What IF Undertaker does not main event WM13 and NOT win the WWE Champion in 1997?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Super Saiyan Goku, Apr 14, 2013.

  1. What IF Undertaker does not main event WrestleMania 13 and NOT win the WWE Champion in 1997? Ok this one is a one bug me but after I posted that thread of the story of who was sopost main event at WrestleMania 13 got me think IF Undertaker was never sopost to main event WM13 and win the WWE Title, Then what have been to The Undertaker career!? The 1997 WWE Title Run was by far was his BEST TITLE RUN! So if he does not get it what have been to him!? Remember his only title run before was in 1991 that last a week. So with out that long WWE Champion title run in 1997 how different is Taker leagay today and if he still with WWE!? Does jump to WCW!? The streak never become the streak!? Though?​

  2. I honestly have no idea. I don't think he'd have jumped to doublya see doublya
  3. Well, Shawn was supposed to drop the title to Bret before he "lost his smile" and forfeited the belt. Then, after Bret won it at the Final Four PPV, there was talks of having the I Quit match between Bret and Austin (with the same exact finish) headlining the event and just having Undertaker and Sid in a normal big man match. I think this would have been awesome in it's own way, because the Hart Foundation angle and Bret Hart turning heel against America happened right after, and this way Bret could have held the world title throughout the whole thing, all the way into Survivor Series in November. Undertaker's streak goes on, as Sid left the company after WM13 and so there was no way they were gonna put him over Undertaker (or anyone) in any case. He certainly doesn't jump to WCW, that's absurd. Undertaker was a magical gimmick born in WWF, he was gonna stay loyal to them no matter what. I doubt WCW even approached him, as they knew they could never separate him from that gimmick and couldn't pull it off like WWF did (not to mention the copyright issues.)
  4. he would had only title run for a week which was 6 years ago at that time by 1997 come along. and he lose that title run in 1997 he may become bitter and who can blame him. since the crowd was behind him. It may want him to leavre :vince: and jump to WCW.
  5. I don't know man. It would have been interesting if it would have played out that way. Thank whoever you believe in it didn't.
  6. the guy was only champion for a week in 1991 he then 6 years later still not get a title run he over with the crowd. it could make 1 bitter i know if it was i would bitter. and he has a right to be. the wrestling rule is if the crowd behind u and ur 1 of top guy but not the wwe champion why are uu here? i do think if he did not get title run he would have jump if turner offrer him anything that is? And that really no copyright back then like there is now as Vince really did not have anything place. Which is why Hogan was abold to keep gimmick when he when to WCW the same with U.Warrior.
  7. i glad he did win though as he desave it. but i just asking since he really was not sopost to be the main event well aless that what were told. i still don't belive it. since stone cold was feud with bret going into the rumble and then after way before HBK injury knee and drop the wwe title. and taker was being build as aguy who fill that his time was now as in his promo he had been giving. I really think the main event was sopost to be taker vs. hbk for the wwe title at wm13 as i have had report that they was sopost main event.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Yeah, and WWF filed a lawsuit on WCW because of that. They thought the characters of Scott Hall and Kevin Nash were acting a bit too much like their WWF characters Razor Ramon and Diesel. That's why they had to come out at Great American Bash 1996 and say they were no longer associated with the WWF. It was still an issue. Warrior was different, because he won the rights to the Warrior name in a court battle in 1996.

    Undertaker wasn't jumping to WCW. If it was over anything, it would have been because of the lucrative contract Eric Bischoff/Ted Turner offered him, not because he was bitter over a simple world title run. You ever consider that Undertaker maybe didn't care that much about a world title reign? There's been other guys who didn't get a title reign either, they didn't just up and leave the company because of it. Undertaker was highlighted as one of the top stars regardless.

    Taker also knew his gimmick was the most unique and that jumping to another company would have been suicide for the character, basically. Even without the world title, he was still highlighted as one of the top superstars, and likely one of the top paid.

    The idea that Taker would jump just because he didn't get a decent-at-best world title run is one of the most random speculations ever.
  9. U don't think wrestler can't be get bitter if that don't wwe title run!? I think u should have a talk with HBK then? Who bitch if he did not get a title run in the 90's. And Taker was way over yet he did not get a long title run until 1997 i mean he was like Kane before Kane was if that prable?
  10. Some may be bitter, but not enough to jump to the competition, especially when there's no guarantee they'll utilize him correctly (they didn't before.) Can you imagine WCW handling the Undertaker gimmick? I mean, really. Look at horribly they booked Hogan (and Warrior during that god awful feud.) Look at how horrible that Sting/Vampiro feud in 2000 was, which had Taker/Kane written all over it, since Russo was stealing WWF ideas at the time that he considered "his." That's a good example of how the Taker gimmick would have gone in WCW if they had used it at all.

    HBK and Undertaker are two entirely different people on a professional level. Michaels was a bitch in general when it came to not wanting to put people over, and even years later after he supposedly changed his ways, he still proved he could be a bitch with the way he oversold almost all of Hogan's offense at Summerslam 2005 (he was upset that Hogan was going over in the match.) Undertaker was much more professional. In fact, both men have confirmed the story about how Michaels didn't want to put over Steve Austin at WM14 but Taker threatened to kick his ass if he didn't.

