Adam3s - V1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Mar 12, 2006 8:41:51 GMT -5
Posts: 1,794
|
Post by Adam3s - V1 on Sept 24, 2007 9:51:02 GMT -5
Undertaker is a powerhouse, with a gimmick that is designed to be unstoppable. Triple H is just a main eventer having him take care of Cade and Murdoch is okay but then making Londrick look weak wasn't needed, it's not getting Triple H more over niether will it be helping London and Kendrick.
|
|
|
Post by rkolegendkilla on Sept 24, 2007 10:05:21 GMT -5
Once again you've resulted to petty jabs and making false judgement. You always seem to be the one instigating heated arguments on here all the time. Triple H Cleaning the ring HAS never been "oh no he has buried everyone". According to a lot of the WF community it has been...
|
|
|
Post by BulletV1 on Sept 24, 2007 10:11:00 GMT -5
Honestly I blame Lesnar for a lot of people not wanting to put over younger stars. Pretty much because he was an ungrateful prick.
|
|
|
Post by rkolegendkilla on Sept 24, 2007 10:12:35 GMT -5
Honestly I blame Lesnar for a lot of people not wanting to put over younger stars. Pretty much because he was an ungrateful prick. Putting over Lesnar was the last really meaningful thing Taker has done, tbh. Too bad Lesnar shoved it back in his face.
|
|
|
Post by BulletV1 on Sept 24, 2007 10:16:35 GMT -5
i didnt know undertaker hitting kennedy with a chair was writting him out of storyline Undertaker coming back and throwing people out the ring whats your point these are all horrible examples so just stop Kennedy not going anywhere made it worse! There was no reason to hit him in the head with a chair after the match when Kennedy was actually looking like a decent heel, was there? And Undertaker returning doesn't automatically mean he has to clean the clock of every ing wrestler on the Smackdown roster. He could have easily just attacked Orton.And your replies are really weak. If you're trying to look like a big boy insted of making decent conversation like usual, you've failed. If you recall all the Smackdown! guys were protection Orton. So he had to go through the Smackdown! roster to get Orton so it was called for.
|
|
RWA
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 12, 2007 16:51:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,305
|
Post by RWA on Sept 24, 2007 10:32:33 GMT -5
He's the deadman he's not supposed to lose, neither should kahli and mark henry, and they normally don't unless they're against an equal
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 24, 2007 10:46:19 GMT -5
If Orton deserved to be put over, I'd agree with you. In 2005, Orton was hot off the youngest World Title run and Taker was just... there. What does he gain from not putting the younger Orton over? So, Undertaker was supposed to put over an ungrateful prick with a bad attitude? Come on, Orton should have been fired by now. But I guess being friends with Triple H has it's advantages. The same story applies to Hogan. Put over guys who deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by ThugSuperstar on Sept 24, 2007 11:17:16 GMT -5
Undertaker has had 5 title reigns in his entire career, and none of them were even close to long reigns when compared to Triple H.
Undertaker just has never been involved in backstage politics the way you hear about Triple H, Hogan, HBK, etc. Does he have pull as far as what goes on? Absolutely...but if he really wanted to be that type of guy, don't you think he would have fought harder for more title reigns? Hell, he was even willing to let BATISTA end his Wrestlemania streak this year.
As far as not putting Orton or Kennedy over...I thought he did put Kennedy over, but Orton doesn't deserve to go over anybody.
|
|
jpower25
Mid-Carder
Joined on: May 2, 2006 15:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 279
|
Post by jpower25 on Sept 24, 2007 11:56:51 GMT -5
I thought this was going to be about some type of new gimmick match.
|
|
|
Post by Kurt Burton: Script Doctor! on Sept 24, 2007 12:02:55 GMT -5
Undertaker has had 5 title reigns in his entire career, and none of them were even close to long reigns when compared to Triple H. Undertaker just has never been involved in backstage politics the way you hear about Triple H, Hogan, HBK, etc. Does he have pull as far as what goes on? Absolutely...but if he really wanted to be that type of guy, don't you think he would have fought harder for more title reigns? Hell, he was even willing to let BATISTA end his Wrestlemania streak this year. As far as not putting Orton or Kennedy over...I thought he did put Kennedy over, but Orton doesn't deserve to go over anybody.He has put both of those guys over, but people on here need something to bitch about instead of looking at fact, so be prepared for this thread to go on for like twenty pages.
|
|
|
Post by chumped on Sept 24, 2007 12:04:26 GMT -5
He lost to the ing Great Khali, Randy Orton, Edge, got destroyed by Mark Henry on many occasions, and Kurt Angle all in the last 2 years. Thats pretty much all of Takers matches and feuds for the past 2 years except for Batista, so what the hell are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Graze on Sept 24, 2007 12:17:06 GMT -5
Read this The reason Orton didn't go over at WM21 was because Orton had a shoulder injury at that time, otherwise, Orton was pegged to win that year. Undertaker hasn't buried people as bad as HHH over the years. I find it sad that Taker has been there longer then HHH and has had less title regins, that speaks volumes about what type of person Taker is.
