|
Post by wabarrett on Feb 10, 2011 13:55:24 GMT -5
Thank ing god they scrapped the match with Barrett. It would have been WAY too obvious that 'Taker was going to win that one. I mean seriously...'Taker beats some of the best guys ever in the business like Flair, HBK, Orton, Batista, Diesel, Sycho Sid, Triple H and others like King Kong Bundy, Jimmy Snuka, and Jake Roberts and people were supposed to believe that after 'Taker beat those guys that Barrett actually stood a chance?? Give me a friggin' break. Not happening. I don't care who you put in there with 'Taker, he's gonna win no matter what. He's got to make it 20-0 and then retire. Making the first part of your point totally unnessecary. Sure, nobody's gonna believe Wade Barrett could beat Undertaker, but nobody's gonna believe anyone can beat Undertaker now are they? I personally don't think Barrett/ Undertaker would be that bad a match, but it wouldn't touch the last 2 Undertaker streak defences, plus it would be predictable.
|
|
|
Post by thephenomenalone on Feb 10, 2011 14:02:20 GMT -5
PWInsider is reporting that the match is indeed HHH v Taker with Taker avenging HBKs retirement and having HBK as special guest referee
|
|
|
Post by juicewinslow on Feb 10, 2011 14:05:34 GMT -5
Kane vs. Undertaker - Retirement match - Special guest Referee: HBK
|
|
|
Post by wabarrett on Feb 10, 2011 14:09:20 GMT -5
PWInsider is reporting that the match is indeed HHH v Taker with Taker avenging HBKs retirement and having HBK as special guest referee Huh?
|
|
|
Post by chaz on Feb 10, 2011 14:13:29 GMT -5
I'd love to see Triple H vs. The Undertaker, with Michaels as the ref. I guess we'll be seeing a DX reformation around 2.21.11 then?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Feb 10, 2011 14:19:11 GMT -5
That sucks if it's true that he won't be wrestling Wade at WM, I was really looking forward to that match.
|
|
|
Post by muccguy88 on Feb 10, 2011 14:47:48 GMT -5
i like hbk and he has two great matches with taker in a row but im starting to get sick of hbk and taker always being involved with each other at mania.
|
|
|
Post by ThugSuperstar on Feb 10, 2011 14:51:47 GMT -5
So, the WWE wants us to remember Orton screwing CM Punk out of the title over 2 years ago for the sake of their likely Wrestlemania match, but they want us to forget that Undertaker was buried alive by his own brother and The Nexus 5 months ago. Makes sense to me!
I don't see any logical way they could include HBK in Undertaker's match, no matter who he's facing. They have less than a month to build up a feud for Undertaker and including HBK would seem like they're cramming everything together way too fast. Barrett or Kane makes the most sense since it would take relatively no build up to it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 30, 2024 4:32:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2011 15:14:51 GMT -5
I not believing anything anymore. Until the WWE shows the card I will make my judgments then. This whole thing has gotten out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Feb 10, 2011 15:38:34 GMT -5
I'm glad they dropped the idea of Taker/Barrett. I like Wade, but he's lost a ton of steam now that he's out of Nexus. So much so that I couldn't viably see him as a main event competitor for Wrestlemania in the least bit.
|
|
|
Post by steveoskillz on Feb 10, 2011 16:02:07 GMT -5
Like most people, again I'm glad it's not Taker/Barret. But whoever it is Taker needs to return soon, otherwise there wont be a decent build up. And in the past, the "pre match feud" has been relatively important to the match. Yet the revenge on Barret angle would have made scence. But hey.........
|
|
|
Post by Matt Culture on Feb 10, 2011 16:24:07 GMT -5
Translation
we didnt know what we were talking about with the Brock Lesner Confrontation We didnt know what we were talking about with the Sting Situation We didnt know what we were talking about with the WADE Barrett situation
so we are going to make up another story, to make us seem legit, say sources confirmed that this may or may not happen
Meltzer is a liar with no sources
he is trying to guess, and he cant
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 30, 2024 4:32:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2011 17:12:27 GMT -5
Triple H is not gonna face Taker, it just doesnt make sence. Triple H is gonna be a big face cause of his movie and having him all a sudden get serious on Taker is stupid. Plus Sheamus has nothing to do for Mania and has unfinished buisness with HHH. And I dont want Shawn involved. It just wouldnt feel right. Im guessing The Nexus taking out Taker will be ignored and we will see Taker/Kane cause Kane has nothing to do and I wouldnt mind them facing one more time if they really give it their all.
|
|
|
Post by Guy Incognito on Feb 10, 2011 17:21:33 GMT -5
Undertaker should come back and challenge Vladimir Kozlov after that match they had on Smackdown in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Feb 10, 2011 17:25:00 GMT -5
Translation we didnt know what we were talking about with the Brock Lesner Confrontation We didnt know what we were talking about with the Sting Situation We didnt know what we were talking about with the WADE Barrett situation so we are going to make up another story, to make us seem legit, say sources confirmed that this may or may not happen Meltzer is a liar with no sources he is trying to guess, and he cant Meltzer never said Brock was re-joining WWE. Meltzer never said that Sting was joining WWE. And he said Wade Barrett was most likely, which is true. And now he's saying, they've decided not to do that. Not sure how he's wrong in any of that.
|
|
|
Post by The Undertaker on Feb 10, 2011 18:44:06 GMT -5
Thank God.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Culture on Feb 10, 2011 19:15:44 GMT -5
Translation we didnt know what we were talking about with the Brock Lesner Confrontation We didnt know what we were talking about with the Sting Situation We didnt know what we were talking about with the WADE Barrett situation so we are going to make up another story, to make us seem legit, say sources confirmed that this may or may not happen Meltzer is a liar with no sources he is trying to guess, and he cant Meltzer never said Brock was re-joining WWE. Meltzer never said that Sting was joining WWE. And he said Wade Barrett was most likely, which is true. And now he's saying, they've decided not to do that. Not sure how he's wrong in any of that. actually, I apologize. instead of Meltzer, who if you cant tell, i truely Dislike. I should have said Dirtsheets in general. basically its like this Taker/Brock have some words after an UFC event, the dirtsheets jump all over it like its going to be Brock/Taker at WM. White, Brock and a few others, shot this rumor down. next they said Barrett was the choice (before the 2-21-11 promo aired) then the Promo aired, suddenly all of the internet and some NY paper reported that Sting signed a One year deal with WWE, blah blah blah. speculation. then two weeks into the Promo, Johnny Cash music was heard, suddenly its back to being the Undertaker in the Promo Dirtsheets cover their ass again. and go back to the Barrett story. now are reporting that Barrett has been scrapped in favor of Triple H. (which would absoultlely not sense, even with HBK being a guest ref). They Flip flop more so then the shoe with the same name. I may go off on Meltzer, because he also does this crap. they need to stop acting like Journalists and have sources, because sometimes you can predict whats going to happen. and sometimes you cant Honestly, its probably going to be Kane vs Undertaker at WM27.
|
|
|
Post by kazoosandstreamers on Feb 10, 2011 19:22:07 GMT -5
I have no clue where they are going with this. Taker vs. Hunter does not excite me. Taker vs. Kane does not excite me. Taker vs. Barrett does not excite me.
Maybe I am just hard to excite?
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Feb 10, 2011 19:29:47 GMT -5
Meltzer never said Brock was re-joining WWE. Meltzer never said that Sting was joining WWE. And he said Wade Barrett was most likely, which is true. And now he's saying, they've decided not to do that. Not sure how he's wrong in any of that. actually, I apologize. instead of Meltzer, who if you cant tell, i truely Dislike. I should have said Dirtsheets in general. basically its like this Taker/Brock have some words after an UFC event, the dirtsheets jump all over it like its going to be Brock/Taker at WM. White, Brock and a few others, shot this rumor down. next they said Barrett was the choice (before the 2-21-11 promo aired) then the Promo aired, suddenly all of the internet and some NY paper reported that Sting signed a One year deal with WWE, blah blah blah. speculation. then two weeks into the Promo, Johnny Cash music was heard, suddenly its back to being the Undertaker in the Promo Dirtsheets cover their ass again. and go back to the Barrett story. now are reporting that Barrett has been scrapped in favor of Triple H. (which would absoultlely not sense, even with HBK being a guest ref). They Flip flop more so then the shoe with the same name. I may go off on Meltzer, because he also does this crap. they need to stop acting like Journalists and have sources, because sometimes you can predict whats going to happen. and sometimes you cant Honestly, its probably going to be Kane vs Undertaker at WM27. None of the dirtsheets I know reported Sting being Taker's opponent. They reported that a NY newspaper had reported it but they didn't say it was actually true. Also, who's saying Taker vs HHH? I haven't read that. Some of what you said is true though.
|
|
Vintage ToneBoat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 27, 2008 14:17:16 GMT -5
Posts: 2,097
|
Post by Vintage ToneBoat on Feb 10, 2011 19:38:31 GMT -5
Why not just wait and be surprised? Its a win/win because not only will you be surprised but you wont bitch about wwe not being unexpected. stop being wrestling gumshoes sit back and enjoy it.
|
|