    It's also worth mentioning that Taker also kicked down Vince's door after the Montreal screw job happened, demanding answers from Vince himself from how he just treated Bret in front of all the fans. And even with others threatening to jump WCW because of that incident, Taker wasn't one of them. You think not getting a five month world title run at that time was really gonna be the thing that made him jump?

    Kane is a funny mention, because he's a prime example of someone who doesn't care about title reigns. He's been offered title reigns before, but would rather out over others and make them look good, which is why he's jobbed so much over the years.
  11. It funny that u metioned the screw job, U don't think Taker could have jump right then and there? Stone Cold was going over at WM14 wether HBK was injury or not. Though I never of the stoyr Taker going kick his ass if he did not? And let not forget HBK had a bad back so it hard to go against Taker under though sestanedis. And it as Tazz said before if ur NOT in this buisness to be the Top Dog and the Champion then u need to get out! B/c u come to wrestle to be the top guy!
  12. Jesus, long thread...

    Okay, for one, the main event had nothing to do with his streak. Meaning, he could have been in a normal match, and still had a win on his streak. His career would have been the same. Taker was a loved character from the start, the title wouldn't have made much of a difference, as Taker isn't known for holding very many titles.

    Secondly, he wouldn't have jumped to WCW, Taker is not that way, he is, and always has been VERY loyal to the WWE. He's said before, he doesn't care about the titles, he doesn't care about the money, he has always been a WWF/E guy. He wouldn't have jumped ship, that's not Taker, Taker is not Hogan, okay?

    Lastly, i'm going to fully agree with K. Taker put a lot of people over, and he had no problem doing it. The title, and the main event of anything, Taker could care less for. Taker just wanted to be on the card, and to be respected for what he did, and he has built long loyal fan base, and a long respectful atmosphere in the WWE because he is so professional about things.

    Edit: Tazz was wrong, and Taker is living proof of that. How many title runs has Taker has compared to others in the WWE? Point proven.

    Taker is Taker, it's hard to find a man that loyal to the WWE, theres very few, John Cena, as much as you guys hate him, is one of those type of guys, who you just know is going to be a WWE guy for life, though, Cena gets handed lots of Titles, so I couldn't even begin to compare him to Taker, but you get my point.
  13. I thought it was Triple H who said that, not Tazz. The logic is still the same, Undertaker is a "top dog" in the sense that he's always been an attraction. His gimmick could have easily been a short lived gimmick but he made it work and has been one of the longest employed wrestler the WWF/E has ever had (beaten only by Bruno, I believe.) Undertaker has still been in plenty of main events or main event-level feuds over the years. He's a top name, regardless. And by now, he has had his fair share of world titles.

    The Undertaker/Michaels story has been confirmed by both a few times since then.

    And Taker is certainly no Hogan, as Meshuggah pointed out, but what's funny about that is that Hogan once promised Vince he'd never compete against him and would be a WWF guy forever. But Undertaker actually made good on his promise.
  14. it funny u said john cena the guy who is a 11 time wwe champion and a 2 time world champion and for the love god is main event almost every ppv it hard for cena not to be loyal to wwe after all the shit he gets! As for the streak back in though days then even though he was unbeat at WM there was no streak as they did NOT promo it back then. So yes the streak could have been effect if he did not main event and or face HBK at WM13 for the WWE Champion like roomer though it would have been. And Tazz was right the goal to be a wrestle is to be the best at what do! And the WWE Champion yes it gave gimmick to be over but ur unsal ur remeber 1 think and that winning the wwe champion.
  15. Tazz said it at Vencence Night of Champion of 2007 when Chirs Beniot bealed on the event which we did not know at the time but acold we found out later that he turn into a killer. I sad even having to being this up :upset:
  16. Gohan...I already pointed out the Cena thing, I am talking about loyalty to the business. I already said it's not even right to compare the two, but you get my point. Michaels is not as loyal, he threatened to jump or quit when he didn't get his way. HHH is not as loyal, he is just there because he knocked up Vince's daughter so he gets a lot of benefits with the WWE. Punk is not as loyal, because punk will leave within a flip of a dime if he wanted to, it's already been shown.

    But Cena has loyalty within the business, he puts over people just fine, he goes to every WWE event, including autograph signings and charity work, and he doesn't tell WWE to give him shots or he'll leave, he just doesn't turn them down when they offer it to him(would you?), he's up there with loyal people like Taker, but I agree, you can't compare the two, because Cena has been given a lot more chances, not because he begged for them, just because he sells merchandise and they want to keep him happy is all, i'm sure he would be just as happy without a title.

