Note on Cena/Taker match

[Guest Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye]

The finish to the Undertaker/John Cena match at Vengeance was a hot topic backstage in WWE last week. The locker room was split, with some pushing for Cena to win so that he could get over as a main eventer, while others felt 'Taker had to win to maintain his credibility. At this point, the general feeling is that the two will have a rematch and as long as Cena wins, his Vengeance loss won't hurt him.

 

Credit: 1wrestling.com

 

I agree, Cena still looks very dangerous right now, but he MUST come out on top in this feud(duh). I'm personally pretty sure Taker will put him over in grand fashion(albeit in a likely average match), thus giving him the final rite of passage into ME land.

[Guest Fook_Hing_Ho]

Cena has to go over clean in the end. That's all there is to it. There's a lack of main event heels on SD right now, and with Eddie in the US title picture, it's pretty much down to Big Show unless someone else is elevated.

 

As for the Vengeance match, if they were planning a rematch all along, I would have had a DQ finish for Cena using the chain instead of an actual decision.

[Guest Deviant]

Much like HBK with Jericho, Taker will job this time, but not cleanly. Everyone will remember the PPV match and forget the TV rematch, and the younger superstar will go nowhere, despite being one of, if not the most entertaining member of their respective rosters.

[Guest bravesfan]

Much like HBK with Jericho, Taker will job this time, but not cleanly.

 

Michaels made it clear on RAW that the feud between he and Jericho is NOT over, therefore there's one more job left in HBK for Y2J - one that DOESN'T involve outside interference.

 

As for the Vengeance match, if they were planning a rematch all along, I would have had a DQ finish for Cena using the chain instead of an actual decision.

 

If they go the route of a gimmick/stipulations match (chain match, No-DQ), which it will most likely end the feud in, the Vengeance match will mean jack-squat in the gist of the feud (especially if Cena is victorious).

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Cena should have won at Vengeance.

 

Any storyline that is flat out in the open about passing the torch and creating a new star HAS to have the new star go over.

 

So what if Cena wins next time? Just more of the even steven no one gets ahead of the guys with the stroke booking that does not allow for anyone to be a star unless handpicked by Vince like Brock was.

[Guest Trivia247]

So much Taker hating in the world dawww..

 

Taker may job, he may not, but people are getting to use too this instant Main event thing.

 

asides the Rapping, what has Cena done to inspire a Main event run?

[Guest Beavis]

I don't think Taker should job. Cena is not ready yet and Taker has a rep to uphold. Taker should go over in the end.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

It would have worked this time because of the storyline they were running.

[Guest bob_barron]

asides the Rapping, what has Cena done to inspire a Main event run?

He's become one of the most over people on the Smackdown! roster.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

I don't even like Cena...I'd go so far as to say I can't stand him...

 

BUT

 

The man got over with what I thought was a stupid gimmick...turned it into something special....

 

And this story ends just like all the others.

 

Just insert "Taker" into the end of the line...which is pretty much only used by "Taker" and "Member of the Kliq"

[Guest Trivia247]

Hell I don't mind Taker putting Cena over as long as Cena puts something to the table other than a Batistia size moveset and rapping. If he is truly over then cool Taker should give him the Brock HIAC treatment and lose that way. that proved benefictial to both Taker and Brock, and would probably work the same way for Cena. Just unlike Brock, Cena shouldn't get hit with any of the finishers

[Guest teke184]

According to Dave Meltzer, the original plan was for Cena to go over and it was approved by ALL the writers and bookers ahead of time. Taker voiced no objections that anyone has reported. The problem was that Vince McMahon overruled it the night of the show because he wants to keep "his guys" strong, even at the expense of potential new stars.

[Guest Trivia247]

According to Dave Meltzer, the original plan was for Cena to go over and it was approved by ALL the writers and bookers ahead of time. Taker voiced no objections that anyone has reported. The problem was that Vince McMahon overruled it the night of the show because he wants to keep "his guys" strong, even at the expense of potential new stars.

Well there you go...if thats true, its not the Taker bitching and moaning on jobbing, its the derranged one legged wrestler killah McMahon who wanted it.,

[Guest AndrewTS]

According to Dave Meltzer, the original plan was for Cena to go over and it was approved by ALL the writers and bookers ahead of time.  Taker voiced no objections that anyone has reported.  The problem was that Vince McMahon overruled it the night of the show because he wants to keep "his guys" strong, even at the expense of potential new stars.

Well there you go...if thats true, its not the Taker bitching and moaning on jobbing, its the derranged one legged wrestler killah McMahon who wanted it.,

It's been confirmed that Taker vetoed the Unforgiven job to Brock, causing an ending that had the crowd yelling "bullshit" out loud. However, between Vince, Taker, HHH, and rest of the Klique, the only way new stars will be made is a massive string of injuries that forces Vince to make new stars. The problem is business will be hurt even more at first because Vince didn't use his older stars to get the new guys established.

 

However, Cena isn't the next big star in my eyes. His gimmick is midcard fodder although with tweaking it could be main event. He's purely average in the ring although I could see him getting better. He's no Haas or Benjamin, though.

Edited August 3, 2003 by AndrewTS

[Mecha Mummy 0]

According to Dave Meltzer, the original plan was for Cena to go over and it was approved by ALL the writers and bookers ahead of time.  Taker voiced no objections that anyone has reported.  The problem was that Vince McMahon overruled it the night of the show because he wants to keep "his guys" strong, even at the expense of potential new stars.

Well there you go...if thats true, its not the Taker bitching and moaning on jobbing, its the derranged one legged wrestler killah McMahon who wanted it.,

It's been confirmed that Taker vetoed the Unforgiven job to Taker, causing an ending that had the crowd yelling "bullshit" out loud. However, between Vince, Taker, HHH, and rest of the Klique, the only way new stars will be made is a massive string of injuries that forces Vince to make new stars. The problem is business will be hurt even more at first because Vince didn't use his older stars to get the new guys established.

Yep. And what does this have to do with Vince McMahon changing the finish to a totally different match?

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

I don't think Taker should job. Cena is not ready yet and Taker has a rep to uphold. Taker should go over in the end.

Taker has had 11 years of good reputation. It's time to put new stars over.

 

You say Cena's not ready yet. Well yeah, because he needs some good quality wins to build him up to be ready. That starts with Taker.

 

Taker DOES need to job.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Cena should have a won, it was his night. Even if it was Vince's decision, Undertaker has a record of not putting new guys over, but we all know he's Mr. "I'm too good to lose on PPVs". So Cena / Undertaker rematch won't happen at SummerSlam, but as long as Cena wins and he gets elevated again, I'm fine with that.

[Guest The Czech Republic]

Rico, fix that sig, it's too freaking big.

[Guest nWoScorpion]

I got an easy solution. Have Cena face Taker in a 2/3 fals match and win it 2 falls to none. That makes up for the job earlier.

 

But of course, Taker will NEVER job TWICE in one match.

[Guest godofdeadlydeath]

I got an easy solution. Have Cena face Taker in a 2/3 fals match and win it 2 falls to none. That makes up for the job earlier.

 

But of course, Taker will NEVER job TWICE in one match.

That's just a completely unrealistic situation, and it would be beyond boring as a match, too. Unless Undertaker dominated the whole time and "controlled the pace," but then it would still be boring...

 

After Vengeance, I officially declared my hatred for the Undertaker. He buried not only Cena's finisher, but Cena as well, and for no damn good reason.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Don't call Cena out just yet

[Guest nWoScorpion]

Didn't Brock kick out of the F.U?

 

And besides lower midcards and jobbers, what top stars has Cena beaten with it? It's basically a higher eevation fire mans carry. It's not that impressive of a move.

[Guest Vyce]

Taker has had 11 years of good reputation. It's time to put new stars over.

 

That's just all there is to it.

 

Taker is 40. Despite what HE might think, he doesn't have many years left in him. He's had YEARS, which is to say, OVER A DECADE, spent in the main event or the upper-card.

 

It's time he really stepped up and made this "locker-room leader" myth a reality by doing the right thing and starting to put people over.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Didn't Brock kick out of the F.U?

 

Yes, but Undertaker was already hurt and then he got "hit" with steel chain along with the F-U. The loss would have been believable.

 

It's basically a higher eevation fire mans carry. It's not that impressive of a move.

 

Yeah, but he's the only who does that variation of the move.

 

Taker is 40. Despite what HE might think, he doesn't have many years left in him. He's had YEARS, which is to say, OVER A DECADE, spent in the main event or the upper-card.

 

ALL that time and he's only a FOUR time WWE Champion.

[Guest AndrewTS]

According to Dave Meltzer, the original plan was for Cena to go over and it was approved by ALL the writers and bookers ahead of time.  Taker voiced no objections that anyone has reported.  The problem was that Vince McMahon overruled it the night of the show because he wants to keep "his guys" strong, even at the expense of potential new stars.

Well there you go...if thats true, its not the Taker bitching and moaning on jobbing, its the derranged one legged wrestler killah McMahon who wanted it.,

It's been confirmed that Taker vetoed the Unforgiven job to Taker, causing an ending that had the crowd yelling "bullshit" out loud. However, between Vince, Taker, HHH, and rest of the Klique, the only way new stars will be made is a massive string of injuries that forces Vince to make new stars. The problem is business will be hurt even more at first because Vince didn't use his older stars to get the new guys established.

Yep. And what does this have to do with Vince McMahon changing the finish to a totally different match?

You read, but not comprehend.

 

Among all these egos, SOME ONE IS ALWAYS GOING TO FUCK UP A NEW GUY'S PUSH!

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I don't see the issue here.

 

If Cena won, then what? He wouldn't really gain anything because the feud wasn't properly built and it was a throw-away match on the PPV. If Cena lost... he'd be exactly where he was before hand... doing nothing. So if he won he'd be doing nothing, if he lost he'd be doing nothing.

 

OH THE HUMANITY OF IT ALL!

 

Then again, I don't like Cena and can't quite grasp the notion of him being "the future", so maybe my tears aren't so bitter.

[LivingLegendGaryColeman 0]

ALL that time and he's only a FOUR time WWE Champion.

We also you have to keep in mind, although the WWE championship doesn't hot shot around as much as other belts, it still goes around more these days than it ever did when he started. He's had 4 reigns, none extremely long, but still, the belt didn't go around as much. Four reigns is pretty good, but it's over shadowed by giving Rocky, although a deserving champion 7 reigns with the world title since his first in LATE 98. He's had the most.

[Guest AndrewTS]

Taker has been unable to draw well as champion in the past. Therefore his reigns haven't happened very often.

[Guest teke184]

Taker's had at least one six-month reign in there (WM13 to Summerslam 97). That's pretty damn long for a post-Diesel reign. The only people I can think of who've had longer reigns since then were Austin in 2001 and Trips' ego belt run this year.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Taker has been unable to draw well as champion in the past. Therefore his reigns haven't happened very often.

Reign 1 was only a week.

 

Reign 2 was merely unspectacular, but a major improvement from Sid, HBK, and Nash.

 

Reign 3 was part one of the worst storylines in recent memory, so that ahs something to do with it.

 

Reign 4 was solid.

 

 

He draws, just not as big as the biggest guys.