Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMania?

  1. #1
    Say My Name
    Order's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Bedford, UK
    Posts
    13,954
    Rep Power
    534698
      Country                    England

    Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMania?



    Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMania?



    Fuji Vice argues YES

    While some people may be clamouring for the Undertaker to face a fresh opponent, perhaps even someone he can help elevate to the next level, most of us realize that wouldn't be the case anyways. The odds of him losing to someone like Kevin Owens are so slim they may as well not even exist. Not to mention, if Owens was to wrestle him and lose, he'd be considered "buried", just like Bray Wyatt was last year. On the other hand, Shane McMahon provides the perfect solution to this problem. He can bump like crazy for Taker, gets incredible fan response which should translate into strong sympathy during the match and, most important of all, he won't be "buried" by a loss. Conversely, there's also a lot of intrigue going into the match in the sense that, if Shane is booked to win, how do they get there in a relatively believable way? The idea of Undertaker beating Shane from pillar to post only to lay down for the good of the company seems to be the prevailing theory and while it's a good one I'm not quite sure that's the route they go. That uncertainty is the most exciting part of WrestleMania season and while the build for this match hasn't always been stellar, it's that uncertainty that keeps it interesting. Speaking of interesting, how about the next three weeks? Are we going to get more Shane appearances? More information on the secret lock box that's got Vince so scared? How about the potential addition of a special guest referee like Mick Foley to the match? There's a lot of legs left in this angle and build up, something I'm not sure we'd have gotten if it had just been some random superstar trying to take down the Undertaker at HIS event.

    Like it or not, Shane McMahon vs. The Undertaker in Hell in a Cell at WrestleMania Dallas Cowboy Star will undoubtedly be a spectacle, and sometimes that's what it's all about. I expect to see nothing less than a brutal ass-kicking, Shane putting his body on the line one more time by doing something outrageously stupid and, hopefully, the beginning of a new and exciting period for WWE with the authority finally being ousted from Raw for good. Perhaps most important of all though, there's just no way I see this being Undertaker's final WrestleMania match, which means that we'll be able to look forward to doing this all over again next year!



    Ed argues No

    No, Shane is not the best opponent WWE could have picked for Taker in my opinion. It's an improvement on Braun Strowman I'll admit, but as I never entertained that match as a possibility despite the rumours, I can't use that logic as a reason to be cheerful this match is taking place. I think this match is wrong for a multitude of reasons. As great as it was to see Shane O'Mac return on the Raw after Fastlane to cut a good promo, tease the end of The Authority and add some much needed excitement to the road to Wrestlemania, I can't of been the only one who lost enthusiasm for his return the moment Vince booked a Shane Vs Undertaker match. It was a real 'wait......WTF?' moment.

    I appreciate the heavy impact WWE's injury list has had on this Wrestlemania card with the likes of John Cena, Randy Orton, Seth Rollins, Cesaro and Sting being out of action and Daniel Bryan and The Rock being unavailable to them; these unforeseen problems ruined all of Vince's long term plans for the show and left them reshuffling the card with not much time to spare. I think the large injury list is an acceptable reason to explain why Wrestlemania card looks a little short on star power this year, or why Triple H is currently the WWE Champion. I don't think it's an acceptable reason to justify a 46 year old, father of three, son of the boss dusting off his sneakers for the first time since 2009 and bringing his stuntman version of wrestling to The Undertaker. If ever there was something to point at to summarise WWE's failure to create new stars, it's this desperate attempt to fill one of the big Wrestlemania matches with anyone but one of their current wrestlers. Undertaker could of faced Sheamus, Rusev or Kevin Owens (if we're rebooking, you'd protect Taker's opponent for a couple of months) at Wrestlemania and while it might not of set pulses racing, certainly in casual fans, you'd end up with a match that should be better than Taker/Shane, a match with a clear babyface/heel dynamic and the rub of working with Taker at mania goes to one of your current wrestlers who will wrestle the next evening on Raw, not someone who may not wrestle ever again for the company. To me the Wrestlemania card sounds stronger if Shane does his family soap opera feud with Vince and Steph against another wrestler, one who it's easier to believe he could beat, and then you free up Undertaker to have his crowd pleasing win over another heel somewhere else on the card.

    Lets think of the prospect of the match itself. You've got to introduce all kinds of smoke and mirrors, weapons and interference to keep the match both entertaining and competitive. The latter point is crucial there, because the difference in status of the two opponents is so vast, the longer Shane survives in a straight one on one match, the weaker Undertaker will look; by rights he should murder Shane in under 5 minutes. I think we all saw how embarrassing those jabs against the security guards last week, imagine Taker having to sell them. I'm almost certain that this match is going to turn into a Sting/Triple H debacle where it turns into yet another ode to the Attitude Era with wacky interferences and late 90s hardcore spots because 'The End of an Era' in 2012 and DX Vs nWo last year wasn't enough, we need to milk the Attitude Era even more. It shouldn't escape anyone's attention that Kane does not have a match announced for mania and is off TV but is still working house shows and has a history with both Taker and Shane.

