I know the action in the wrestling sections have been down because of the WZ Tournament, but I'm hoping to get some decent responses here. It's an interesting topic that I got from listening to Chris Jericho's podcast.
On Jericho's podcast, he mentioned Undertaker and the end of the Streak. Citing what he believes to be Undertaker's last match, Jericho believes that the powers that be did the right thing by ending the Streak. He cited Japanese tradition that a wrestler who is retiring always puts over a future star or a star this is being built up for something big.
I don't know what the plans are for Brock Lesnar, but based on his past year's history, it's very possible he's being groomed for something big. I wrote an extensive blog a week ago justifying why it could be the right move for Lesnar to have ended the Streak. From a kayfabe perspective, there's no way Undertaker should have beaten Lesnar in a traditional wrestling match. Lesnar is 36, in his prime, while Undertaker is a beat-up 49.
Jericho also discussed how Edge's career ended due to an injury, so he won his last match as a result. Jericho was fine with that, of course, not thinking Edge should have contested one final match in order to put someone over.
And there's where I want to make my major point: Whether or not a wrestler wins or loses their final match should be conditional. While I can justify Lesnar beating Undetaker quite easily, I absolutely hate it from a legacy standpoint. Wrestlemania has also been built around a few championship matches, one personal feud, and the Streak. While I believe this was Taker's last match, it spoiled one of the most important things in Wrestlemania history.
There would have been someone else for Brock Lesnar to beat up, but there will never be another Streak. Based on the storyline of Undertaker being invincible at Wrestlemania, he should have gone out with a win, cementing his legacy. There's now a big mark on his WM legacy, one that was completely unnecessary.
And so goes my point. The storyline involved should dictate whether or not a wrestler retires with a win or a loss. HBK and Flair both retired with losses, but their storylines dictated so. But if a wrestler is in a storyline where their pride and legacy is on the line, and it's their last match, I have no problem with them going out with a win.
The storyline should dictate winners and losers in their final match, not necessarily putting someone over.
Your thoughts on this?
On Jericho's podcast, he mentioned Undertaker and the end of the Streak. Citing what he believes to be Undertaker's last match, Jericho believes that the powers that be did the right thing by ending the Streak. He cited Japanese tradition that a wrestler who is retiring always puts over a future star or a star this is being built up for something big.
I don't know what the plans are for Brock Lesnar, but based on his past year's history, it's very possible he's being groomed for something big. I wrote an extensive blog a week ago justifying why it could be the right move for Lesnar to have ended the Streak. From a kayfabe perspective, there's no way Undertaker should have beaten Lesnar in a traditional wrestling match. Lesnar is 36, in his prime, while Undertaker is a beat-up 49.
Jericho also discussed how Edge's career ended due to an injury, so he won his last match as a result. Jericho was fine with that, of course, not thinking Edge should have contested one final match in order to put someone over.
And there's where I want to make my major point: Whether or not a wrestler wins or loses their final match should be conditional. While I can justify Lesnar beating Undetaker quite easily, I absolutely hate it from a legacy standpoint. Wrestlemania has also been built around a few championship matches, one personal feud, and the Streak. While I believe this was Taker's last match, it spoiled one of the most important things in Wrestlemania history.
There would have been someone else for Brock Lesnar to beat up, but there will never be another Streak. Based on the storyline of Undertaker being invincible at Wrestlemania, he should have gone out with a win, cementing his legacy. There's now a big mark on his WM legacy, one that was completely unnecessary.
And so goes my point. The storyline involved should dictate whether or not a wrestler retires with a win or a loss. HBK and Flair both retired with losses, but their storylines dictated so. But if a wrestler is in a storyline where their pride and legacy is on the line, and it's their last match, I have no problem with them going out with a win.
The storyline should dictate winners and losers in their final match, not necessarily putting someone over.
Your thoughts on this?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire