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

[SuperJerk 0]

So far all the people mentioned who would be more "worthy" to break the streak than Batista have been a joke.

[iggymcfly 0]

Look at it from this perspective. By Wrestlemania, Batista will have held the title for an entire year. He's getting quite stale, and someone new needs to be champ. The list of people on Smackdown that are credible enough to be champ is basically as follows:

 

Undertaker

 

That's it. So why not have an epic, hyped match, and then move the belt, so that they're at least doing something different with the show. They could even have Batista turn heel on Taker after losing the face/face match, and then extend the program for a few months if they wanted to. At the very least, it would be more interesting than Batista/JBL and Undertaker/Orton part XLVIII.

 

Basically, from a booking perspective, they decided who was going to man event WM in the HIAC match at Armageddon. If they were going with Orton, he needed the win for credibility, and if they tried to use him now, they'd basically be telling their audience that they won't get to see the top guys face each other on the "biggest show of the year". Unless they somehow work a deal to get Lesnar in real fast, (which doesn't seem to be happening), I don't see any Smackdown ME they could run for Mania other than Taker/Batista.

Edited December 25, 2005 by iggymcfly

[Guest Coffey]

I really don't think Batista is getting that stale. He still seems to be quite over. He's certainly not got the negative reactions that Cena has received on Raw lately.

 

Putting the title on The Undertaker is about as bad a thing as WWE could do.

[iggymcfly 0]

Cena's the kind of champion where you should pull the plug on his reign even if he'd just won the belt a month ago.

 

Batista's still somewhat over and I certainly wouldn't call his reign a failure, but he's not enough of a success to warrant over a year as champion. Who's the last WWF/E Champion to hold the title for over a year? I don't even know.

[Hawk 34 0]

Cena's the kind of champion where you should pull the plug on his reign even if he'd just won the belt a month ago.

 

Batista's still somewhat over and I certainly wouldn't call his reign a failure, but he's not enough of a success to warrant over a year as champion. Who's the last WWF/E Champion to hold the title for over a year? I don't even know.

 

 

Nash was a few days short of a year but the last to go a full year was, Savage.

[Slickster 0]

And Batista would be the first (WCW) World Heavyweight Champion to hold the belt for over a year since Hulk Hogan (July 17, 1994 - October 29, 1995).

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

Putting the title on The Undertaker is about as bad a thing as WWE could do.

 

How so? Taker is easily as over as Batista, if not more.

 

I say give the Taker his last run as champion before he retires, and let someone next year like Lashley or Ken Kennedy, or any up and comer end his streak.

[Placebo Effect 0]

Putting the title on The Undertaker is about as bad a thing as WWE could do.

 

How so? Taker is easily as over as Batista, if not more.

 

I say give the Taker his last run as champion before he retires, and let someone next year like Lashley or Ken Kennedy, or any up and comer end his streak.

 

Neither Lashley nor Kennedy will be established enough by Wrestlemania to justify them breaking the streak.

 

Lashley hasn't worked a program with even a midcarder, and unless I missed something (and it's possible), Kennedy won't be healed until shortly before Wrestlemania.

[Hawk 34 0]

Putting the title on The Undertaker is about as bad a thing as WWE could do.

 

How so? Taker is easily as over as Batista, if not more.

 

I say give the Taker his last run as champion before he retires, and let someone next year like Lashley or Ken Kennedy, or any up and comer end his streak.

 

Neither Lashley nor Kennedy will be established enough by Wrestlemania to justify them breaking the streak.

 

Lashley hasn't worked a program with even a midcarder, and unless I missed something (and it's possible), Kennedy won't be healed until shortly before Wrestlemania.

 

He's saying put the title on Lashley or Kennedy, by WM23. At least, I would hope because otherwise it would be a monumentially stupid idea on all counts to even give Taker another title run and put Lashley in the drivers seat.

[UZI Suicide 0]

Someone else made a good point earlier in the thread.. how young does the guy have to be to beat the Undertaker and make you all happy? Batista could certainly be a headliner for the next 5 or 6 years.

 

Yes he is 40, but it's not like he has years and years of punishment on his body, he hasn't been wrestling for very long if I recall. Plus, with his style, he doesn't put himself at as much of a risk for injury as other guys do (and yes I realize he just recently got injured, but everyone gets injured at some point or another)

 

And, he really doesn't even need to win at WM, because as I said earlier I'm of the thinking that 'Takers streak is never going to end. So 'Taker wins at WM, continue the feud to SS where Batista wins the belt back.

