wrestling / Columns
The Friday Supplement: 2.10.12: Triple H versus The Undertaker – Discussion Point Discussion
Due to the extra-large Wednesday Wire this week I have decided to throw this to Friday, which was actually the original idea for my discusion point topics anyway. Hence The Friday Supplement. It’s supplemental to the WedWi. It’s like the WWE.com supplemental draft, except people care!
This topic dates back to the Wednesday Wire from 1.31.2012 and the questions that the readers below responded to were prepared before the January 30 RAW in which The Undertaker returned. That is another reason as to why this column is being posted separately from the normal WedWi. Running this today and on future Fridays will allow me to be as relevant as possible, at least for this specific topic. The questions asked are as follows:
1) Should Triple H v. Undertaker happen at WrestleMania XXVIII?
1a) Should Shawn Michaels be the guest referee if they go with that match?
2) Should the Undertaker’s streak ever be broken?
2a) If so, by whom?
Bonus) Do you like the idea of Triple H v. Undertaker in a Last Man Standing match?
Most of the responses below do not follow the questions number by number, but for the few that do, you can refer back up here to keep track.
On with the show!
_____
It ain’t the WedWi
Just two days after that one
It’s the Fripplement!
_____
Man, nobody writes Haikus better than I do! I’m a haikuligan!
_________________________
On Wednesday Mister Larrold T. Csonka III, ESQ. M.D. and company published another edition of All The King’s Men about this same topic. Apparently we here at 411 have a lot to say about the prospect of this match. In very short form, here’s where Larry and some of the 411 crew stand on the matter.
Do you want to see The Undertaker v. Triple H at WM XXVIII?
Larry Csonka (aka Bobby Knight): Yes
Wes Kirk (aka The Red Knight): No
Robert S. Leighty Jr (aka Suge Knight): Yes
Chad Nevett (aka The Orange Knight): Yes
Gavin Napier (aka Michael Knight): Yes
James Wright (aka The Green Knight): No
Ryan Byers (aka The Black Knight): Yes
Tony Acero (aka The Dark Knight): Yes
Only two men against the idea in the bunch, and of course you can read all of their reasoning right here.
_________________________
We have some great feedback from the Wire Choir this past week regarding the Triple H v. Undertaker discussion point. The general concensus is that “The Streak” should never be broken. As I stated last week, I’m in that camp as well, but I would jump into the broken streak RV for the right guy. Get it? It’s an outdoorsy joke!
Camping!
_________________________
There have been a few new developments since I first posed the question and I would like to continue this discussion point going for at least another Friday or two. Here’s a quick rundown of the current ‘Taker v. Triple H feud after Monday 2/6/2012.
WrestleMania XXVII, 4/3/2011
– The Undertaker defeats Triple H in a grueling contest to improve The Streak to 19-0.
– Triple H will go down in the record books with the “L”, but he walked out on his own two feet. The Undertaker had to be carted out of the arena.
Monday Night RAW, 1/30/2012
– Triple H is preparing to “future endeavor” John Laurinitis when the lights go out.
– The Undertaker returns after a 10 month absense to make a silent challenge for a WrestleMania rematch but Triple H pats him on the shoulder, apparently turning him down.
Monday Night RAW, 2/6/2012
– As Triple H explains the pat on ‘Taker’s shoulder and declares that he refuses to wrestle The Undertaker again because he isn’t the man he once was.
– Triple H wishes to remember him as the dominant owner of the yard.
– The Undertaker interrupts via video package (shades of The Rock!) and similarly states that he does not want being carried out of WrestleMania to be the last image people remember of the Undertaker and his legacy.
– He officially makes the challenge for WrestleMania XXVIII but Triple H respectfully declines.
_________________________
I will separate the commenters into categories of those who are PRO ending the streak and those who are ANTI ending the streak.
