and talk of a Sting v Undertaker match for WM is pointless as it would not carry any weight whatsoever. If both are keen for a match I would rather see it at another PPV like Summer Slam.

But that's assuming Taker will get back in the ring which I don't think he will and should. The loss of the streak I feel will simply overshadow any other ring action. Whilst it doesn't take away the fact he is a legend of the business and always will be, the streak was the one thing he had and could claim that the likes of Hogan, Austin, HBK, Rock, Cena etc couldn't and would have forever set him apart and cemented the mystique and secrecy of the Undertaker persona.

Now he's been beaten, he's simply ordinary and there's no need or reason to see him return.

It would be like Mayweather losing his unbeaten record. Though in his case wouldn't spell immediate retirement (although may do given his age), he would lose that aura of invincibility that has no doubt set him apart from other fighters and ranked him amongst the greats.


Enough from me, over to you.

[Crippla]

Yes he's not going out with a loss

[FourFifty]

No. Without his streak, he's just an over the hill attraction who has a handfull of bumps left in him.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Shisen might be right. He looked like he had next to nothing in the tank by the second half of his match with Brock.

Could 'Taker v. Sting be epic? I'm certainly not going to say it's impossible, but if it were to happen, I'd need to see a LOT more energy and effort from The Phenom.

I also wonder if maybe they could have Cena win and keep his #1 Contender spot for RR or whatever, have him have a complete 180 of the match with Brock earlier this year but still have Brock come out on top. He gets one more match at whatever the Feb. PPV is called, loses...some weird "supernatural" stuff happens as they go off the air. Next night on RAW, Cena challenges 'Taker @ WM XXXI, and 'Taker summons everything he has to escape with a 22-1 record. Then he's announced late. Jan./early Feb. 2016 S the first and headline inductee in the 2016 WWE Hall of Fame.

[drave]

He was concussed early on in that match, which is a big part of the reason his performance was less than stellar.

I have always been a huge Mark mark, but don't see the point of him having another match. I always thought that IF he were to lose at WM that would be his end. Honestly never thought it would end and he would just retire on post-WM Raw or something. I still think him losing his streak was pointless, especially to Lesnar and also takes away from him as a Mania "attraction".

He should hang it up, if he hasn't already.

[Nicky Fives]

No. Despite how beaten up he was, I always looked forward to a Mania match knowing that The Streak was on the line, despite on the inside knowing he would win yet suspending the disbelief on nearfalls when he was down and out. Without The Streak, I have no interest in seeing him compete.

[whiteyford]

Depends on the Angle more than anything, if he comes back at 'Mania you know he's not going 0 and 2, really no matter who he faces I can't see him staring at the lights again, but if he wants too and the angles good then sure.

[Franchise]

Originally Posted by drave He was concussed early on in that match, which is a big part of the reason his performance was less than stellar. I have always been a huge Mark mark, but don't see the point of him having another match. I always thought that IF he were to lose at WM that would be his end. Honestly never thought it would end and he would just retire on post-WM Raw or something. I still think him losing his streak was pointless, especially to Lesnar and also takes away from him as a Mania "attraction". He should hang it up, if he hasn't already.

True about the concussion and whether that was just an accident or reflective of a weaker performance that put him at risk I can't say. But it appears Vince made the call to end the streak before the match so it wasn't a case of (as I had believed) that Taker's performance had been so sloppy and so bad, that he had to lose for the sake of saving the credibility of the match i.e. how could an unconscious man physically lift a hand never mind perform his signature move and pin his opponent?

Losing the streak was the worst thing possible imo as I keep harping on, it took away that aura surrounding the Undertaker, what made him stand out above other "legends".

Secondly and this may be my bias showing through, Lesnar was not "worthy" of conquering the streak. His character would have built up steam regardless and a loss to the Undertaker wouldn't have harmed future storylines. My gripe is that I have never viewed Lesnar as a star that has ever connected with the fans or even at any one point been a true superstar of pro-wrestling. Sure he has the look of a street thug, he thrashed out a decent enough career in UFC but I never bought into him as a pro-wrestler. His mic skills are terrible hence probably why he has Paul Heyman do the talking for him.

My point is I'd have imagined someone "bigger" to be the man to end the streak and people like Sting, HBK even Triple H fall into that category i.e. true legendary superstars. Obviously the hype surrounding Sting v Taker with the streak on the line and Sting making his debut would have been out of this world. But given that it may well have been Sting's first and only match in WWE/at WM I'm sure he would have not liked to have lost that one.


I go back to previous points about Undertaker returning:

- He should only return if and when he is fit to do so and is capable of more than just the one struggling match i.e. two more perhaps.

- His "return" match should be to avenge the defeat to Lesnar at WM either 31 or 32 if he can't make it back in time and assuming Lesnar is still around. It wouldn't reclaim the streak as such but would go some way to glossing over it and at least we can say Taker defeated all his WM opponents.

- Sting v Taker at WM wouldn't work anymore given the absence of the Streak unless it was to be the following year which is very unlikely. The best option is to have them face each other at another of WWE's flagship PPVs like Summer Slam or even Survivor Series (where both made their debut).