    Look at Hogan, he got A LOT out of the WWE, and what did he do? Went to WCW. Look at Flair, he got a whole damn party for him when he left, and what does he do? He returns, but in TNA. I'll admit, theres a tiny list of truly loyal people to the WWE, and Cena is on there. Along with Big Show and Taker. Has The Rock gotten a lot out of the WWE? Hell yeah, and what does he do? He makes crappy disney movies, and returns only if it benefits him, like throwing him a big birthday bash, or offering him a run with the title which he doesn't deserve anymore, the guy is barely there. It's guys who put their lives into this business, no matter what, who are the most loyal. Yeah, Cena got a lot of chances, it's not his fault, blame the WWE, not him. Cena can balance hollywood with WWE, and guess what? He always shows up to WWE a hell of a lot more than he does in any hollywood films, why? Because he doesn't want to be a hollywood movie star, he wants to be a WWE superstar.

    I know the streak was not his thing back then, because he was still new to WWE, but what does that say about your comment? Taker is defined by his streak, and his persona, no one can touch him on that. Not to mention, of course, his loyalty to the business, so what would not winning a title or not being in the main event do to his career? Nothing, it would have done nothing, he would have beat whoever he had at WM and moved on, and defeated the next guy at WM, rinse and repeat.

    You didn't say Tazz said that, you said he said that winning the gold makes you the best, and if you don't got it, then get out. You never said, be the best at what you do, because Taker is the best at what he does, he is the only person who can successfully pull off that gimmick, and he is the only person with an undefeated WM streak for, what, 20+ years straight? Gold means nothing when you have something like that under your belt, and it shows when he enters the arena and gets the feedback from the crowd that he gets.
  17. Ok Cena is loyalty b/c of all the gold he getting! THAT IF FACT! If it was not then tell me this why is he not putting anyone else over!? If what u said about Taker not being main event is true then Cena should now that the new guy should be born! Right? Yet Cena sit on his ass kiss :vince: ROYAL FEET and keep being the main event and win the wwe title all the FUCKIN TIME! So yes it HARD FOR CENA NOT TO BE LOYALTY TO WWE! B/c he already get his GOD DAM WAY! As for Cm punk leave again it all come to the guy treat correctly! Even as a 434 days WWE Champion he hardyly main event a ppv WHICH BOLD SHIT! Even with the gold CM Punk 2nd to Cena which prove that Cena does get a fuck! If he truthly like u said he does he would have win up to vine and said hay vince let that guy main event he the WWE Champion he need more then i do right now! BUT NO CENA DOES NOT SAID SHIT!
  18. Gohan. There is no proof that Cena is only loyal to the WWE because he gets title runs. Cena has gone long stints without belts before. Cena is loyal to the company that made him because he knows they made him who he is. He knows that without the WWE behind him he would not have the kind of pull and impact he has had.

    Honestly. If you want to look for a guy who only stayed because he got the way he wanted or the gold. Look at Punk. The only reason Punk stayed with the WWE when his contract expired was because he got a title run and perks wasn't it? I have a hard time seeing Punk being as loyal to the company as Cena is. Punk has said it himself, he burns bridges.

    Cena is where he is today because he has the entire package. He is serviceable in the ring, he can get the crowd invested in whatever he is doing (be it positive or negative), he can talk with the best of them, he has charisma and not to mention a work ethic like no one else in the business. There is no one in the WWE that works as hard as he does for the company, both on show and with its public image. He is also a guy that the company could see that they could build around.

    Punk would not be able to do the media and other stuff Cena does because he is a punk. Punk is a subculture for a reason, it caters to a minority. CM Punk caters to that sub culture and he is proud of being its spokesperson. But he doesn't have the same kind of mainstream appeal that Cena has. He has some of it but nowhere near what is needed to carry the company on his shoulders. No disrespect to Punk.

    It is just like with music, Punk is never going to be mainstream or a main attraction other than within its own subculture.
  19. :lol1: again that b/c he still MAIN EVENT PPV! Even though eh was not the wwe champion he was main event over CM Punk a the WWE Champion match! So yes there ur prove right there! He only loyal b/c he can get title run and main event even though he not the champion! Punk desavre the fans knew it :vince: it and everyone in the back knew. And yet still even with the wwe champion he STILL DOES NOT MAIN EVENT ALL TIME! WHAT HELL DOES GUY HALF TO DO TO BE THE MAIN EVENT!? RUN CENA OVER WITH A CAR!? Like HHH had to do to Stone Cold!? :pipebomb:
  20. That's not really proof though. Cena gets rewarded for being loyal yes. But that doesn't mean that he demands it. He doesn't go up to Vince and say "reward me and I'll be loyal to you". Instead management says "this guy is pretty loyal, let's reward him". And I understand why. The guy who works the hardest and has the best results should be the man featured. And Cena is that guy, he draws the most and works the hardest. Thus he is rightfully rewarded. As long as Cena can work at his current schedule and have the kind of mainstream appeal that he has noe one else on the roster will be able to take that away from him. Punk cannot, Bryan cannot, Triple H cannot. Cena is the full package. We don't have to like it, but we have to accept it.

    Cena obviously loves the WWE. I can guarantee you that even if Cena was only used on the mid card in favor for some younger guy taking his spot he would still stay with the WWE and work just as hard. It's the kind of guy he is. He wouldn't go somewhere else. Punk would, he said it in his shoot, he would have gone to New Japan or Ring of Honor. Cena in the same situation would say "okay, give me something to do, anything at all" and he would gladly do it because that is how he is wired.