[Angle-plex 0]

All I know is that my favorite Wrestlemania main events have been the unpredicatable ones (Rock/Hogan, Rock/Austin @ WMX7, Benoit/HBK/Hunter @ WM20 (kind of)) as opposed to the obvious, go home happen winners (Batista @ WM21, Austin @ WM14). I would have a better time watching and be more hyped for Taker/Batista than something like Batista/JBL. Of course, Batista vs Cena Champion vs Champion, while it would be a horrible match, would be the ideal main event for this year since both have been champ for a year and it would end the brand split, which needs to be done and seems to have ended anyways.

Edited December 26, 2005 by Angle-plex

[naiwf 0]

Someone else made a good point earlier in the thread.. how young does the guy have to be to beat the Undertaker and make you all happy? Batista could certainly be a headliner for the next 5 or 6 years.

 

Yes he is 40, but it's not like he has years and years of punishment on his body, he hasn't been wrestling for very long if I recall. Plus, with his style, he doesn't put himself at as much of a risk for injury as other guys do (and yes I realize he just recently got injured, but everyone gets injured at some point or another)

 

And, he really doesn't even need to win at WM, because as I said earlier I'm of the thinking that 'Takers streak is never going to end. So 'Taker wins at WM, continue the feud to SS where Batista wins the belt back.

 

When you consider that Batista's already torn three major muscles in less than three years, I'd say the likelihood is that he won't be around headlining shows in 5 years, unless he works The Undertaker 2 weeks on/10 weeks off type schedule.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Who cares that Batista is 40? He doesn't look it, and everyone was cool with his whole gimmick before they got anal and started the "40 year old guy!" bullshit. He pops a crowd, bangs hot managers, and still has the same "Pimp Suits".

 

And the fact we're speculating about the main event a few months before is why they should do Taker/Batista. There's nothing else to do. It's Mania. It's supposed to be special.

 

If you think about, Batista going over the UNBEATABLE Undertaker would be much like Hulk going over the UNBEATABLE Andre. While the sequel is never as good, or as hyped, it still would mark quite a "WrestleMania Moment" that would never die. No one gives Batista a chance, even the smarks, and in the end he wins, and finally proves himself to be a major figure and capable of carrying the company.

[iggymcfly 0]

Just tell me this. Where do you go with Smackdown next spring if Batista retains against Taker. I mean honestly, there's no one that could be a legitimate challenger. Do you really want Taker's job boy (Orton) to take over as Batista's spring feud after Taker couldn't even beat Batista himself? Do you really want to hotshot Lashley into the main event less than eight months after his debut?

 

The thing I like about Taker beating Batista is that there's reason to continue the feud afterward and it gives you a chance to build up the midcarders a little bit before they have to headline a PPV. I guess they could always bring over someone from Raw, but they're already moving Kane, and I don't really see who else there is on the heel side that would be a good challenger for Batista.

 

On the other hand, I am kind of sick of the idea that the belt has to switch hands at WrestleMania every year. In theory, it's probably a more intriguing idea to let Batista just keep the title and see where they go from there, but I just don't know how they'd work it logisitically.

[Hoff 0]

Cena's the kind of champion where you should pull the plug on his reign even if he'd just won the belt a month ago.

 

Batista's still somewhat over and I certainly wouldn't call his reign a failure, but he's not enough of a success to warrant over a year as champion. Who's the last WWF/E Champion to hold the title for over a year? I don't even know.

 

 

Nash was a few days short of a year. The last to go a full year was Savage.

 

grammar'd

 

And Batista would be the first (WCW) World Heavyweight Champion to hold the belt for over a year since Hulk Hogan (July 17, 1994 - October 29, 1995).

 

The belt that was handed to Triple H does not have the same lineage as the WCW title, no matter what the WWE would like you to think.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

I'm all for a proper Batista / Kane match finally especially when it means Kane main eventing PPVs again with the world title on the line.

 

And Batista would be the first (WCW) World Heavyweight Champion to hold the belt for over a year since Hulk Hogan (July 17, 1994 - October 29, 1995).

 

The belt that was handed to Triple H does not have the same lineage as the WCW title, no matter what the WWE would like you to think.

 

*Sigh*

 

Here we go again...

 

If the WWE is going to use the same lineage with the US title which has a different design, the lineage of the World Heavyweight Title is the same plus it has the SAME design.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

And Batista would be the first (WCW) World Heavyweight Champion to hold the belt for over a year since Hulk Hogan (July 17, 1994 - October 29, 1995).

