Undertaker Taking Dates Outside Of WWE?

[Bob-O]

I feel like it's more of a Jericho thing, where he's essentially on a handshake deal with Vince and can come and go as he pleases... but damn... he's never "went" before...

[cero2k]

he doesn't have a scheduled match for WM this year, but for what it's worth, via reading the comments

- he never had WWE references in his social media
- that company that he shared the link for is a company that works along with WWE, so he's not exactly out there in the open

[XIV]

Let's not all forget that he could just be angling for more spots at comic-cons and other conventions. These would still need to be booked and paid for...

[KILLdozer]

I seriously doubt it. That man will probably NEVER work anywhere else.

[cero2k]

I seriously doubt it. That man will probably NEVER work anywhere else.

and he should't, he shouldn't even work in WWE anymore

[Big Red Machine]

I seriously doubt it. That man will probably NEVER work anywhere else.

and he should't, he shouldn't even work in WWE anymore

Yeah. I'm honestly not even sure that I want Taker to ever officially "retire" or even have an HOF induction while he's still alive. I want him to just sort of fade away and always be mentioned in reverent tones, like he's some sort of specter that could, if he so chose, theoretically return at any moment. He should do at most one appearance every four or five years for a big anniversary or something, but with no acknowledgement that his career is actually over. Because while Mark Calaway might be old, The Undertaker is ageless.

[KILLdozer]

I seriously doubt it. That man will probably NEVER work anywhere else.

and he should't, he shouldn't even work in WWE anymore

Yeah. I'm honestly not even sure that I want Taker to ever officially "retire" or even have an HOF induction while he's still alive. I want him to just sort of fade away and always be mentioned in reverent tones, like he's some sort of specter that could, if he so chose, theoretically return at any moment. He should do at most one appearance every four or five years for a big anniversary or something, but with no acknowledgement that his career is actually over. Because while Mark Calaway might be old, The Undertaker is ageless.

What are you on? The Undertaker is done.

[Big Red Machine]

and he should't, he shouldn't even work in WWE anymore

Yeah. I'm honestly not even sure that I want Taker to ever officially "retire" or even have an HOF induction while he's still alive. I want him to just sort of fade away and always be mentioned in reverent tones, like he's some sort of specter that could, if he so chose, theoretically return at any moment. He should do at most one appearance every four or five years for a big anniversary or something, but with no acknowledgement that his career is actually over. Because while Mark Calaway might be old, The Undertaker is ageless.

What are you on? The Undertaker is done.

Right. But they shouldn't ever actually acknowledge it. Just because he's done doesn't mean that you have to do things to detract from his aura.

[KILLdozer]

Yeah. I'm honestly not even sure that I want Taker to ever officially "retire" or even have an HOF induction while he's still alive. I want him to just sort of fade away and always be mentioned in reverent tones, like he's some sort of specter that could, if he so chose, theoretically return at any moment. He should do at most one appearance every four or five years for a big anniversary or something, but with no acknowledgement that his career is actually over. Because while Mark Calaway might be old, The Undertaker is ageless.

What are you on? The Undertaker is done.

Right. But they shouldn't ever actually acknowledge it. Just because he's done doesn't mean that you have to do things to detract from his aura.

Well that arguably happened almost entirely after the streak ended just because "Lesnar kills everybody".

[XIV]

What are you on? The Undertaker is done.

Right. But they shouldn't ever actually acknowledge it. Just because he's done doesn't mean that you have to do things to detract from his aura.

Well that arguably happened almost entirely after the streak ended just because "Lesnar kills everybody".

Controversial thought... ending the streak actually works in WWE’s favour now... because they don’t have to rely on The Undertaker coming back every year with this “mystique”.

Like if that streak still exists... where do you say enough is enough? 24-0? 30-0? Like... it has to end somewhere... having it diluted by having a couple of defeats will work in WWE’s favour because not they’re now reliant on the fans expecting an Undertaker much every year.

[KILLdozer]

Yeah...I don't need nor want to see him anymore. I don't even want to see any more "Undertaker spotted working out or near arena" posts...

[Big Red Machine]

Controversial thought... ending the streak actually works in WWE’s favour now... because they don’t have to rely on The Undertaker coming back every year with this “mystique”.

Like if that streak still exists... where do you say enough is enough? 24-0? 30-0? Like... it has to end somewhere... having it diluted by having a couple of defeats will work in WWE’s favour because not they’re now reliant on the fans expecting an Undertaker much every year.

Totally disagree. They could easily have set a limit (or Taker could have), like 25-0.

Also, the implication that they were "forced" to rely on Taker's mystique to help Mania draw every year is, in my opinion, unfounded, but even if we stipulate that they did need to rely on it, I think a large part of the reason for that can be explained by the same reason I think the assertion is unfounded in the first place: it all comes back to WWE failing to offer us WM matches that we actually wanted to see since WM30. Aside from Ronda & Becky (which was not WWE's doing, and even then they're f*cking it up by shoe-horning Charlotte in), the only WM matches from 31-35 that I can remember that were matches that when people first heard about them created a real feeling of "YEAH! That'd be AWESOME!" were AJ vs. Jericho, Owens vs. Jericho, and AJ vs. Nakamura. Maybe you can give them some credit for the ideas behind Sasha vs. Charlotte vs. Becky, Cena vs. Rusev, and Hunter vs. Rollins, but they mostly screwed up the build for all of those matches.
They have SOOOOO MUCH TALENT and SOOOO MANY POSSIBLE MATCH-UPS, SOOOOO MANY BAD DECISIONS.
I mean... Daniel Bryan has this big emotional world title win at WrestleMania XXX. Then, within days, he gets marries and then his dad dies. Then he gets a career threatening injury and has to be out for MONTHS... and you put him in a f*cking eight-man spotfest Ladder Match with comedy build-up?! How the f*ck do you not have him win the Royal Rumble and reclaim his world title at WrestleMania? And if you're so obsessed with Roman that you have etched in stone that this MUST be Roman's year, why the hell would you bring Bryan back in the Rumble instead of having his first match back at AT WRESTLEMANIA and using that as the beginning of a story of him climbing back up the ladder?!
The fact that we never got Rollins vs. Reigns vs. Ambrose at WrestleMania- or even SummerSlam- is pretty much inexcusable when you consider all of the boring crap they did instead. This company just plain doesn't know how to pick appealing match-ups anymore.

[XIV]

Controversial thought... ending the streak actually works in WWE’s favour now... because they don’t have to rely on The Undertaker coming back every year with this “mystique”.

Like if that streak still exists... where do you say enough is enough? 24-0? 30-0? Like... it has to end somewhere... having it diluted by having a couple of defeats will work in WWE’s favour because not they’re now reliant on the fans expecting an Undertaker much every year.

Totally disagree. They could easily have set a limit (or Taker could have), like 25-0.

Also, the implication that they were "forced" to rely on Taker's mystique to help Mania draw every year is, in my opinion, unfounded, but even if we stipulate that they did need to rely on it, I think a large part of the reason for that can be explained by the same reason I think the assertion is unfounded in the first place: it all comes back to WWE failing to offer us WM matches that we actually wanted to see since WM30. Aside from Ronda & Becky (which was not WWE's doing, and even then they're f*cking it up by shoe-horning Charlotte in), the only WM matches from 31-35 that I can remember that were matches that when people first heard about them created a real feeling of "YEAH! That'd be AWESOME!" were AJ vs. Jericho, Owens vs. Jericho, and AJ vs. Nakamura. Maybe you can give them some credit for the ideas behind Sasha vs. Charlotte vs. Becky, Cena vs. Rusev, and Hunter vs. Rollins, but they mostly screwed up the build for all of those matches.
They have SOOOOO MUCH TALENT and SOOOO MANY POSSIBLE MATCH-UPS, SOOOOO MANY BAD DECISIONS.
I mean... Daniel Bryan has this big emotional world title win at WrestleMania XXX. Then, within days, he gets marries and then his dad dies. Then he gets a career threatening injury and has to be out for MONTHS... and you put him in a f*cking eight-man spotfest Ladder Match with comedy build-up?! How the f*ck do you not have him win the Royal Rumble and reclaim his world title at WrestleMania? And if you're so obsessed with Roman that you have etched in stone that this MUST be Roman's year, why the hell would you bring Bryan back in the Rumble instead of having his first match back at AT WRESTLEMANIA and using that as the beginning of a story of him climbing back up the ladder?!
The fact that we never got Rollins vs. Reigns vs. Ambrose at WrestleMania- or even SummerSlam- is pretty much inexcusable when you consider all of the boring crap they did instead. This company just plain doesn't know how to pick appealing match-ups anymore.