[Franchise]

On a bizarre point:

Do you think WWE needs to rebrand and introduce new PPVs? I believe one of the current PPVs is going to be axed and replaced with something else. But I think it would be interesting to have some new events. Things like HIAC and TLC yes they're great but why have a PPV just revolving on that theme? Those matches could work well and perhaps better at other PPVs and don't need a stand alone event. If truth be told I quite miss the MITB event at WM but MITB I think has it's purpose.

But my thinking is for WWE to raid the rights they have to WCW/NWA's trademarks and perhaps revive say Starrcade? Given it's history and prestige as the WCW equivalent to WM. But where to schedule it and if at the end of the year, would it be far too close to the Survivor Series?

Again as a Sting mark it be great to see a Starrrcade revival, perhaps under the authority of Sting as GM and if he wanted to wrestle another match, him v Taker at the newly revived Starrcade?

Or maybe I've been inhaling too much nail varnish.

[drek]

If TLC and HIAC werent its own PPV the point of the match wouldnt mean too much.

[Franchise]

Originally Posted by drek If TLC and HIAC werent its own PPV the point of the match wouldnt mean too much.

I disagree. I think the matches meant as much if not more so when they were part of a regular PPV.

I wonder if it was part of the PG-era thinking in that to segregate the "violence" of these events to specific PPVs so that if parents didn't want their kids to watch that etc. then they would simply not have to purchase that particular PPV.....as opposed to say missing on WM or RR for that reason.


However on that note, I don't think the hardcore matches added any more or less to the "violence" of professional wrestling. Boxing is far more brutal.

If every match on that card was a HIAC or TLC match then fairplay but it's only ever just the one or two matches hence why I feel there's no need for those matches to be segregated to a particular PPV.

[Franchise]

As I keep saying Sting V Taker at WM has no use anymore and that's assuming Taker has the energy to physically walk into the ring on his own power/unaided.

It would be great for old times sakes just to see these two get it on given how people draw parallels between their characters and if that's the motivation then that match can simply headline another major PPV......I'm sure WWE would want high interest across all their events rather than just 'Mania.

I still don't subscribe to the notion that Sting should and will just wrestle the one match. He's old ok but he isn't physically so drastically out of shape. Flair still did a few matches during his final WWE run as an active wrestler and even his match against HBK at WM 24 I thought was pretty good. It seems WWE have left the decision to Sting; if can and wants to wrestle then he should.

So if it goes beyond WM 31 then there's no reason for a Taker v Sting match at say Summer Slam or Survivor Series or Night of Champions.

[Franchise]

OK I will make a bold prediction about how Taker may possibly return in 2015:

- Cena wins his match against Rollins at TLC and remains number 1 contender.

- Cena fights gallantly but loses to Lesnar RR maybe with a few dirty tactics.

- Lesnar and Heyman celebrate in the ring, boos ringing out then suddenly........*dong*....lights go out, smoke, crowd goes wild, we know who's coming.

- Taker comes out, first time we've seen him since Mania, walks slowly to the ring. Confronts Lesnar and Heyman. A staredown, verbals and taunts from Heyman and Lesnar. Then Taker chokeslams Lesnar, Heyman screams, maybe Taker chokeslams him too for good measure. Then walks off.

- Rollins comes out, cashes in the briefcase, wins the title.



I mean why would Rollins win the match at TLC to become number 1 contender when already is sort of?

[whiteyford]

Originally Posted by drek If TLC and HIAC werent its own PPV the point of the match wouldnt mean too much.

It'd be the opposite, you're basically using a feud ending match as the first match in a lot of instances because the timing makes them the next PPV, HIAC has been devalued to the point nobody really cares about it and it's becoming this generations steel cage match which also used to be a feud ender as opposed to a run of the mill tv match.

[Franchise]

Originally Posted by whiteyford It'd be the opposite, you're basically using a feud ending match as the first match in a lot of instances because the timing makes them the next PPV, HIAC has been devalued to the point nobody really cares about it and it's becoming this generations steel cage match which also used to be a feud ender as opposed to a run of the mill tv match.

The last HIAC that really stood out for me was Triple H v Taker at WM 28.....not even on the HIAC ppv.

As I said maybe HIAC and TLC were used to segregate the matches as part of the whole PG-era thinking so parents could opt to not order that PPV if they didn't want their kids to watch it.

But I don't find those matches any more or less violent than say Boxing or Martial Arts etc. HIAC and TLC matches used to be special main events or even mid card events and as you said would be a feud ending/defining match. But I don't feel any excitement for TLC given RR is just around the corner and that there's no significant title match.

[DAMN iNATOR]

He'll be 50 right about the same time as WM next year and if last year, concussed or not, was any indication of his health right now, I'd just as soon he didn't wrestle again. Guy was looking worse at 49 than some guys at 65+ in the industry.

[Franchise]

Originally Posted by DAMN iNATOR He'll be 50 right about the same time as WM next year and if last year, concussed or not, was any indication of his health right now, I'd just as soon he didn't wrestle again. Guy was looking worse at 49 than some guys at 65+ in the industry.

Is that reflective of the hard knocks he's taken through the sort of matches he's fought in e.g. hell in a cell etc. Or just that Taker unlike the other guys, never really kept himself in decent shape etc?