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

[UZI Suicide 0]

1. ) Does this mean Batista was never really injured?

 

2.) Does this mean the Batista-Orton feud that's been talked about for the last year is not happening?

 

3.) Does this mean the brand extension is over?

 

4.) Why does everyone assume 'Taker is ever going to lose at Wrestlemania? It seems very possible to me that he would just leave with a win at whatever his final Wrestlemania is and retire undefeated.

[bob_barron 0]

Batista's injured, he's just rehabbing it instead of getting surgery

[USC Wuz Robbed! 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.

 

You're right. My apologies.

[The Tino Standard 0]

Jeez, the way you guys talk about "how stupid it would be to have Taker job to a 40-year-old at WM and lose his streak that way" leaves me scratching my head.

 

Ric Flair is 56. FIFTY-SIX. Do I think Batista is going to last that long? No, of course not. But I certainly think he has another 5 or 6 years in the tank, 3 or 4 of which could be in the main event. And if you've got a guy who can make you money in the main event for 3 or 4 years and he'd get a nice bump up in credibility by ending the Undertaker's WM streak (which is one of the most overblown sagas ever, by the way), then by all means, go for it.

 

Seriously, what's the big deal with that streak anyway? How many of those matches was he ever actually in danger of losing?

 

I WANT to see Taker-Batista at WM. Why? Because for once in a really long time, both guys really have something to lose. I'm tired of matches being restricted by "smart" booking, protecting guys all the time. Both guys really have something to lose there. That's a match I'd actually give a shit about.

[sluggo 0]

I still don't get why Raw is still fueding with SD. Survivor Series is over. Save it for next year. Kane going to SD would be fresh since he was never on their roster. Who's going to Raw if this is a trade? Rey perhaps?

 

and about the match itself, I saw some OVW tapes that had a younger Batista vs. Kane. It was a really good big man match.

Edited December 24, 2005 by sluggo

[Guest Y2DAYDAY]

It may just be Show vs Batista at Rumble, Kane vs Batista at NWO and Batista vs Orton at Mania, and really have nothing to do with Taker.

[Caliban 0]

Mania doesn't automatically get an amazing buyrate because it's Mania, Porter. WM XIX drew a shitty 550,000 buys.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

I still don't get why Raw is still fueding with SD. Survivor Series is over. Save it for next year. Kane going to SD would be fresh since he was never on their roster. Who's going to Raw if this is a trade? Rey perhaps?

 

and about the match itself, I saw some OVW tapes that had a younger Batista vs. Kane. It was a really good big man match.

 

Actually they should have Smackdown vs. Raw as a storyline running year round. It would be retarded if they came out the day after SurSer and said "Well, you got us THIS YEAR, Smackdown, but we'll be back!" and then go back to just dealing with each other. It *needs* to be year-round to have it be worthwhile. Maybe not so much the way they are doing it, but it could be worse.

[Guest Coffey]

The outcome of The Undertaker Vs. Batista would, most likely, entice a lot of people. However I don't think the context of the match would. Oh man, that'd be super sloppy, like Double Dare.

 

It'd most likely have some cool entrances, some good video packages, a hot crowd and the like but the actual match wouldn't be very good. It'd be like Hogan/Andre. The match quality would probably be better than Hogan/Andre but it'd even out because Hogan/Andre was such a huge deal.

[Enigma 0]

Let's all go back and watch their wonderful match at Armageddon 2002 to get hyped up about it.

[Dewe 0]

Who gives a fuck about Kane... in 2006?!

[SuperJerk 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.

 

The ultimate goal in pro-wrestling is to make money. The best way to do that is to make fans pay for matches they want to see.

 

But, for the sake of argument, let's look at it from a "rub" perspective, then. Batista beats Undertaker at Wrestlemania. People WANT to tune in because you have the undefeated champion versus someone who is undefeated at WM. That's a big deal that should squeeze a few thousand more buys. Batista ends Taker's streak, and becomes known as "the guy who beat Taker at Mania". He becomes a bigger star than he was before, possibly causing a boost in stuff like house show attendance and TV ratings. THEN, another guy comes along to challenge Batista. Batista, because he's a huge star, gives a rub to the new guy. Batista eventually retires, but the new guy has a main event run, and eventually gives another new guy a rub. The cycle continues.

 

When you put a guy over, you're not just making him a star, but you're giving him a tool to make other guys stars years down the road. That's why it doesn't make any sense for Taker not to put guys over, because he's limiting guys he refusing to job to the capacity to help make other guys years down the road.

[naiwf 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.

 

The ultimate goal in pro-wrestling is to make money. The best way to do that is to make fans pay for matches they want to see.

 

But, for the sake of argument, let's look at it from a "rub" perspective, then. Batista beats Undertaker at Wrestlemania. People WANT to tune in because you have the undefeated champion versus someone who is undefeated at WM. That's a big deal that should squeeze a few thousand more buys. Batista ends Taker's streak, and becomes known as "the guy who beat Taker at Mania". He becomes a bigger star than he was before, possibly causing a boost in stuff like house show attendance and TV ratings. THEN, another guy comes along to challenge Batista. Batista, because he's a huge star, gives a rub to the new guy. Batista eventually retires, but the new guy has a main event run, and eventually gives another new guy a rub. The cycle continues.

 

When you put a guy over, you're not just making him a star, but you're giving him a tool to make other guys stars years down the road. That's why it doesn't make any sense for Taker not to put guys over, because he's limiting guys he refusing to job to the capacity to help make other guys years down the road.

 

But this is the obvious point you're missing, in this fantasy world where Taker chooses to job at WM, someone ELSE could take Taker's streak, and Batista could also lose the title, thus creating two new stars (while keeping two old ones) instead of having one match that doesn't truly benefit either man win, lose or draw. I hate Orton, but if he beat Batista convincingly at WM, and someone like Lashley or some other person they want to make an instant star beat Undertaker on the same show then you've doubled your number of reasons to have people watch SD the following week. I also don't think too many people who wouldn't have purchased WM anyway would do so simply because Batista was fighting Undertaker so the idea that making fans pay to see this match which would still be no higher than 2nd or 3rd from the top is kind of silly.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

Personally, I'd rather Rey be the one that ends the Taker streak if anyone.

 

Maybe THAT would end the "not credibility" quotes to Rey's Main Event status.

[SuperJerk 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.

 

The ultimate goal in pro-wrestling is to make money. The best way to do that is to make fans pay for matches they want to see.

 

But, for the sake of argument, let's look at it from a "rub" perspective, then. Batista beats Undertaker at Wrestlemania. People WANT to tune in because you have the undefeated champion versus someone who is undefeated at WM. That's a big deal that should squeeze a few thousand more buys. Batista ends Taker's streak, and becomes known as "the guy who beat Taker at Mania". He becomes a bigger star than he was before, possibly causing a boost in stuff like house show attendance and TV ratings. THEN, another guy comes along to challenge Batista. Batista, because he's a huge star, gives a rub to the new guy. Batista eventually retires, but the new guy has a main event run, and eventually gives another new guy a rub. The cycle continues.

 

When you put a guy over, you're not just making him a star, but you're giving him a tool to make other guys stars years down the road. That's why it doesn't make any sense for Taker not to put guys over, because he's limiting guys he refusing to job to the capacity to help make other guys years down the road.

 

But this is the obvious point you're missing, in this fantasy world where Taker chooses to job at WM, someone ELSE could take Taker's streak, and Batista could also lose the title, thus creating two new stars (while keeping two old ones) instead of having one match that doesn't truly benefit either man win, lose or draw. I hate Orton, but if he beat Batista convincingly at WM, and someone like Lashley or some other person they want to make an instant star beat Undertaker on the same show then you've doubled your number of reasons to have people watch SD the following week. I also don't think too many people who wouldn't have purchased WM anyway would do so simply because Batista was fighting Undertaker so the idea that making fans pay to see this match which would still be no higher than 2nd or 3rd from the top is kind of silly.

 

The obvious thing YOU are forgetting is that you can't name two credible people who could believably beat either guy.

 

Ultimately what've I've been finding is that NO MATTER WHO ends Undertakers streak, someone will argue that person wasn't good enough for whatever reason. I don't see the down side of letting that person be the champion, given that the champion is usually the person who carries the company.

 

Smackdown is, essentially, "the Dave Batista Show". If Batista's popularity goes up, it helps Smackdown.

[Enigma 0]

Sorry, but if Rey Mysterio were the one to end Undertaker's WM undefeated streak, I'd probably never watch wrestling again.

[Guest Coffey]

Especially since when Mysterio won, they'd play it up as a fluke and the record would mean dick-all. 'Taker would give Mysterio the Snuh? face.

[cabbageboy 0]

As I said in the Armageddon thread, Batista/UT has a lot more appeal to it than Batista/Randy in the "Randy gets the job back to have a heatless title run" match. Orton, after his loss in HIAC, has no real credibility to main event WM. He just doesn't. If they try it, it's doomed to miserable failure.

