|
|
Post by Word™ on Apr 21, 2014 23:40:14 GMT -5
I can't stress this enough.
Beating the Undertaker's streak was never, ever going to be a good stepping stone in pushing an up and comer in the company. Imagine if they let Reigns break the streak or absolutely anyone to get them over as a serious player. They would have to live up to that one match where they beat The Undertaker's streak for the rest of their career. They would be measured by that moment..
What if it doesn't pan out? The guy flops after 5 years or so.. Well then this historical streak that was a HUGE deal is now ultimately tainted because this unestablished scrub ended it, then didn't stay around and do much.
You wanted a future Hall of Famer breaking that streak. With an established career..
|
|
|
|
Post by Edge618 on Apr 22, 2014 3:53:14 GMT -5
I can't stress this enough. Beating the Undertaker's streak was never, ever going to be a good stepping stone in pushing an up and comer in the company. Imagine if they let Reigns break the streak or absolutely anyone to get them over as a serious player. They would have to live up to that one match where they beat The Undertaker's streak for the rest of their career. They would be measured by that moment.. What if it doesn't pan out? The guy flops after 5 years or so.. Well then this historical streak that was a HUGE deal is now ultimately tainted because this unestablished scrub ended it, then didn't stay around and do much. You wanted a future Hall of Famer breaking that streak. With an established career.. People keep saying that and I get it but, so what? Let's say Roman Reigns beat it and flopped. That would suck but so what? We'd be in the same position of no one getting a huge career makin rub. But on the flip side it could have instantly made him THE guy in the company for the next 15 years. Lesnar winning was safe. No risk or reward. |
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Apr 22, 2014 4:28:12 GMT -5
I can't stress this enough. Beating the Undertaker's streak was never, ever going to be a good stepping stone in pushing an up and comer in the company. Imagine if they let Reigns break the streak or absolutely anyone to get them over as a serious player. They would have to live up to that one match where they beat The Undertaker's streak for the rest of their career. They would be measured by that moment.. What if it doesn't pan out? The guy flops after 5 years or so.. Well then this historical streak that was a HUGE deal is now ultimately tainted because this unestablished scrub ended it, then didn't stay around and do much. You wanted a future Hall of Famer breaking that streak. With an established career.. People keep saying that and I get it but, so what? Let's say Roman Reigns beat it and flopped. That would suck but so what? We'd be in the same position of no one getting a huge career makin rub. But on the flip side it could have instantly made him THE guy in the company for the next 15 years. Lesnar winning was safe. No risk or reward. It was about securing The Undertaker's legacy.. Not making the next big star. I'd rather he have 1 loss to someone intimidating and established as Brock Lesnar is, than say someone like Roman Reigns who isn't established or accomplished. I think it's safe and secure, yeah no doubt.. But I'd rather it be safe than sorry. If it was Triple H 2 years ago would anyone have cared as much? |
|
|
|
Post by Edge618 on Apr 22, 2014 5:06:43 GMT -5
People keep saying that and I get it but, so what? Let's say Roman Reigns beat it and flopped. That would suck but so what? We'd be in the same position of no one getting a huge career makin rub. But on the flip side it could have instantly made him THE guy in the company for the next 15 years. Lesnar winning was safe. No risk or reward. It was about securing The Undertaker's legacy.. Not making the next big star. I'd rather he have 1 loss to someone intimidating and established as Brock Lesnar is, than say someone like Roman Reigns who isn't established or accomplished. I think it's safe and secure, yeah no doubt.. But I'd rather it be safe than sorry. If it was Triple H 2 years ago would anyone have cared as much? If I had to choose a veteran to have ended it and be safe, I would have had HBK do it at 25 or 26. Tremendous matches for him to go out on. That's the one sour part of Lesnars win, how slow the match was. But I also like how the story tells that Taker went until he could not go anymore. He simply couldn't get it done anymore and he lost. That's really all I like about the Brock/Taker story |
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Apr 22, 2014 5:24:09 GMT -5
It was about securing The Undertaker's legacy.. Not making the next big star. I'd rather he have 1 loss to someone intimidating and established as Brock Lesnar is, than say someone like Roman Reigns who isn't established or accomplished. I think it's safe and secure, yeah no doubt.. But I'd rather it be safe than sorry. If it was Triple H 2 years ago would anyone have cared as much? If I had to choose a veteran to have ended it and be safe, I would have had HBK do it at 25 or 26. Tremendous matches for him to go out on. That's the one sour part of Lesnars win, how slow the match was. But I also like how the story tells that Taker went until he could not go anymore. He simply couldn't get it done anymore and he lost. That's really all I like about the Brock/Taker story That honestly wasn't story telling, that was just some live truth.. People witnessed The Undertaker have that one match when he no longer had it, the concussion didn't help anything either. Love 'Taker, I really do.. But I hope this is like Stone Cold at Wrestlemania 19.. He lost and he retires. It makes sense for Undertaker to go away quietly... The Deadman doesn't need a parade. |
|