__________
The TradeMark Experience: Part of the reason that the WWE is so lacking in star power right now is because the old guard didn’t put anybody over on the way out. Flair didn’t lose his career to Kennedy or MVP, he put HBK over, who didn’t need a rub from anybody. Then when HBK decided to call it quits, he didn’t put Morrison or Miz over, he jobbed to Taker, who is the one guy on the roster who needed a rub even less than HBK himself. Even when Batista and Jericho left, they were put out by Cena and Orton respectively, who are already made men. Now it looks like HHH is also going to be ‘retired’ by Taker – and you guys want Taker to ride off into the sunset undefeated at Mania? Bullshit.
You can say that there is no one ready to break the streak right now – well then they need to strap a rocket to someone’s ass and get him ready. Barrett, Rhodes, Ziggler, Del Rio, whoever. *Somebody* needs to get that rub from beating Taker’s streak. Otherwise you have this scenario where HHH, Taker, and eventually Cena, Orton, etc. retire and you’re only left with a roster full of jobbers who could never beat anybody of real importance.
Taker retiring undefeated at Mania is a nice fairy tale ending, but it does nothing to help anybody in the long-term.
Marsico: I don’t think anybody needs to break the streak at this point. Like I said, for the right guy I’m 100% for it. But it has to fit. Every other recent star has become a star without breaking the WrestleMania streak, so why does somebody have to break it now? In the end it’s all about the booking. If you have Barrett beat ‘Taker at WrestleMania, if they don’t capitalize on it with a HUGE push and booking that makes sense, Barrett will be no bigger a star than he is at this moment. The only difference will be that he’ll be known as “the guy who broke The Streak”. He won’t be Wade Barrett, True Superstar (with breaking the streak as an accomplisment under his belt).
Orton couldn’t do it and he is arguably the biggest star behind Cena. Cena never got a chance and he’s the biggest star since Steve Austin. Edge was a bonified star before ever getting a chance at The Streak and he couldn’t break it. Punk never got the chance either, and he’s over, as they say, like Grover.
You’re correct that if they don’t push a bunch of newer guys properly, eventually the well will run dry and there won’t be anybody left to be the face of the company. People said the same thing 10 years ago, and here we are with John Cena and Randy Orton, who are the Rock and Austin of this generation. And not only that, but both men have WAY more longevity. People say that the wrestling business is cyclical. If the cycle isn’t for a huge money-making boom period (which it isn’t), then it’s for making new stars. It’s happened over and over again.
In direct respect to the discussion of The Undertaker at WrestleMania, I have resigned myself to the fact that a match with him at the “Granddaddy” event has become a “good old boys” scenario. I don’t think there will be another up-and-comer getting a shot at ‘Taker. This year is Triple H and I would wager that next year will be Cena. If there even is a next year.
__________
the mecca: yes HHH/Taker should happen. if HBK is the guest ref he should call it down the middle, just wondering if he will go the vengeful route is enough. then they can all shake hands and show tons of respect. last man standing is an awesome stipulation especially if they have to lay around a bunch like they did last year. I would say Ted Dibiase could maybe end the streak if they push him right this year. otherwise if it isn’t some up and comer type then no, leave it at 20-0.
Marsico: DiBiase is bland. He’s got the lineage and the talent, though, so he just needs the chance and he’ll break out. Orton was the epitome of bland at one time, ya know.
__________
The Big Fat F: Absolutely LOVE the idea of UT-HHH being a Last Man Standing Match. I also love that UT appears to be going after HHH for the re-re-match and not the other way around. It’s a unique twist and it actually works for me. I think throwing HBK in there might over-complicate things but it could work. And honestly, what “up-and-comer” would be a better match-up? Barrett? Dibiase? The Funkasaurus? Ziggler? Seamus? Does anyone think that any of those guys would actually win? The only other guy that I would buy that has a shot at ending the streak would be Cena. And he’s busy this year. HHH is a logical choice for three reasons: 1 – He’s someone that the casual fan would buy as a threat due to his name value 2- The IWC buys him as a threat because he buries everyone and is the “devil” and 3 – the storyline writes itself. Add a Last Man Standing stipulation and you got yourself a WM-worthy match.
Marsico: On point, sir! On point! Perfect! The idea of Undertaker making the challenge was a great twist indeed. HBK had to convince ‘Taker to wrestle him in 2010 for a rematch, and now ‘Taker’s going to have to do the same with Triple H in 2012. I don’t think some people get the idea as to why Undertaker is making the challenge even though he won (yourself not included). Undertaker won, but Triple H walked out looking like the winner. ‘Taker couldn’t make it to his feet.
