Sting vs Taker

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Cloud, Apr 8, 2014.

  1. So presume this was all bollocks as with the Streak being over now, what would the point?
  2. Yeah, it doesn't make sense anymore. I could see the rumors being false as usual, so if Sting doesn't really show up I won't be that surprised. Anyway, yeah, the sad thing about the streak being over for me is that matches like Cena/Taker, Wyatt/Taker and stuff like this won't happen (or at least there's no point in doing it). No point for Sting/Taker as well, therefore.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. I hope that wasn't it for Taker as well as unfortunately that was a pretty mediocre match to retire on. An I think thats what gets me most, the streaks over fair enough. Brock was the guy who won not great but fair enough. But for that to be Takers last match DAMN that sucks.

    But as I said why would he wrestle now? Without the streak he has no reason. I'm ranting but ho hum.
  4. I think Taker having lost makes perfect sense for the Sting/Undertaker match, lets be serious - there was no way Stinger was the one to end it. Now you have the big battle without the streak being involved.
  5. Yeah, it's really sad that he got hurt and thus it ruined what was possibly his last match. I'm not sure how they're going to go, maybe this is it, maybe he'll have a final goodbye match later on or whatever (although I also don't see the point), but yeah, if that wasn't his last one, just one more to be the goodbye, if they'll do it at all.
  6. Maybe but then after that match we witnessed damn the match would be poor quality.
  7. A match vs Sting with no streak on the line is better than a match between them with the streak on the line. Instead, it's a test of two great stars from rival promotions back in the 90s fighting each other to see who's better. Easy way to build it up and play into the storytelling. As far as the match quality goes, I'd hope for something more than average, but considering how they'll be over 50 at WM 31 and they're worn down from all their years of wrestling, I wouldn't be be too let down if there wasn't too much fast paced action.
  8. I wouldnt have expected quality regardless.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. I'm glad it's most likely not happening now. Never wanted to see it in the first place. 5-10 years ago? Sure. Now? Lol.
  10. Sting/Taker would be even better now that the burden of Streak is gone. Taker made the Streak, not the other way around.
  11. I feel that Sting was planned to be on Raw by most people til Taker lost since Taker's lost was played pretty close to the chest with only 4-6 people knowing the outcome. Sting must have been at Wrestlecon or backstage watching like "You fucking kidding me... we had a deal."

    But now, I don't know how they'll bring in Sting. Maybe just do a bunch of vignettes. Have him play some GM role and have Maddox squash him or some shit. Come around to the Road of Wrestlemania, keep on having Sting tease it and make fun of Taker without actually making fun of Taker if you know what I mean. After EC, Sting sets it up perfectly for Taker.... OR

    Play a bunch of vignettes. Have Taker come back for a retirement speech around Elimination Chamber. UNDERTAKER ON TELEVISION FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ALMOST A YEAR. Sting comes out and they just be like staring each other down.
  12. There's certainly ways to logically build to an Undertaker/Sting clash without the Streak being involved, but like some, I don't care for it at this point. If it had happened a decade or so ago (especially during the Invasion angle in 2001, where it would have been most appropriate), that would have been different. But at this point, I don't really care or have any interest in seeing them fight.
  13. And yeah, even though Taker/Sting made sense for historical purposes, I'm not particularly interested.