Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Egon Spengler View Post
I don't think it's the WWE's decision whether the undefeated Wrestlemania streak is to be ended. There have been multiple occasions where Undertaker has come up to his opponent weeks before the event and offered to lose. He did it when he faced Ric Flair, and both times when he faced Kane. If Undertaker ever loses at Wrestlemania, it will be his decision to lose the match, and who he loses it to.
Yeah, and Taker realizes that what made him famous is the fans. And the fans certainly love the streak going. I don't think he'll purposedly lose one of his most famous stints (aside from the Ministry). He'll get out victorious.

The real question here is, why would anybody ever consider taking the Boogeyman as a serious wrestler?
Perhaps. Though I had a really good hope he'd be something like Faarooq. Dominating. But his feuds with Finlay pretty much killed the gimmick. The reason I posted the idea was because aside from Kane, he was the only "dark" wrestler around. Unless for some reason another of those "dark" wrestlers *coughcoughAbysscoughcough* appear. It's for the sake of argument.

Undertaker already beat Triple H at Wrestlemania XVII, and it was actually a really good match. I think Undertaker even offered Triple H the opportunity to end his undefeated streak, but Triple H refused. Shawn Michaels always puts on a good show, but there's one person that you're forgetting that Undertaker still hasn't faced at Wrestlemania, and that could be a possible opponent for next year, if Undertaker still hasn't retired by then; Chris Jericho. The guy is just as good, if not better, than Shawn Michaels.
That battle was around 8 years ago, and that was when HHH was quite convincing. Compare to HHH nowadays, who's winning championships because he's the son-in-law of Vince, and has waived credibility. I can't say HHH is a bad wrestler, but he has decayed from his moment at Evolution. Plus, he's not a good face; he's better as a heel.

I concur with Jericho, though, if it weren't for one point; his current angle sucks. That can be fixed, though. But between Jericho and Michaels, the latter has more relevance than the former as Taker's last match.

They've given Randy Orton more than five years to "polish his skills," and even though he's now a main-eventer, that doesn't disregard the fact that he absolutely sucks. It just goes to show that you don't have to be a good wrestler to make it in the business. Just look at guys like Hulk Hogan or the Ultimate Warrior. They sucked, and yet, they headlined Wrestlemania VI together. Go figure.
Bolded your statement just because you don't have to quote Hogan or Warrior for that. John Dinner is doing the same thing, over, and over, and over again. But that doesn't take the point that DiBiase Jr. isn't ready to make that step. Though, if his mic skills improve by the year, he'll be set for a championship instead of being Taker's last match.

Orton's redeeming point isn't his RKO, it's the rest of the repertoire aside from the fact he's a despicable heel, a good example of a good heel gimmick. Seriously, could you see Orton as a babyface? Very rarely; he's like Edge on that regard. Plus, focus on his combination between locks and slams (though it's pretty standard, it's effective for his body shape) plus his reversals. A good wrestler knows how to make effective evasions or reversals to moves, and at least he makes convincing finishing move evasions; a reason why the RKO is pretty effective for him, since it's mostly devised as a reversal move than a finishing move. Lame when you see it as a finisher, but it looks convincing enough when he goes from reversal to RKO in seconds flat.