__________
Bill: 1) (Taker v. HHH?) YES
1a) YES, I think (HBK as ref) would be a cool addition to the match.
2) YES, I always thought his streak should end when he is ready to retire from the ring. That being his last match.
2a) TRIPLE H and the reason why would be he is the only one to be trusted at this point. To make it about a “rub” to a younger guy now kind of down plays the importance of it. Its UNDERTAKER’S to give and I’m sure he isn’t going to give that to someone who will squander it away. TRIPLE H has NOTHING to gain by it really but UNDERTAKER can lose a lot bt giving it away to some up and comer.
Bonus) (Last Man Standing) Sounds good to me.
Marsico: I strongly disagree with Undertaker having a lot to lose by having the streak broken. The streak doesn’t define him. Not even close. It’s been a huge part of his career for the past few years, but he’s been around for over 20 years. “The Streak” wasn’t a big deal until the match with Orton, and even then it’s arguable. I don’t honestly think Triple H would want to beat Undertaker at WrestleMania, but the smark that is stuck inside of me still got nervous last year during the match and will get nervous this year too.
__________
MachoManFanStill: HHH-Taker should not happen but it will. Since it will, having HBK as the ref will certainly make it interesting so I say do it. As for the streak, I think it should be broken but only after 20 victories. That’s an impressive feat likely to never be matched. At Mania 29, have him finally lose to someone who could use the victory. I think it would be a great boost for Barrett this year but it’s not to be. By this time next year, Barrett will be much bigger than he is now and may not need the win. I vote for Cody Rhodes to end the streak at Mania 29. Stranger things have happened… Back to this year, I never thought of the Last Man Standing option. I like that also but still with HBK as the ref.
Finally, let me say that I’m not looking forward to HHH-Taker this year, but the WWE has a way of making anything seem like a big deal. The stare down (which at first just seemed like a re-do from last year) was well done. It’s always great to see Taker return from a hiatus and I didn’t expect the segment to end with HHH seemingly turning down Taker’s challenge with the pat on the shoulder and walking away. I think being the vets they are, Taker and HHH will do all they can to make the match as good as it can be. Besides, I don’t mind sitting through just an okay match between these two vets (with HBK potentially as the ref) if I know that on the same card, we’ll get Rock-Cena and Punk and Bryan are in high profile matches as champions.
Marsico: I’m with you on breaking the streak after 20. I’m happy if the streak ends with his career at 20-0, or 21-0 or whatever have you, and I like the idea of the streak ending at 20-1. Rhodes would be a great choice as well, and he could possibly be in a perfect spot for it next year leading up to a World/WWE Title win. He should stay with the IC belt the rest of this year. WrestleMania does have the potential to be fantastic. Last year was a bomb so anything will likely top it, but the current/rumored/possible card has a chance to be one of the greats. Time will tell.
__________
awsome69: I do not want to see HHH/taker again. If anyone should end the streak it should be to someone who needs the rub. Hey they do it with the World titles anyway, why not let Taker lose? Not to HHH, that arogant prick doesn’t need it. He has buried enough careers as it is.
Marsico: Hateful!
__________
Rollz…: As far as I’m concerned, the only young guy on the roster who would benefit from breaking the streak, AND would want to break the streak from an in character standpoint would be Ziggles.
I know it’s not going to happen, and if I were in charge I wouldn’t do it, but if forced to choose one guy on the roster it would be him.
Ziggles’ character doesn’t care about ending the streak per se, for his character, he’s more interested in doing the impossible. Upstaging HBK and HHH in one fell swoop.
He’s the Show-off, the #heel, and it’s in his nature. Beating the Undertaker at WM doesn’t mean he’s better than just Taker, it means he’s better than Shawn Michaels, Triple H, etc. etc. etc… It means being the unquestioned focus of attention, having all eyes on him, stealing the show on his terms.