Good points well presented.

I’m agreeing that’s WWE created that situation and that even if we didn’t want the matches, they became expected parts of Wrestlemanias.

I’ll be gutted if it becomes Becky vs Ronda vs Charlotte. Because I’m thinking why bother winning the rumble? If Charlotte loses that, and still ends up in the match. You’ve already diluted the prize for your rumble. So why even bother?

[Big Red Machine]

Controversial thought... ending the streak actually works in WWE’s favour now... because they don’t have to rely on The Undertaker coming back every year with this “mystique”.

Like if that streak still exists... where do you say enough is enough? 24-0? 30-0? Like... it has to end somewhere... having it diluted by having a couple of defeats will work in WWE’s favour because not they’re now reliant on the fans expecting an Undertaker much every year.

Totally disagree. They could easily have set a limit (or Taker could have), like 25-0.

Also, the implication that they were "forced" to rely on Taker's mystique to help Mania draw every year is, in my opinion, unfounded, but even if we stipulate that they did need to rely on it, I think a large part of the reason for that can be explained by the same reason I think the assertion is unfounded in the first place: it all comes back to WWE failing to offer us WM matches that we actually wanted to see since WM30. Aside from Ronda & Becky (which was not WWE's doing, and even then they're f*cking it up by shoe-horning Charlotte in), the only WM matches from 31-35 that I can remember that were matches that when people first heard about them created a real feeling of "YEAH! That'd be AWESOME!" were AJ vs. Jericho, Owens vs. Jericho, and AJ vs. Nakamura. Maybe you can give them some credit for the ideas behind Sasha vs. Charlotte vs. Becky, Cena vs. Rusev, and Hunter vs. Rollins, but they mostly screwed up the build for all of those matches.
They have SOOOOO MUCH TALENT and SOOOO MANY POSSIBLE MATCH-UPS, SOOOOO MANY BAD DECISIONS.
I mean... Daniel Bryan has this big emotional world title win at WrestleMania XXX. Then, within days, he gets marries and then his dad dies. Then he gets a career threatening injury and has to be out for MONTHS... and you put him in a f*cking eight-man spotfest Ladder Match with comedy build-up?! How the f*ck do you not have him win the Royal Rumble and reclaim his world title at WrestleMania? And if you're so obsessed with Roman that you have etched in stone that this MUST be Roman's year, why the hell would you bring Bryan back in the Rumble instead of having his first match back at AT WRESTLEMANIA and using that as the beginning of a story of him climbing back up the ladder?!
The fact that we never got Rollins vs. Reigns vs. Ambrose at WrestleMania- or even SummerSlam- is pretty much inexcusable when you consider all of the boring crap they did instead. This company just plain doesn't know how to pick appealing match-ups anymore.

Good points well presented.

I’m agreeing that’s WWE created that situation and that even if we didn’t want the matches, they became expected parts of Wrestlemanias.

I’ll be gutted if it becomes Becky vs Ronda vs Charlotte. Because I’m thinking why bother winning the rumble? If Charlotte loses that, and still ends up in the match. You’ve already diluted the prize for your rumble. So why even bother?

The argument for it (as explained by certain people at PWTorch) is as follows:
1. It gets both Charlotte and Becky the rub instead of just Becky
2. it will be a better match from a work-rate POV because you have two great workers in there rather than one and because adding a third woman will cut what Ronda has to do down from half of the work to just a third of it
3.A. The idea is that if they take the match away from Becky and give it to Charlotte that will get good heat while also getting fans behind Becky even more and the fans will all go nuts when Becky is added back in
3.B. There seems to be a component of this (which is also the argument put forward for why Becky tapping out clean to Asuka at the Rumble was okay) which uses the logic that "the more fans think Becky is being shoot mistreated, the more they'll get behind her."