 

The belt that was handed to Triple H does not have the same lineage as the WCW title, no matter what the WWE would like you to think.

 

*Sigh*

 

Here we go again...

 

If the WWE is going to use the same lineage with the US title which has a different design, the lineage of the World Heavyweight Title is the same plus it has the SAME design.

 

Not according to WWE.com's title history section.

 

http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldheavyweight/

 

See?

[The Niggardly King 0]

Actually this does have good potential but they need to be building up a few new heels for Batista after Mania if they do go with him and Taker.

 

Batista has 3... maybe even 4 more years left in him. Most of you are speaking as if he's going to retire by summer.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Batista has 3... maybe even 4 more years left in him. Most of you are speaking as if he's going to retire by summer.

It's hard to be sure when the guy can tear muscles at any moment.

 

As far as ending Undertaker's streak, if he physically still able to go, I think the biggest way to end it would be for him to drop the WWE Title to someone at Wrestlemania XXIII. That way, you'll be getting the biggest possible bang out of it.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Undertaker wants the best Wrestlemania match in his career before he retires, he's not going to get that out of Batista. Either Kurt Angle or Chris Benoit are only going to be able to do that. I really don't think Batista / Undertaker is happening, but it would be nice.

 

Not according to WWE.com's title history section.

 

http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldheavyweight/

 

See?

 

WWE never knows what the hell they're talking about, World Heavyweight Title = WCW Championship in my eyes and I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. If anything, the only reason why they haven't put it up (yet) is because of WCW's carelessness with the handling of their own world title especially in the 2000 clusterfuckfest.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

The WCW Title lineage belongs to the WWE Title.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

WWE has integrated the WCW title's lineage into the WWE title. When I went to WMXIX, I bought their 2003 Preview book that had a big flowchart-style page showing the original WWE belts as well as the WCW belts that came with the purchase and arrows pointing to where they go. The WHC belt was shown as starting when Eric pulled it out of the briefcase, and the WCW title has an arrow pointing towards the current WWE title.

 

They've kept it organized this way very consistantly, especially compared to their sudden memory loss on other historical issues.

[SuperJerk 0]

Look at it from this perspective. By Wrestlemania, Batista will have held the title for an entire year. He's getting quite stale, and someone new needs to be champ. The list of people on Smackdown that are credible enough to be champ is basically as follows:

 

Undertaker

The Undertaker has been stale since 1996.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

The WCW Title lineage belongs to the WWE Title.

 

WWE has integrated the WCW title's lineage into the WWE title. When I went to WMXIX, I bought their 2003 Preview book that had a big flowchart-style page showing the original WWE belts as well as the WCW belts that came with the purchase and arrows pointing to where they go. The WHC belt was shown as starting when Eric pulled it out of the briefcase, and the WCW title has an arrow pointing towards the current WWE title.

 

By that logic, then that would also mean the lineage of the Intercontinental and US titles would be in the World Heavyweight Title.

[Guest Heat Machine]

I think Batista-Taker would be best cause there's no one else on Smackdown

[Slickster 0]

If you look elsewhere on WWE.com, some 24/7 Online writeups call the belt 'the restored WCW Championship,' so that throws the 'WWE.com is the authority' theory right out the window.

 

The WWE doesn't even keep their own story straight on the title's lineage, having supported both the 'WCW Title' and 'new world title' theories about equally.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

According to Bryan Alvarez, there is no plan for Kane to be in the main event.

[The C Man 0]

If THE STREAK~! is staying intact I'd rather Taker retired before Mania to keep it at 13-0. 13 fits the Taker character better than 14. It's no big deal really, but I'm fussy with little details.

[nl5xsk1 0]

I don't know what idea I disagree with less:

 

giving Taker the title at WM or letting him wrestle another full year and have him wrestle at all at the WM after this one.

[sluggo 0]

WWE has integrated the WCW title's lineage into the WWE title. When I went to WMXIX, I bought their 2003 Preview book that had a big flowchart-style page showing the original WWE belts as well as the WCW belts that came with the purchase and arrows pointing to where they go. The WHC belt was shown as starting when Eric pulled it out of the briefcase, and the WCW title has an arrow pointing towards the current WWE title.

 

They've kept it organized this way very consistantly, especially compared to their sudden memory loss on other historical issues.

 

 

Whaaaaaaaa????????

 

Wouldn't that mean it would be 2 different champions at the same time when WCW and WWF existed?