Again… I just look at the roster and the only guy who right now that I can confidently say “this win could cement him as a super-duper star, he’s got everything you need to be a top guy, but he’s not SO over that he doesn’t need the win anymore” and “I’m convinced this guy is a lifer, and he’ll be here for the next 10 years making money for this company”. I just don’t see anyone else on the roster who fits both of those criteria. So if that’s the case, then you run the HHH rematch, and when WM comes around next year, if Taker is up to it, he leaves the business on his back… which, I guarantee has always/will always be his preferred exit.
Marsico: Shit. I think you win. I don’t know why I didn’t think of that. It’s a perfect fit and I don’t even think I can add to it.
_________________________
__________
Guest#2800 AKA Still Guest#8287: 1.I would rather not have Taker/HHH 3, even though it will happen.
1a.I want HBK as ref if it happens(since it’s gonna happen). Help build the drama.
2.NOOOOOOO! The streak should never end,especially to somebody like HHH who doesn’t need to end the streak.
Bonus.I like the idea of the last man standing match.
Marsico: Of course the ‘Taker/Triple H ‘Mania rematch is all but set in stone and I’m oddly okay with it. I hate the idea of Michaels being the ref. Last Man Standing, one-on-one is perfect. But apparently the rumormill is saying Kane/Cena will be LMS, which makes me a sad panda.
__________
Super Blizzard: I don’t think WWE should consider ending Taker’s streak for anybody.
The Streak has come to define the Undertaker in much more of a way than any championship win or feud he has had over his 20+ year career.
Putting HHH over (or any other veteran/over wrestler for that matter) would be a bad move, he doesn’t need to have that accolade, he’s got enough to show for his career.
Putting one of the younger guys over may seem like a good idea to propel them into stardom but what if it doesn’t catch on? You’ve just blown one of the most unique aspects of wrestling today.
Undertaker can still put people over without having to lose, the last few years have proved that. So keep the streak going as long as he is fit enough to carry on wrestling. In the Wrestling business things never seem to last more than a couple of months, it would be nice if the WWE kept this one thing sacred.
Marsico: Pretty spot-on, I’d say. Orton, the last young guy/almost star that faced Undertaker at WrestleMania (7 years ago, by the way — holy cow) took a clean loss via Tombstone Piledriver and looked fantastic in defeat. Of course his booking for the rest of 2005 (Undertaker’s bitch) was terrible, but he became a true star, and many people look back at his performance against The Undertaker, even as a loss, as one of the big signs that he was going to be somebody.
__________
gpjunk: I don’t think Taker’s streak should ever be broken. Retiring undefeated at Wrestlemania might be the biggest reward they can give to the ultimate company man and if you want others to become company men you have to reward the ones you have. I like the idea of HBK as a special ref and there being doubt about whose side, if anyone’s, that he’s going to be on as a commentator suggest but I also like the last man standing idea. Especially since they seem, based on the little we saw on Raw, to be going with a build of HHH being worried about Taker’s physical well being. Makes Taker vulnerable without it seeming like Taker is worried.
Marsico: I don’t think the idea is that Triple H is worried about ‘Taker’s health, although it is something I didn’t think of and certainly quite interesting. The idea, as it seems to be accepted universally right now, is that Triple H isn’t letting personal matters skew his judgment.
__________
APrince66: Why break the streak to a guy that could very well pull a Lashley or Brock and leave after one of the biggest rub ever? Keep the streak sacred.
Marsico: Simple point that a bunch of people have brought up. That’s why I would only give the honor to somebody who is going to be around for the long haul. I used FCW’s Dean Ambrose as my pick, and I’m sticking with that. He’s got the wrestling ability, charisma and mic skills (as they call them) to be a big star. He’s also already been wrestling for 7 years. In it for the long haul indeed.
__________
Huh?:i dont think the streak should end. Let him have it, he has earned it.
i dont understand why he would be challenging HHH though…he already beat him twice. what reason can he have for wanting a rematch to a match he already won? He should be facing Kane (thats who ‘put him out’ this time…wasnt it?) for revenge.
Marsico: Triple H took out The Undertaker, not Kane. Kane took him out in 2010 before he returned to set up the match with HHH at WM XXVII. Also, Undertaker has already beat Kane at WrestleMania twice as well. And a myriad of other times.