My responses to those arguments are as follows:

1. It might give the rub to two women instead of one, but in the process it dilutes the rub because the mainstream outlets will simply spit their attention between the two instead of focusing on Becky, which is doubly bad because Becky is BY FAR the better shoot story, both from the basic storytelling aspect of someone overcoming the odds and for the WWE PR aspect where they get to tout how they "listened to their fans" and changed all of their big plans and now have an organic grassroots badass woman as their main star getting all of the attention (rather than said grassroots badass equally splitting the attention with the blonde with fake boobs who has always been the company's favorite and happens to have a father who was a legend in the business, too).

2. While it might be better from a work-rate POV, I think Ronda has proved that when gets to practice her matches they can be really great, and unless there is some special shared history between all three (like a Rollins vs. Reigns vs. Ambrose match, or ECW going back to the three men in the match that put the promotion on the map for the Hardcore Heaven 1997 main event, or if ROH had ever been able to book another Dragon vs. Daniels vs. Low Ki match), I think that, for the biggest of all shows, a singles match works best for the tippy-top spots.
(Yes, I know I advocated for and even fantasy booked the WM 29 main event to be Rock vs. Cena vs. Punk rather than just Rock vs. Cena, but that's because they had done Rock vs. Cena already the previous year.)


3. Personally, I am dumbfounded that they think fans will think that this suspension/injury thing is anything but a work, and operating with the guiding principle that the best way to book is to purposely get the fans angry at the product to try to use their shoot emotions to work them into giving you your desired reaction at the end of the story is a really f*cking stupid way to do business, and doubly so when the alternative is to simply book a product that fans find intelligent, engaging, and exciting.

[KILLdozer]

I said it last night or so-none of this crazy shit is needed. Charlotte doesn't need the extra rub and just let Becky be Becky and do Becky shit. They WILL GO CRAZY FOR HER REGARDLESS AT THIS POINT.

Brm hates how she's used and the people still go fuckin' ballistic regardless. Need I say anything more?

[Bob-O]

I'm honestly not even sure that I want Taker to ever officially "retire" or even have an HOF induction while he's still alive.

I get what you're going for here, and it's neat and all, but all things considered I'd like to see Mark celebrated for his career while he's still alive. He can still have his aura, as a Hall of Famer, he's still allowed to show up out of the blue, but I'd be super bummed if I found out they were waiting for him to die so they could honor him...

[KILLdozer]

I'm honestly not even sure that I want Taker to ever officially "retire" or even have an HOF induction while he's still alive.

I get what you're going for here, and it's neat and all, but all things considered I'd like to see Mark celebrated for his career while he's still alive. He can still have his aura, as a Hall of Famer, he's still allowed to show up out of the blue, but I'd be super bummed if I found out they were waiting for him to die so they could honor him...

That could be interesting...honor "the man behind the gimmick."

[Big Red Machine]

I'm honestly not even sure that I want Taker to ever officially "retire" or even have an HOF induction while he's still alive.

I get what you're going for here, and it's neat and all, but all things considered I'd like to see Mark celebrated for his career while he's still alive. He can still have his aura, as a Hall of Famer, he's still allowed to show up out of the blue, but I'd be super bummed if I found out they were waiting for him to die so they could honor him...

Maybe then the best way to do it would be to not have a traditional HOF induction for him but rather to let a lot of other people talk about him, and then just have him magically appear at the end, pose with the urn, and then disappear. Give him that appreciation, but don't have him talk or break character at all.

[XIV]

Totally disagree. They could easily have set a limit (or Taker could have), like 25-0.

Also, the implication that they were "forced" to rely on Taker's mystique to help Mania draw every year is, in my opinion, unfounded, but even if we stipulate that they did need to rely on it, I think a large part of the reason for that can be explained by the same reason I think the assertion is unfounded in the first place: it all comes back to WWE failing to offer us WM matches that we actually wanted to see since WM30. Aside from Ronda & Becky (which was not WWE's doing, and even then they're f*cking it up by shoe-horning Charlotte in), the only WM matches from 31-35 that I can remember that were matches that when people first heard about them created a real feeling of "YEAH! That'd be AWESOME!" were AJ vs. Jericho, Owens vs. Jericho, and AJ vs. Nakamura. Maybe you can give them some credit for the ideas behind Sasha vs. Charlotte vs. Becky, Cena vs. Rusev, and Hunter vs. Rollins, but they mostly screwed up the build for all of those matches.
They have SOOOOO MUCH TALENT and SOOOO MANY POSSIBLE MATCH-UPS, SOOOOO MANY BAD DECISIONS.
I mean... Daniel Bryan has this big emotional world title win at WrestleMania XXX. Then, within days, he gets marries and then his dad dies. Then he gets a career threatening injury and has to be out for MONTHS... and you put him in a f*cking eight-man spotfest Ladder Match with comedy build-up?! How the f*ck do you not have him win the Royal Rumble and reclaim his world title at WrestleMania? And if you're so obsessed with Roman that you have etched in stone that this MUST be Roman's year, why the hell would you bring Bryan back in the Rumble instead of having his first match back at AT WRESTLEMANIA and using that as the beginning of a story of him climbing back up the ladder?!
The fact that we never got Rollins vs. Reigns vs. Ambrose at WrestleMania- or even SummerSlam- is pretty much inexcusable when you consider all of the boring crap they did instead. This company just plain doesn't know how to pick appealing match-ups anymore.

Good points well presented.

I’m agreeing that’s WWE created that situation and that even if we didn’t want the matches, they became expected parts of Wrestlemanias.

I’ll be gutted if it becomes Becky vs Ronda vs Charlotte. Because I’m thinking why bother winning the rumble? If Charlotte loses that, and still ends up in the match. You’ve already diluted the prize for your rumble. So why even bother?

The argument for it (as explained by certain people at PWTorch) is as follows:
1. It gets both Charlotte and Becky the rub instead of just Becky
2. it will be a better match from a work-rate POV because you have two great workers in there rather than one and because adding a third woman will cut what Ronda has to do down from half of the work to just a third of it
3.A. The idea is that if they take the match away from Becky and give it to Charlotte that will get good heat while also getting fans behind Becky even more and the fans will all go nuts when Becky is added back in
3.B. There seems to be a component of this (which is also the argument put forward for why Becky tapping out clean to Asuka at the Rumble was okay) which uses the logic that "the more fans think Becky is being shoot mistreated, the more they'll get behind her."



My responses to those arguments are as follows:

1. It might give the rub to two women instead of one, but in the process it dilutes the rub because the mainstream outlets will simply spit their attention between the two instead of focusing on Becky, which is doubly bad because Becky is BY FAR the better shoot story, both from the basic storytelling aspect of someone overcoming the odds and for the WWE PR aspect where they get to tout how they "listened to their fans" and changed all of their big plans and now have an organic grassroots badass woman as their main star getting all of the attention (rather than said grassroots badass equally splitting the attention with the blonde with fake boobs who has always been the company's favorite and happens to have a father who was a legend in the business, too).

2. While it might be better from a work-rate POV, I think Ronda has proved that when gets to practice her matches they can be really great, and unless there is some special shared history between all three (like a Rollins vs. Reigns vs. Ambrose match, or ECW going back to the three men in the match that put the promotion on the map for the Hardcore Heaven 1997 main event, or if ROH had ever been able to book another Dragon vs. Daniels vs. Low Ki match), I think that, for the biggest of all shows, a singles match works best for the tippy-top spots.
(Yes, I know I advocated for and even fantasy booked the WM 29 main event to be Rock vs. Cena vs. Punk rather than just Rock vs. Cena, but that's because they had done Rock vs. Cena already the previous year.)


3. Personally, I am dumbfounded that they think fans will think that this suspension/injury thing is anything but a work, and operating with the guiding principle that the best way to book is to purposely get the fans angry at the product to try to use their shoot emotions to work them into giving you your desired reaction at the end of the story is a really f*cking stupid way to do business, and doubly so when the alternative is to simply book a product that fans find intelligent, engaging, and exciting.

This is where creative have lost that contact with the fans... because yes, we'd voice displeasure at Becky "losing out" and Charlotte being added in diluting Becky's scenario... but its not "heat" for good heat... it's an audible groan, it's a facepalm, it's a "you're not listening to us" and they're mistaking it for heat. There's more than one reason to boo.

[cero2k]

Maybe then the best way to do it would be to not have a traditional HOF induction for him but rather to let a lot of other people talk about him, and then just have him magically appear at the end, pose with the urn, and then disappear. Give him that appreciation, but don't have him talk or break character at all.

the only reason i'm going to disagree with this is because i really really want to one day have a Mark Callaway shoot interview. I need to hear his stories and thoughts of literally everything wrestling related