Bored of the Undertaker?

[Wrestling1]

as much as i hate the fact that punk is gonna loose. this match between these two is gonna be amazing. i cant wait to see what stipulations they put on this match. but when its all said and done the streak will live for one more year. and to say that taker is boring or overstayed id rather see taker once a year then see stupid ass brock lesnar try to be a damn ufc fightr in a wrestling ring it just looks stupid. and personally i think if the streak ends it will be to shawn michaels only person worth loosing it to besides punk.

[Peter Kaymakcian]

For everyone saying Taker is just coming back to extend the Streak you do realize the WWE has been pushing Taker all year to work Mania again. That was the reason for the Cena vs CM Punk number one contender's match two weeks ago. To give Taker more time to say yes to working Mania. WWE knows a Mania with the Streak on the line will be a much higher seller then a Mania without the streak on the line.

As for if I am bored of the Undertaker. The answer is a plain and simple no. How can anyone not be captivated by someone like the Undertaker, if anything I'm bored of Sting in TNA then Undertaker. In fact Sting and TNA for that matter could take a lesson out of WWE's book and only have Sting wrestle at Bound for Glory. These guys are old and they can't take the same bumps and put on the same performances night in and night out anymore. Give them there one match a year to not only help increase buys in the PPV and allow the nostalgia bonus you get from seeing them once a year.

To the point about people comparing Brock Lesnar and the Rock to the Undertaker. Don't even go there. Taker has been a mainstay in WWE for twenty-two years, while the Rock left for seven years to only come back with a four and zero record. Brock left the WWE and only came back because he failed at the NFL and was only semi successful in UFC, going off of his record. If the WWE didn't give Brock the money they did he wouldn't be back there. You want to compare Taker to someone like HBK fine, but I hope you realize HBK was 45 when he was working yearly before his retirement. Which was the same with Taker. Taker only took up this relaxed schedule recently.

[justinjackson1983]

yes, and i have been since about 1997.

the ministry was one of the worst angles of the AE, and at a time when 99% of the fanbase wanted Austin and Rocky to have the ball and run, it was annoying when VKM kept on throwing Taker in on angles and story lines to keep him relevant.

half of his mania matches are forgettable against lousy opponents, and i am man enough to admit his later work has been his best. (from HBK 1 to Trips 3)

but yes, sick of taker and have been for a long, long time.

I understand you may not be the undertakers biggest fan but to state that 99% of the fans during the attitude era found the undertaker recieving a push 'annoying' is one hell of a rash statement. Undertaker was one of the main reasons most of us watched during the attitude era and is one of the main reasons why most of us still put up with wrestling to this day despite his less than part time schedule.

and c'mon at least clarify that kane (14) HHH (17) Ric Flair (18) Randy Orton (21) batista (23) edge (24) where not the lousy opponents and forgettable wrestlemania matches you mentioned??

[Rick BoA]

He has had the best match every year for the last few years.

[Lowki]

Sorry I should have been more clear. I was mainly talking about his first two bouts with Triple H and now this one with Punk (even though it hasnt really started yet :-)). I just dont see the same passion as I did with HBK vs Taker

Same passion? Triple H challenged him because he ended his best friend's career. It became an obsession for him basically; he wanted to know who was the best out of him and shawn. By beating the undertaker, he could prove that; That's why he fought him twice! All because shawn did.

I thought the tease of HBK screwing Triple H throughout the second feud/match was definitely enough to create drama.