 

UT/Batista however? All sorts of intrigue there. Batista is due to lose the title. UT is due for a loss at WM. Can UT get that one last title run? That's a match personally that I wanted to see back at SS instead of the neverending crap with Bradshaw vs. Batista.

 

I think UT wins the match though. You can have Batista regain or go back to the Orton/UT program after WM, whereas if Batista beats UT he's left as champ with no serious challengers on the horizon.

[snuffbox 0]

If Batista were to beat Undertaker at WM it would not only pop a big buyrate there but also lead to a huge buyrate for a well-built Summerslam rematch.

 

And, as Jerk said, allows Batista to become a bigger star who can put another guy over huge in a year or two.

 

Imo, if wwe does Taker-Tista at Mania they won't need Hogan, Austin, Foley, or Rock to make an appearance at all and still get a big buyrate.

[Caliban 0]

Batista - Undi now. I have been convinced. They haven't been anywhere near each other on-screen in years. The match SCREAMS Wrestlemania. I don't think Undi will be able to hang at main event status come 2007...

[naiwf 0]

Notice I said in this fantasy land where Taker agrees to job at WrestleMania because I don't see that happening regardless of who he were to face this year, next year or the one after. I have no interest in seeing him as champ yet again, nor do I think Batista should get the benefit of ending his streak. To me, the best suitable opponent for both would be Edge (MITB contract/undefeated streak of his own) who they could make a top player if he were to beat either guy, though that doesn't seem likely either. They've shitted all over the brand split already so you might as well just keep it up. Undertaker needs to lose at WM before he retires but the way he's squashed everyone who has had the chance just makes it seem like he'll be a true master politician and walk out of the WWE with his streak in tact even when he shouldn't.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Batista against Undertaker at Wrestlemania is an idea with a lot of short-term gain but with just as much long-term liability. In the short-term, you’d have the monster champion who has had the title for a year against the legend who has never lost at Wrestlemania. With around three months of build, assuming it gets set in motion with Undertaker winning the Rumble, then you would have a match that, on it’s own as intrigue, but would then get the boost from slowly building hype that would really kick in gear the month or so before Wrestlemania. In the long-term, you’d have one of two things. You could have Undertaker’s winning streak ended by a near 40-year old man who is working injured as we speak and could really do a number on his body because of that, has a history of muscle tears that could flare up at any moment, especially with his current mentality, and is absolutely not the guy who WWE can build a brand around in the long-term, because he is so old, injury prone and is not doing his body any favors by working when he should be resting up. On the other side, you’d have your monster babyface champion get beaten by a 43-year old who is broken down, doesn’t work a full schedule, hates to sell, hates to job, and has damaged more hot wrestlers than he’s helped. Neither of those prospects is a good one when you’re looking at things long-term. Sure, you’d probably get a heated WM match that would add some buys, though maybe not a whole lot, but looking at business long-term, it’s not worth it, because you’ll either end up with Undertaker’s legendary winning streak ended by someone who they can’t use as a long-term headliner, which is really what you want out of the ending of the streak, or you’ll have the monster babyface get beaten by guy who, realistically, shouldn’t be beating guys who have been pushed for over a year as a bad ass monster

[Angle-plex 0]

How young does the guy have to be to beat Taker to be considered a future "Long term headliner"? Even if a twenty two year old guys beat Taker, that guy would only have five or six years max to be a headliner in today's enviorment. They could probably get another four years out of Batista.

 

*Is not for Taker's streak to end regardless

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Batista against Undertaker at Wrestlemania is an idea with a lot of short-term gain but with just as much long-term liability. In the short-term, you’d have the monster champion who has had the title for a year against the legend who has never lost at Wrestlemania. With around three months of build, assuming it gets set in motion with Undertaker winning the Rumble, then you would have a match that, on it’s own as intrigue, but would then get the boost from slowly building hype that would really kick in gear the month or so before Wrestlemania. In the long-term, you’d have one of two things. You could have Undertaker’s winning streak ended by a near 40-year old man who is working injured as we speak and could really do a number on his body because of that, has a history of muscle tears that could flare up at any moment, especially with his current mentality, and is absolutely not the guy who WWE can build a brand around in the long-term, because he is so old, injury prone and is not doing his body any favors by working when he should be resting up. On the other side, you’d have your monster babyface champion get beaten by a 43-year old who is broken down, doesn’t work a full schedule, hates to sell, hates to job, and has damaged more hot wrestlers than he’s helped. Neither of those prospects is a good one when you’re looking at things long-term. Sure, you’d probably get a heated WM match that would add some buys, though maybe not a whole lot, but looking at business long-term, it’s not worth it, because you’ll either end up with Undertaker’s legendary winning streak ended by someone who they can’t use as a long-term headliner, which is really what you want out of the ending of the streak, or you’ll have the monster babyface get beaten by guy who, realistically, shouldn’t be beating guys who have been pushed for over a year as a bad ass monster