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Sept 24, 2007 12:21:21 GMT -5
Isn't burying people what undertakers are SUPPOSED to do?
|
|
|
Post by BulletV1 on Sept 24, 2007 12:28:35 GMT -5
Isn't burying people what undertakers are SUPPOSED to do? No, they are suppose to embalm them, and prepare them for a funeral. Not the actual burial part.
|
|
|
Post by chumped on Sept 24, 2007 12:42:53 GMT -5
Read this The reason Orton didn't go over at WM21 was because Orton had a shoulder injury at that time, otherwise, Orton was pegged to win that year. Undertaker hasn't buried people as bad as HHH over the years. I find it sad that Taker has been there longer then HHH and has had less title regins, that speaks volumes about what type of person Taker is. Yeah, Orton didnt go over at 21. But, he went over in 2 of 4 matches they had.
|
|
|
Post by muffin2xtreme on Sept 24, 2007 13:20:33 GMT -5
wwe can't come up with gimmicks just get a 5 year old in then we might have something ;D
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 5:08:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2007 13:37:36 GMT -5
Let's look at the list of people Taker has went over since his return as the deadman: Kane- It was Wrestlemania so that is reason enough Booker- Was a good oponent to go over on his way to an actual feud Dudleyz- By that time they were a shell of their former selves. Didnt need a win over the Taker JBL- Undertaker jobbed to him three times. If anything, JBL burried him Heidenreich- Shouldnt have been on the roster in the first place, so putting him over the Taker would be ing idiotic. Orton-Wrestlemania belongs to Taker so it was booked right. Orton had two wins over Taker and Taker had two over Orton. Dont really see how this could be considered burried. Hell, before their feud Orton jobbed to Triple H three time. Thats a burial. Angle- Angle went over both times. Simple Henry- Does Henry deserve to even be in the same ring? Hell no Khali- He put Khali over Kennedy- This is the only real burial I see. Big deal though as Kennedy has easy built himself back up from it. Batista- Hell, even Vince didnt want Batista as champion anymore at the time. Plus Wrestlemania rule applied. Henry II- See Henry one So I see hardly any burials going on here. Kennedy as mentioned wasnt really burried and built himself up, while the others mostly got wins over the Deadman. Since his return at Unforgiven he has only "burried" Henry, while Triple H has burried Carlito,Cade,Murdoch,Umaga,London,Kendrick,and King Booker.Facts are facts.
|
|
|
Post by HugoOne on Sept 24, 2007 14:00:28 GMT -5
I don't understand how you can say that the Deadman gimmick has ran out of steam. Do you listen to the crowds when 'Taker comes out? Everyone goes nuts for him and his entrance. Saying the Undertaker doesn't sell is just your biased coming into play because that's asinine.
And you talk about him burying people, but first off, he only wrestles a part-time schedule. Secondly, he's barely ever at the top of the ladder. When you combine all his Championship reigns, it's not that long of a length for someone of his stature.
Third, people do come off looking like gold for the most part. Kennedy and Orton both came off looking like pros after their battles with the Undertaker and it only helped their careers. I thought Kennedy would be ruined after losing his feud with 'Taker but he came off pretty damn strong and was in a World title match the following month. Maybe if the matches were completely one-sided, but they weren't.
You bash him for being indestructible, but look what happened to Kane after he lost that part of his gimmick. If this were Kane from when he debuted, he would have finished Finlay off in a good five minutes. But now, he's just the go-to guy for a filler spot on the card. He doesn't sell punches because that's the gimmick, and it's been working for him for years. It always has been the gimmick.
I'd hate for him to go back to the Biker. All I heard was how much the Biker gimmick sucked and how everyone wished he'd go back to the Lord of Darkness, and now it's back the other way again. I'd prefer he just stick this one out until he retires. Why have a gimmick change when you know he doesn't have that many more years left in him, and when the current one works so well?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Sept 24, 2007 15:01:09 GMT -5
Wait...Yo're saying that 'Taker didn't put overKennedy and Orton? Orton beat 'Taker as amny times as 'Taker beat Orton, and Kenndey beat 'Taker twice, while 'Taker beat Kennedy once. Therefore he's put over those guys more than they've put him over.
I think he's doing just fine in that department.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Sept 24, 2007 15:28:00 GMT -5
The Undertaker and Hogan are the absolute worst for putting people over. When they do lose to someone it is almost never a clean loss... I have been soured to the Undertaker and Hogan because the last time either of them have lost cleanly was in like 3 or 4 years ago...
|
|