Should Undertaker retire? - Page 3 - Wrestling Forums : WWE, TNA, ECW, E-Fed, Wrestlemania, Live Wrestling Streams

Gothgirl · 01-06-2005, 10:08 AM

I think Taker should retire as well. I like the fact that he's back to his old gimmick, but I really think that his time is drawing to a close. Its time the younger generation got the title and feuds for the title.

killeoin · 01-06-2005, 12:46 PM

I agree!

Danny Diamond · 01-06-2005, 02:30 PM

I keep hearing that the younger stars deserve a shot at the top.

Which young star exactly deserves a shot at the top?

AudioSavior · 01-06-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon

I keep hearing that the younger stars deserve a shot at the top.

Which young star exactly deserves a shot at the top?

And why does that mean that Taker has to retire for them to get it? When was the last time he had the belt and look who has it now and how long he has had it? Most of you are making no sense as to the reasoning as to why Take should retire. You like him, still find him entertaining, but think he should retire? You saying you would rather have JBL there instead of Taker?

Why does he have to retire? What is wrong with him having the title and then putting someone else over by dropping the belt to them at lets say WM, in which he has never lost. Wouldn't that be giving them a big push?

Why can't he stay on afterwards and have other feuds and work with other younger talent in a way as to put him over? Like at the moment he is currently giving Hidenslsghlshg a push even though he may not be well liked, feuding with Taker is a good thing no matter who you are.

Dr. Giganto · 01-06-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdaMAN

And why does that mean that Taker has to retire for them to get it? When was the last time he had the belt and look who has it now and how long he has had it? Most of you are making no sense as to the reasoning as to why Take should retire. You like him, still find him entertaining, but think he should retire? You saying you would rather have JBL there instead of Taker?

Why does he have to retire? What is wrong with him having the title and then putting someone else over by dropping the belt to them at lets say WM, in which he has never lost. Wouldn't that be giving them a big push?

Why can't he stay on afterwards and have other feuds and work with other younger talent in a way as to put him over? Like at the moment he is currently giving Hidenslsghlshg a push even though he may not be well liked, feuding with Taker is a good thing no matter who you are.

My sentiments exactly

Kurt Angle and John Cena are two examples of people whose careers really got kickstrarted after feuding with Taker

Tommy 2 Slow · 01-06-2005, 03:16 PM

I just dont wanna see him with the belt. He still rocks and i hope he stays, but he doesnt need the title to be over or to get someone over..

killeoin · 01-06-2005, 05:08 PM

I agree!

AudioSavior · 01-06-2005, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killeoin

I agree!

Your spamming is getting old........

killeoin · 01-06-2005, 05:18 PM

What spamming!!
Jesus!
All I was doing was agreeing with a valid point. There is alsolutly nothing wrong with that!!!

AudioSavior · 01-06-2005, 05:39 PM

You have posted "I agree" about 6 times today with nothing else. Mybe you could offer a little more to the threads. I am sure you have some good points to offer