 

But you are forgetting one thing. WWE is pretty much useless for carrying things out in the long term, so about the best we can hope for is the big dream match.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Batista against Undertaker at Wrestlemania is an idea with a lot of short-term gain but with just as much long-term liability. In the short-term, you’d have the monster champion who has had the title for a year against the legend who has never lost at Wrestlemania. With around three months of build, assuming it gets set in motion with Undertaker winning the Rumble, then you would have a match that, on it’s own as intrigue, but would then get the boost from slowly building hype that would really kick in gear the month or so before Wrestlemania. In the long-term, you’d have one of two things. You could have Undertaker’s winning streak ended by a near 40-year old man who is working injured as we speak and could really do a number on his body because of that, has a history of muscle tears that could flare up at any moment, especially with his current mentality, and is absolutely not the guy who WWE can build a brand around in the long-term, because he is so old, injury prone and is not doing his body any favors by working when he should be resting up. On the other side, you’d have your monster babyface champion get beaten by a 43-year old who is broken down, doesn’t work a full schedule, hates to sell, hates to job, and has damaged more hot wrestlers than he’s helped. Neither of those prospects is a good one when you’re looking at things long-term. Sure, you’d probably get a heated WM match that would add some buys, though maybe not a whole lot, but looking at business long-term, it’s not worth it, because you’ll either end up with Undertaker’s legendary winning streak ended by someone who they can’t use as a long-term headliner, which is really what you want out of the ending of the streak, or you’ll have the monster babyface get beaten by guy who, realistically, shouldn’t be beating guys who have been pushed for over a year as a bad ass monster

 

But you are forgetting one thing. WWE is pretty much useless for carrying things out in the long term, so about the best we can hope for is the big dream match.

 

I know WWE are hopeless when it comes to long term planning. So, if this match happens, I fully expect Undertaker to beat Batsita, expose him in the process, and kill off what remains of Batista's tough guy aura.

[naiwf 0]

How young does the guy have to be to beat Taker to be considered a future "Long term headliner"? Even if a twenty two year old guys beat Taker, that guy would only have five or six years max to be a headliner in today's enviorment. They could probably get another four years out of Batista.

 

*Is not for Taker's streak to end regardless

 

I can't for the life of me understand why people like undefeated streaks in a worked situation, considering that there's nothing legitimate about the streak when it's decided with a pen and paper. To answer the question, it would be nice to at least assume reasonably that the guy in question would still be there for at least a couple of years, which isn't a given with someone like Batista given his health woes. It's not so much a question of age as it is potential benefit in my view. Guys like HHH, Angle, HBK & Batista would gain absolutely nothing from beating Taker at WM. Orton & Kane were both beaten in such a way in the past that it would be stupid to waste the streak on a rematch, which basically leaves a midcarder who is about to get the Jesus push or someone like Cena if he finally turned heel in the process of taking the streak. Popularity wise he probably wouldn't benefit that much, but he would certainly benefit in a storyline way if he turned heel and bragged about how he ended Undertaker's run considering their history. The problem they have now is that they've made this such a big deal that only someone who would gain little from ending the streak is viewed as "credible", when they need to realize that ending the streak would give an unproven person the credibility they need, unless of course you're talking about Rey Mysterio who would be the worst possible person to do it since no one outside of Rey's family would buy that one.

[Sass 0]

Batista beating the Undertaker, who won the RR, would be a nice send off.

[Guest Leelee]

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

 

Exactly. And with having HHH job to you 3 straight times... there's not much more WWE can do to give Batista the rub. Nevermind Batista being the wrong guy for it... a nearly 40-year old man, who's only real positive is his massive body, which is going to lose meaning with the steroid situation.

[SuperJerk 0]

You know, this main event will be worth it just to hear Teddy long say, "Batista, at No Way Out, you'll be facing...KANE!"

[cabbageboy 0]

Which is why he wouldn't end the streak. UT can get his one last title run, keep his streak intact, and then Batista can regain in a rematch or wherever you wanna go with it.

 

As far as Edge goes, ha! Edge's heat is so far gone at this point it's not even funny. No one would remotely give him a shot at winning the title now. They might as well have him cash in the MITB at the Rumble or on a Raw before WM and quietly job him out. Either that or if he's hurt strip him of the MITB and put it up for grabs at WM again.