Smackdown's No Way Out PPV *Main Event* Revealed

[Guest tony manero]

"The main event of No Way Out, the Smackdown-brand PPV scheduled to air Feb. 19, will feature Batista vs. Kane for the World Hvt. Title according to an inDemand ad running right now."

[Guest J0bber]

Sounds interesting enough to say the least.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Guess the Batista/Taker thing is coming closer to fruition.

[AntiLeaf33 0]

Well, I guess that means that Kane will be clearing house in the Eliminaton Chamber at NYR

[Just John 0]

Eh, not too exciting, but whatever, it's a single brand show.

 

I wonder if they'll do their "trade punches, Kane staggers Batista with an uppercut, then runs into a spinebuster" spot that they did in every battle royal in 03.

[AntiLeaf33 0]

They probably will......and why the hell did you remember a spot like that?

[haws bah gawd 0]

I used to always mark out for the Kane/Batista staredowns, not to mention it always popped the crowdwhen they would get nose to nose. I guess this means Kane and Show will be beaten for the tag titles by some miracle team, and Kane will be shipped to Smackdown. I know I cant be the onlyone who wants to see Undertaker vs Batista for the World Championship. A champion with a year long reign vs the man undefeated at Wrestlemania = MONEY!!!!!!

[ChrisMWaters 0]

A champion with a year long reign vs the man undefeated at Wrestlemania = MONEY!!!!!!

 

Technically, Batista is undefeated at WrestleMania also.

 

XX: Teaming with Randy Orton and "Nature Boy" Ric Flair, defeats The Rock 'n' Sock Connection.

21: Defeats Triple H for the World Heavyweight Championship.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Yes, having a 40 year old man with little upside ending the Taker's streak at Mania, the last biggest rub possible OR Taker leaving with the belt to start a shitty run IS money...

[iliketurtles 0]

Is the brand extension dead?

[Hawk 34 0]

Doing Batista/Taker is pointless because there is nothing to gain, no matter what direction they go with. Undertaker beating Batista for the title just to prolong the streak hurts Batista and hurts the promotion as well.

 

Batista getting the "honor" of ending the streak does nothing for him because he can't go anywhere with it.

 

While it's a much better option then Orton/Batista, there's nothing to gain from it.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Doing Batista/Taker is pointless because there is nothing to gain, no matter what direction they go with. Undertaker beating Batista for the title just to prolong the streak hurts Batista and hurts the promotion as well.

 

Batista getting the "honor" of ending the streak does nothing for him because he can't go anywhere with it.

 

While it's a much better option then Orton/Batista, there's nothing to gain from it.

 

Someone gets it. Smart man.

[snuffbox 0]

The buyrate of a well-hyped Taker-Tista match might be something to gain...

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

It's Mania. They would get a high buyrate regardless. If they were going to do Batista/Taker at Mania, they have to have Taker win, and I don't know who wants to see that. Well besides the marks and Taker fans...

Edited December 24, 2005 by Porter

[Hawk 34 0]

The smart thing to do is, do Rey/Batista because it would be a completely fresh match and something different and the crowd would be into that, it's not like it'll headline Mania anyways.

 

In WWE's eyes, why waste a draw like Taker/Batista when you can save it for the next SD ppv (Judgment Day) and use Rey-Batista instead.

 

Undertaker needs to wrestle Benoit or Angle. Quite frankly, those should be the only options.

[iliketurtles 0]

They should of gone with Batista/Taker at Summerslam instead of Batista/JBL 2 or whatever the fuck that shit was.

 

But of course I was assuming Lesnar was going to be back by then and it was going to be Batista/Lesnar at Mania, which is the way it should of gone. Cause that's the money match for Batista.

Edited December 24, 2005 by HartFan86

[slimm44 0]

Why are people talking about Undertaker v Batista when it says Kane v Batista?

[snuffbox 0]

Why are people talking about Undertaker v Batista when it says Kane v Batista?

 

Batista beats the guy that has always had (brother, whatever) Kane's number, and has coincidentally never lost a Wrestlemania match, leads to speculation...

[SuperJerk 0]

The buyrate of a well-hyped Taker-Tista match might be something to gain...