    Perhaps it's too much in this day and age to expect the WWE to tell a logical story, but if you're heading into Wrestlemania in Texas and you've positioned the hometown hero, The Undertaker, as the heel in a match against a McMahon, you've told the story wrong. No-one in that stadium is going to want to boo The Undertaker, they're going there to see The Undertaker kick some ass and cheer for him, but WWE have booked him in one of the only matches that pitch him as the bad guy and reduces his vocal support. There is no way for Undertaker to simply go along with what Vince has demanded of him without hurting his character, it's such a random, unexplained alliance and WWE have admitted as much with Taker's appearance a few weeks ago where he said about two sentences and walked off. They can't explain it themselves, so they aren't even going to bother trying to explain to us! Also, if Shane has Vince over a barrel because he bailed him out when he needed help and has a strong negotiating hand, why on earth is he risking his stake in WWE for one match, when he more than anyone else should know about how crafty Vince is and how it won't be a fair fight. He was under no obligation to accept the match, and like a dumbass he just agreed to it without much hesitation. Not to mention the intrigue of the lockbox that appears to have been forgotten about, and babyface Shane's borderline misogynistic views on the 5th generation of the McMahon's, this storyline has been riddled with terrible writing.

    And then there's the big decision over the result. If Undertaker wins, absolutely nothing changes, The Authority stays in power, Shane McMahon goes away and you lose the exciting hook for Raw the next evening with fans already daring to dream of a WWE without Triple H and Stephanie. Great. However if Shane McMahon wins, it'll be fucking ridiculous because the finish would have to be an overbooked mess, and you've ruined any rub and starmaking potential of The Streak because Brock Lesnar's achievement has now been equalled by Shane McMahon. I don't know who the hell I'm supposed to cheer for in this match.

    If your the type of fan that can flick a switch at the back of your head and ignore every flaw with a match, then you'll probably enjoy the fun spectacle of Shane bumping like crazy but somehow surviving 20 minutes with The Undertaker. I can't do that. I don't like the build, I don't like the match's potential, I don't like the return of McMahon Family Dramas getting top spots at mania, I don't like either outcome of an Undertaker or Shane win and I think it's a total waste of one of Undertaker's final matches. I think supporting matches like this sends out the message to WWE to carry on using part time attitude era stars in the big spots at Wrestlemania rather than concentrate on making the stars of today.




    What do you think about the Undertaker facing Shane McMahon inside Hell in a Cell at WrestleMania?

    BTB Achievements
    WWE: The New Vision





    Spoiler:










  2. #2
    Weird Bitch Energy
    Jiggy's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Fl
    Posts
    7,171
    Rep Power
    1169950

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Ed is right. No suprise here. Once again a McMahon family soap opera is taking away from Mania.





  3. #3
    SIX F'N STARS
    The Natural's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Rep Power
    424739

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    If someone like Kurt Angle ends up representing Shane instead, I will enjoy it. If Shane wrestles for himself, I will also enjoy it.

    I had zero interest in whatever Taker match we were going to get at this Mania before any of this Shane stuff and now I'm actually looking forward to whatever ends up happening.
    [save]


  4. #4
    Crotchety Old SMOD
    Fuji Vice's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Wing Kong Exchange
    Posts
    30,150
    Rep Power
    2763865
      Country                    Canada

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggy View Post
    Once again a McMahon family soap opera is taking away from Mania.
    I don't get this statement at all. When was the last time McMahon family drama resulted in a match on the Mania card or even permeated the show? It sounds like you're lamenting the fact that it happens every year, which is clearly not the case.



    Many Bothans died to bring you this Tapatalk message.


    Ask Fuji|2020 Movie Log

    ​​​



    Quote Originally Posted by Wang Chung
    Fuji- got his hint possibly town but also threatened Cox with a burrito up his ass







  5. #5
    The Hero of Time
    Shawn's Avatar

    Status
    Online
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    3,934
    Rep Power
    734692

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Completely agree. Not giving up hope that Shane gets a substitute - even if it's a lame one like Kane - for the exact reasons Ed listed above. Rooting interests are too convoluted, and there's no obvious way to have the Authority gone and keep the Undertaker looking like the Undertaker.

  6. #6
    MADMIN KING

    Ed's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Dudley, England
    Posts
    38,578
    Rep Power
    3299225
      Country                    England

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Just so people aware, the actual question we were given to debate was 'Is Shane McMahon the best opponent WWE could of picked for The Undertaker at Wrestlemania?' Not sure why Order changed it. Probably wouldn't of changed the arguments much, but that's what we were asked to write around.

  7. #7
    Crotchety Old SMOD
    Fuji Vice's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Wing Kong Exchange
    Posts
    30,150
    Rep Power
    2763865
      Country                    Canada

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed View Post
    Just so people aware, the actual question we were given to debate was 'Is Shane McMahon the best opponent WWE could of picked for The Undertaker at Wrestlemania?' Not sure why Order changed it. Probably wouldn't of changed the arguments much, but that's what we were asked to write around.
    Yeah, I don't think it would have changed my basic points. At least we both seem to be in agreement that it's going to be a spectacle, for better or worse. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see which it turns out to be.


    Many Bothans died to bring you this Tapatalk message.


    Ask Fuji|2020 Movie Log

    ​​​



    Quote Originally Posted by Wang Chung
    Fuji- got his hint possibly town but also threatened Cox with a burrito up his ass







  8. #8
    Say My Name
    Order's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Bedford, UK
    Posts
    13,954
    Rep Power
    534698
      Country                    England

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    The question wouldn't fit in the thread title Tried to come up with something which still made the responses make sense.
    BTB Achievements
    WWE: The New Vision





    Spoiler:










  9. #9
    MADMIN KING

    Ed's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Dudley, England
    Posts
    38,578
    Rep Power
    3299225
      Country                    England

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Quote Originally Posted by Order View Post
    The question wouldn't fit in the thread title Tried to come up with something which still made the responses make sense.
    Oh, well that's as good a reason as any then

  10. #10
    Weird Bitch Energy
    Jiggy's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Fl
    Posts
    7,171
    Rep Power
    1169950

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuji Vice View Post
    I don't get this statement at all. When was the last time McMahon family drama resulted in a match on the Mania card or even permeated the show? It sounds like you're lamenting the fact that it happens every year, which is clearly not the case.



    Many Bothans died to bring you this Tapatalk message.
    Every year? No. But once is more than enough, and this is the 5th McMahon-Centric WM angle. I don't want Shane vs Vince, Shane Vs Taker, McMahon managed fatal four ways or McMahons vs Celebrities. I want The Undertaker vs a credible opponent and I don't understand why that's hard to fathom.





  11. #11
    Crotchety Old SMOD
    Fuji Vice's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Wing Kong Exchange
    Posts
    30,150
    Rep Power
    2763865
      Country                    Canada

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggy View Post
    Every year? No. But once is more than enough, and this is the 5th McMahon-Centric WM angle. I don't want Shane vs Vince, Shane Vs Taker, McMahon managed fatal four ways or McMahons vs Celebrities. I want The Undertaker vs a credible opponent and I don't understand why that's hard to fathom.
    Oh it's not, I was just questioning the way it came across as seeming that it's a constant thing at Mania. That being said, 5 times out of 32 shows is only 15%, which isn't too bad considering they own the company and could realistically, if not logically, book themselves as the main attraction every year.


    Many Bothans died to bring you this Tapatalk message.


    Ask Fuji|2020 Movie Log

    ​​​



    Quote Originally Posted by Wang Chung
    Fuji- got his hint possibly town but also threatened Cox with a burrito up his ass







  12. #12
    MADMIN KING

    Ed's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Dudley, England
    Posts
    38,578
    Rep Power
    3299225
      Country                    England

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuji Vice View Post
    Oh it's not, I was just questioning the way it came across as seeming that it's a constant thing at Mania. That being said, 5 times out of 32 shows is only 15%, which isn't too bad considering they own the company and could realistically, if not logically, book themselves as the main attraction every year.
    McMahon Family Drama might not be the most accurate way to describe it, but I think with this being the third year in a row of The Authority having a big angle on the show, and with Triple H always booking himself to be against a top star for the last six Wrestlemania's, there is an argument that the collective McMahon family are involved too much on the show in recent years to say we're over a generation removed from The Attitude Era where McMahon's and heel authority figures were a draw. I'm not ruling out the prospect of Stephanie doing something against Ziggler, which could be a third match on the card featuring The Authority. Carrying on down this path and not focusing more on your young talent and giving them the big moments on this show and trying to make stars out of them gets more frustrating every year with how talented the roster is. As a quick example, The New Day are one of the biggest success stories of the last 12 months, and will be one of the most universally over acts in front of that mania crowd, and yet they'll be in one of the shortest, most insignificant matches on the card.