__________
I Mark For Undertaker: The Streak should NEVER be broken! That is The Undertaker’s legacy. He is one of the greatest of all time, but he will ALWAYS be remembered for The Streak. It is as important at Wrestlemania as the WWE/World title matches! 20-0
As far as Last Man Standing, I like the idea. I think it will be Streak vs career. I am not sure about HBK as ref, I don’t think it needs it.
Now, about RAW, I am copying my comment from an earlier news item regarding John Cena and Raw last night. We seem to agree. Here are my thoughts.
See, here is where I think the MAJORITY of people are wrong about the Cena/Kane angle. “Embracing the hate” has NOTHING to do with turning heel. It simply means John Cena acknowledges a part of himslef that exsists in every person along with the good(which in his case will ALWAYS outweigh the bad).
All he has to do is tell his haters to go to hell and doesn’t care what they think and he will keep fighting for those who support him. Their boos, along with the cheers of The CeNation simply make him stronger.
Another thing, as evidenced by last night, a whole lot of people who boo Cena in general, will turn on a dime and cheer him when he does something THEY LIKE. When he was beating the hell out of Kane on RAW, the WHOLE place was cheering, there was hardly a boo to be heard. John Cena does not have to be a heel, just a more dimensional face.
Now, this all ties in because, I have always wanted Taker’s 20th win to come against John Cena. Cena is the ONLY one with the credibility to break The Streak(even though he wouldn’t) and it is one of the LAST dream matches WWE has left.
One last thing, I marked out like a kid when Undertaker showed up at the end of RAW last night! I know the time is coming soon, but I honestly cannot imagine a WWE without The Phenom and it certainly wouldn’t be WM without The Deadman(and I have been watching since WM III).
Marsico: As I said above, The Undertaker’s streak is not his defining factor. He has done a whole lot more than that in his career and people tend to acknowledge it. I agree that the streak has become a very important part of WrestleMania and will continue to be a major selling point for as long as he’s willing to do it, but it’s a bit hyperbolic to say that Undertaker’s legacy is the streak. That’s incredibly unfair to the man.
NOT NECESSARILY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! (I THINK!)
__________
scipio2009: Taker’s streak has absolutely nothing to do with the “lack of stars” in the WWE and, to make the point even further, breaking the streak isn’t even enough, in it’s own right to even ‘make’ a megastar.
The only reason WWE is lacking in star power is that they failed to make any stars while the going was good.
John Cena and Randy Orton ought to be the two crossover stars, to carry the company, but they aren’t, for different reasons.
John Cena, prior to the initial move from Smackdown and the ‘Marine’ 1980s “Hogan” push, was organically primed to be that guy; the “Doctor of Thugganomics” was fading away, but he still kept that persona, and he was lined up for a solid 2-3 year run against the “old guard” of Jericho/HHH/HBK, before capping things, in all likelihood, by taking down The Streak, on a 2nd try.
Cena rises to the top of the business, without the need for a wholesale whitewashing of his persona, and that charisma, that help him get the “whiteboy from the burbs” gimmick over, shines through, to an audience that goes beyond wrestling, with a bit of luck.
You’d still have bit players, Edge/HHH/HBK/Hardy/Big Show etc, for Cena to play off, but you’d have an organic top babyface as that cornerstone, rather than just some persona, cooked up to try and relieve 1980s Hogan.
In terms of Orton, that man’s shot, at being a mainstream star, were shot the moment WWE forced the babyface run, without any build, since HHH was in “uberheel mode”.
You let Orton beat Benoit, as the arrogant, disrespectful heel, and you let him run with it.
Instead of getting tossed out of Evolution, you have Orton go “to heck with Evolution; i’ve got my own darned championship. Screw you guys”, and just leave.
Smackdown would have, i think, Eddie/Angle/Benoit and others, for Orton to play off, and you’d let the audience take the persona where they deemed to take it. Not the most likely to become that true mainstream star, but he could’ve still developed into the very main event star that he’s had in the genes.
Neither of those things happened, WWE failed to prep the guys who were bound to launch, off of Cena and Orton, and now we’re left with a debate over how the mystique of The Undertaker ought to be shattered, in the name of, hopefully, “making oine star”, since Taker was so selfish.
Marsico: But Cena did become a huge crossover star. For all intents and purposes he has reached Hogan levels. The guy sells mega merchandise, gets immense crowd reactions and people show up everywhere to see him, from signings to TV show appearances and beyond. You ask people right now who a top current star is, they’ll tell you John Cena. The business is much less mainstream and popular now than it was in the time of Hogan’s first WWF run or in the time of his WCW run. If wrestling was that big now, Cena would be, in name value to non-hardcores or even non-fans, THE face of professional wrestling. Orton is at the tippy-top of the WWE scene without being a crossover star and he doesn’t seem to want that. He’s happy with the wrestling side.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up such old points, but it doesn’t matter. Look at it this way — Rock and Austin were around for a very short time period and the business was different back then. Everything was bang-bang-bang a million things happening at a time. Rock was active from Nov. 1995 to Aug. 2002 — just under 7 years. Orton has been active from Apr. 2002 to present — just under 10 years. And he’s just getting started. Same goes for Cena. He debuted in WWE in June 2002, which also puts him just under 10 years. And he, too, has way more time to go.
I wouldn’t worry too much about new stars. It’s a process and it’s happening right now.
__________
Derek: Last year there was a promo where SM basically asked HHH, what makes you think you can do what I couldnt? I think this is the perfect motivation, HHH has Taker beat, but boom Sweet Chin Music. UT wins. Next year UT coming off of two slim wins, and someone like Cena goes in for the kill… its Hogan v. Andre of the new Era.
Marsico: I think I brought it up last week; that idea leads to a Michaels/HHH feud, and Shawn’s retired. Plus we’ve seen it and it’s done to death. Cena v. Taker next year would be cool, though.
_________________________
In Closing…
Triple H has turned down The Undertaker. We know the rematch is going to happen at WrestleMania this year. How will Shawn Michaels influence Triple H’s decision? Does he want his best friend to give it another shot? Does he agree with the COO and believe that it might indeed be time for The Undertaker to hang up the boots? Will Michaels become emotionally, and possibly physically, involved as this story progresses?
Since they’re going with an Ambulance Match for the Kane/Cena blowoff at Elimination Chamber, Last Man Standing is still left wide open. I had a bit of a realization a few days ago, though, about the LMS idea. It does definitely fit perfectly into the idea that last year the Undertaker got the pin and the win but Triple H was the only guy to walk out. The problem, however, could be with the manner of victory in a Last Man Standing match. There’s no pinfall or submission. So here’s the question of the week, but please feel free (in fact I urge you) to opine about anything that has to do with this ongoing story.
There are no pinfalls or submissions in a Last Man Standing match. Those are the two main ways to secure a clean and decisive win in a professional wrestling contest. If Triple H were to defeat The Undertaker in a Last Man Standing match at WrestleMania, would that, to you, constitute a decisive and clean victory that effectively ends the streak? Or would that victory for Triple H lead to people (Triple H and Undertaker included) questioning whether or not Triple H could truly beat The Undertaker in a one-on-one match at WrestleMania?
For those of you who are against the streak being broken (either in general or specifically by Triple H), this is a hypothetical. I want to read your insight about the most legitimate way to end the streak. Would a Last Man Standing match not constitute a man legitimately and cleanly ending the streak?
Let me know what you think about the scenario above and talk about this angle in general. I’m really enjoying the discussion we’ve been able to create since I started this stuff back in September and I feel that doing more columns like this can bring the discussion to a higher level.
_________________________
That’s going to be everything for this week. I’ll be back on Wednesday for the regular WedWi and barring any unforeseeable circumstances there will be another Fripplement coming up next Friday.
Until then, I’m going to rest my fingers. Between this, the WedWi, work and homework I have done a crapload of typing in the last 7+ days. Maybe I’ll put on some mittens or an oven mitt and ensure that I am not able to type until next week.
Bye!
– Nicholas A. Marsico