Not to mention that people would actually WANT to see the match, which is more than you can say for any other match-up on Smackdown.

 

I don't get this whole "there's nothing to gain" mentality. The gain is that you give the fans a match-up they've never seen before and get yourself a bigger buy rate.

 

It's Mania. They would get a high buyrate regardless. If they were going to do Batista/Taker at Mania, they have to have Taker win, and I don't know who wants to see that. Well besides the marks and Taker fans...

 

You're reasoning makes no sense. First of all, you can always get a bigger buy rate. Its not like there's a cap on how much money you're allowed to make off of one PPV. Second, there's no reason Batista has to loose since he's actually the younger star of the two.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

To give away the biggest rub ever possible to a 40 year old man that is ALREADY the champion is the stupidest thing they could ever do, besides have Taker job to Vinny Mac or Triple H.

[snuffbox 0]

Beating Taker at Wrestlemania would be a big rub...not the 'biggest ever'.

 

Its a good thing they didn't waste that whole 'pinning Andre the Giant' rub on someone who was already over/champion/not in his 20s...

[Aero 0]

In WWE's eyes, why waste a draw like Taker/Batista when you can save it for the next SD ppv (Judgment Day) and use Rey-Batista instead.

 

I agree that it should be Batista-Rey at WM, but unless Rey's winning the title, there's no reason to do it on a PPV, let alone WM. So, saving Batista-Taker for Judgment Day wouldn't work, unless you're making it non-title, which would be very lame.

 

I'm all for Batista-Taker, and I think it should be done at either the Rumble or No Way Out. While I think Porter's wrong about the possibility of getting a better buyrate for a Batista-Taker WM match, he's right about 40-year old champion Batista gaining nothing by ending Taker's streak.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Yes, because Andre was pinned before. Oh you fell for that story they fed you... how sweet.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I'm all for Batista-Taker, and I think it should be done at either the Rumble or No Way Out. While I think Porter's wrong about the possibility of getting a better buyrate for a Batista-Taker WM match, he's right about 40-year old champion Batista gaining nothing by ending Taker's streak.

 

Ahem you might want to read my post again. I said they would get a good buyrate regardless of if they do the match.

[snuffbox 0]

Yes, because Andre was pinned before. Oh you fell for that story they fed you... how sweet.

 

Wow

 

Did you know there was no internet in 1987?

[The Amazing Rando 0]

So.... I know he's on Raw and everything...but when the fuck is Edge going to use his title shot? The Rumble? Some useless Raw before Mania? WHEN? It's becoming a bigger joke than the muppet he carries with him.

[Aero 0]

 

 

I'm all for Batista-Taker, and I think it should be done at either the Rumble or No Way Out. While I think Porter's wrong about the possibility of getting a better buyrate for a Batista-Taker WM match, he's right about 40-year old champion Batista gaining nothing by ending Taker's streak.

 

Ahem you might want to read my post again. I said they would get a good buyrate regardless of if they do the match.

 

Ahem. The way you put it, it sounds like the good buyrate will be because of the usual people who order just because it's WM.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Andre has never lost in WWF by pinfall prior to that point, perhaps, but he has lost by pinfall in his career prior to that point. So Hogan beating him was a big rub, but its not like Hogan was the first man EVER to beat Andre. Whoever beats Taker at Mania... would be the first person to hand Taker a loss at Mania.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

 

 

I'm all for Batista-Taker, and I think it should be done at either the Rumble or No Way Out. While I think Porter's wrong about the possibility of getting a better buyrate for a Batista-Taker WM match, he's right about 40-year old champion Batista gaining nothing by ending Taker's streak.

 

Ahem you might want to read my post again. I said they would get a good buyrate regardless of if they do the match.

 

Ahem. The way you put it, it sounds like the good buyrate will be because of the usual people who order just because it's WM.

 

Ah I misunderstood your point then. And yes that's what I'm saying.

[bob_barron 0]

Yes, because Andre was pinned before. Oh you fell for that story they fed you... how sweet.

 

 

But I'm sure 99.9% of the fans thought Andre had never been pinned before.

 

So using that as an argument makes no sense.