    I will admit even I a perverse curiosity in seeing what Shane Vs Taker looks like, but I think you could get maybe 75% of that interest in Shane wrestling if Vince named a heel big man in a no DQ match and you can still see Shane kill himself and there's no confusion for the fans in who to cheer for. I just really think beyond Wrestlemania the ramifications of this match are a negative for WWE regardless of who wins, either the Authority stays or Taker suffers one of the most ridiculous defeats in WWE history. .

  13. #13
    Heel Champion
    RED's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    4,133
    Rep Power
    536211
      Country                    Greece

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Answer: No. Wasn't really expecting this to be some sort of a debate. I dig the Hell in a Cell stipulation and I'm interested to see if Shane can still go at it but the storyline has nothing to offer so far and The Undertaker is practically Vince's tool which makes no sense at all. It would make much more sense if it was Triple H vs. Shane. But no, Trips had to win the title at the Rumble to set up a WrestleMania 22 revisited main event.





  14. #14
    Say My Name
    Order's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Bedford, UK
    Posts
    13,954
    Rep Power
    534698
      Country                    England

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    I think there is definitely a debate. While I accept Undertaker should have a better opponent the Attitude era kid inside me is desperate to see all the bells and whistles as well as whatever crazy stunt Shane O'Mac does. To be honest it is the thing most people are buzzing about for Mania this year.
    BTB Achievements
    WWE: The New Vision





    Spoiler:










  15. #15
    SIX F'N STARS
    The Natural's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Rep Power
    424739

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Quote Originally Posted by Order View Post
    To be honest it is the thing most people are buzzing about for Mania this year.
    I think that says more about the state of WWE than it does about this match though.
    [save]


  16. #16
    Main Eventer
    Sykotic's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Cardiff
    Posts
    8,784
    Rep Power
    500571
      Country                    Wales

    Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for Wrestl...

    Is Shane the best opponent for The Undertaker at Wrestlemania?

    Hell no. You could have chucked any heel in here against Shane or Taker (or both)and made this match 10 times more interesting.

    Like Ed's last sentence said, either The Authority wins through or The Undertaker's Wrestlemania legacy is tarnished once more.

    Unless Vince comes to his senses after seeing Shane beaten to within an inch of his life and calls off the match, which I can't see happening, then I see this match being doomed to disappoint barring a few crazy spots from Shane O Mac.

  17. #17
    The Only 2x WC HOF
    Shock's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    22,899
    Rep Power
    2446760
      Country                    Scotland

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    Quote Originally Posted by The Natural View Post
    I think that says more about the state of WWE than it does about this match though.
    Yup.


    Shane McMahon is not only not the best option for a Wrestlemania opponent, he's one of the worst choices they could have come up with. For starters, it is completely underwhelming and unbelievable in comparison to previous Undertaker opponents. We've gone from Lesnar, HHH, HBK, Punk, Edge, Batista to Bray Wyatt and Shane McMahon in the last two years, including the biggest Mania they've ever tried to sell this year.

    It's also a match that benefits nobody. Shane doesn't need any rub, the McMahons don't need any more attention, and this feels like its another step towards taking away from the spectacle of the Undertaker. If I have to see Undertaker sell for this guy that can't even throw a fucking punch properly, I might scream. I fully expect a shit load of smoke and mirrors, but I think you could easily have this exact same storyline and this exact same stipulation but actually have someone benefit. Undertaker is fighting for the McMahon family because reasons. I've heard people say because he's a WWE guy and "its his job", which is ludicrous because its never stopped him from being anti-authority many, many times in the past. If anything, the whole thing is ass-backwards. Have Undertaker be wronged by the McMahons and he's fighting to stop the authority and have the McMahons name themselves a champion to represent them. You've got Triple H who can be their champion (not the WWE champion, but switch the title match to Lesnar/Ambrose), or you could use Bray again, or even Owens. And a counter argument might be "well, Kevin Owens clearly isn't a big enough name to face Undertaker", to which my response would be: make him then. He's much more believable than Shane McMahon.

    It doesn't help that I have never been a big fan of Shane McMahon, and find his matches excruciating.







    The 100 Greatest WCW Matches - Coming Soon


    The 100 Greatest WWE Matches (1986 - 1995) - Coming Soon



    The 100 Greatest WWE Matches (1996 - 2005) - Completed



  18. #18
    Heel Champion
    RED's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    4,133
    Rep Power
    536211
      Country                    Greece

    Re: Debate Club #3 - Were WWE right to book Undertaker and Shane O'Mac for WrestleMan

    I mean it shouldn't be a debate in the first place because that wasn't even the original plan. Remember how Taker was going to face Cena but Cena wasn't cleared to wrestle? They just stuffed Undertaker in the McMahon rivalry because his original match was written off and they had nothing else for him. Come on.





Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •