Q&A thread - Your Questions Answered! **no chat**

gerrybbadd

connemara man wrote: »

What I'm suggesting/asking is sacrilege but i was wondering about the undertaker when he retires (calaway) could they keep the character alive by him being played by another wrestler (of same build/look) and thus creating an instant superstar?
Im posing this through undertaker as he is Immortal

I'd say of it was even considered, they'd have replaced Mark Callaway about 2 years ago. Remember when DiBiasi brought in his Undertaker (Brian Lee), that was the closest they could find to Mark at the time. He was a good 2 inches shorter too.

gerrybbadd

connemara man wrote: »

What I'm suggesting/asking is sacrilege but i was wondering about the undertaker when he retires (calaway) could they keep the character alive by him being played by another wrestler (of same build/look) and thus creating an instant superstar?
Im posing this through undertaker as he is Immortal

I'd say of it was even considered, they'd have replaced Mark Callaway about 2 years ago. Remember when DiBiasi brought in his Undertaker (Brian Lee), that was the closest they could find to Mark at the time. He was a good 2 inches shorter too. Plus, the new guy would have to either get the tattoos done for real, or have them airbrushed on every night!

connemara man

Cool I know and agree It couldn't/shouldn't be done it's just with the lack of gimmicks in wrestling well the more out there ones anyway, I was wondering would WWE consider it, hopefully not mind. I really would like to see a well written thought out original gimmick come up soon though

CMpunked

The closest thing to a gimmick in wwe these days is sheamo's look or Brodus clay.

jaykhunter

Cody Rhodes dropped his Phantom of the Opera mask and bagging schtick. Very mid-card but i thought it was wonderful, like an 80s supervillain :pac:

Zack Ryder's got a pretty strong gimmick, even if he shows about 10% of his charisma on WWE TV.

GTR63

Why isn't Beth Phoenix on tv lately? and Why is Natalia on a losing streak?

CMpunked

GTR63 wrote: »

Why isn't Beth Phoenix on tv lately? and Why is Natalia on a losing streak?

Cos she got outed as being a douchebag.
Maybe Karma is gonna be making a return in a bit and she is being kept off telly so she can be destroyed when karma comes back?

ceegee

Whats the legal situation with regard to using WWF logos etc? Just after seeing this pic on Wade Barretts twitter - guessing its from the old school raw or something?

DEFTLEFTHAND

ceegee wrote: »

Whats the legal situation with regard to using WWF logos etc? Just after seeing this pic on Wade Barretts twitter - guessing its from the old school raw or something?

They can use their Original WWF logo as well the name World Wrestling Federation but not the acronym W.W.F. They are also not permitted to use the WWF scratch logo which first appeared in 1998.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Do you think WWE will use Cena sparingly in the ring from now until Mania? If he were to get injured now and miss the showdown with The Rock it would be a huge financial blow for the company.

Lord TSC

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Do you think WWE will use Cena sparingly in the ring from now until Mania? If he were to get injured now and miss the showdown with The Rock it would be a huge financial blow for the company.

If they took that attitude with Cena, he wouldn't have been fighting since last year's Mania :P I would say he'll wrestle basic matches, and at most a gimmick against Kane at the Chamber.

CMpunked wrote: »

Maybe Karma is gonna be making a return in a bit...

HA!

Orim

Just out of curiosity, is there any info on when Taker's streak got set in stone as a gimmick? Or is it even a gimmick? Has it just happened that matches were booked for Taker? It could have started that way but I imagine it must have become a conscious booking decision at some point.

The earliest I seem to remember is people talking about 8-0 so I imagine it was set in stone but was it earlier?

chopperbyrne

I think when it got to 14 they started making a big deal of it and since 16 it has been one of the main stories going into every Wrestlemania.

gnfnrhead

As far as I know, it wasnt intended to be a streak but someone noticed somewhere around 12-14 that he was unbeaten and it started being mentioned before becoming what it is today.

Basically, pure luck that he never lost before someone noticed.

rovert

Orim wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, is there any info on when Taker's streak got set in stone as a gimmick? Or is it even a gimmick? Has it just happened that matches were booked for Taker? It could have started that way but I imagine it must have become a conscious booking decision at some point.

The earliest I seem to remember is people talking about 8-0 so I imagine it was set in stone but was it earlier?

Vince was ready to beat the Undertaker at Wrestlemania 22 with Mark Henry. Then those around him alerted him to the significance and potential of the streak.

jaykhunter

Fairly certain a commentator mentioned it at 7-0 in passing but it wasn't a thing until at least 10-0 with Flair. And wasn't a big thing until......Orton? Taker/WWE definitely lucked out that they had Taker win his matches, and it had gone on long enough it could actually be turned into a storyline, and now the greatest accolade in wrestling now, if not actually all of wrestling history.

Penn

jaykhunter wrote: »

Fairly certain a commentator mentioned it at 7-0 in passing but it wasn't a thing until at least 10-0 with Flair. And wasn't a big thing until......Orton? Taker/WWE definitely lucked out that they had Taker win his matches, and it had gone on long enough it could actually be turned into a storyline, and now the greatest accolade in wrestling now, if not actually all of wrestling history.

Flair was 8-0. HHH was 7-0 (and 19-0)

I think it was mentioned kinda in passing with those two, but like you said, didn't become a big thing until around Orton

GTR63

Did WcW ever try to buy WWF when WcW had the upper hand in the mid 90's?
WcW had a lot of money to burn in those days.

Omackeral

Penn wrote: »

Flair was 8-0. HHH was 7-0 (and 19-0)

I think it was mentioned kinda in passing with those two, but like you said, didn't become a big thing until around Orton

Flair was 10-0 Penn. And this is the first I ever noticed the streak and the first time I recall them mentioning it. I'll never forget The American Bad-Ass on the ring apron counting out the 'ten' on his fingers. (This match also included the sickest Arn Anderson Double A Spinebuster ever!) It wasn't a major selling point going into the match though.

WM 7- Jimmy 'Superfly' Snuka (1-0)

WM 8- Jake 'The Snake' Roberts (2-0)

WM 9- Giant Gonzalez - DQ WIN (3-0)

WM 11- King Kong Bundy (4-0)

WM 12- Diesel (5-0)

WM 13- Sid For WWF Title(6-0)

WM 14- Kane (7-0)

WM 15- Big Bossman Hell in a Cell(8-0)

WM 17- HHH (9-0)

WM 18- Ric Flair (10-0)

WM 19- Big Show & A-Train (11-0)

WM 20- Kane (12-0)

WM 21- Randy Orton (13-0) *Really sold the Streak here

WM 22- Mark Henry Casket Match(14-0)

WM 23- Batista Streak vs Title (15-0)

WM 24- Edge Streak vs Title (16-0)

WM 25- Shawn Michaels (17-0)

WM 26- Shawn Michaels Streak vs Career (18-0)

WM 28- HHH (19-0)

Penn

Omackeral wrote: »

Flair was 10-0 Penn. And this is the first I ever noticed the streak and the first time I recall them mentioning it. I'll never forget The American Bad-Ass on the ring apron counting out the 'ten' on his fingers. (This match also included the sickest Arn Anderson Double A Spinebuster ever!) It wasn't a major selling point going into the match though.

Crap, you're right. I must have gotten confused with what Wrestlemania they were at (WM17, WM18).

Omackeral

Penn wrote: »

Crap, you're right. I must have gotten confused with what Wrestlemania they were at (WM17, WM18).

You're spot on with the fact that they start promoting the streak as a major selling point vs Randy Orton at WrestleMania 21. This was when he was in the midst of his Legend Killer gimmick.

As an aside, it still P*sses me off to this day that Hogan didnt do the job for Orton in that run. Would've given Randy major stock and Hogan didnt need the win. Same goes for the Icon vs Icon match with HBK at Summerslam 05. Although Shawn's over-selling was frankly hilarious

Charisteas

Semi related question: Where was Undertaker for Wrestlemania's 10 and 16?

jaykhunter

Penn wrote: »

Crap, you're right. I must have gotten confused with what Wrestlemania they were at (WM17, WM18).

i only remember vs flair being 10-0 because taker opened his hands after the match to signal "10" and woah, the arthritis in his hands! :eek::( and that was a decade ago!

Rich he was injured. Can't believe he hasn't missed a mania since, that's mental.

CMpunked

Charisteas wrote: »

Semi related question: Where was Undertaker for Wrestlemania's 10 and 16?

10th: X8 against flair in Toronto
16th: 24 against Edge in Orlando

gnfnrhead

CMpunked wrote: »

10th: X8 against flair in Toronto
16th: 24 against Edge in Orlando

I think he means Wrestlemania 10 and 16, not matches 10 and 16.

CMpunked

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I think he means Wrestlemania 10 and 16, not matches 10 and 16.

D'oH!
I read that too quick.

DEFTLEFTHAND

He was on a hiatus for part of 94 and missed WM X, It was around the time of the 'UnderFaker' thing with Brian Lee and DiBiase

For WM 16 he was out with an injury, he returned at Judgement Day as the American Badass.

Otis Driftwood

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

He was on a hiatus for part of 94 and missed WM X, It was around the time of the 'UnderFaker' thing with Brian Lee and DiBiase

For WM 16 he was out with an injury, he returned at Judgement Day as the American Badass.

I remember watching that live and thinking "who the fook is this tosser on the bike" then JR started marking out.

Omackeral

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I remember watching that live and thinking "who the fook is this tosser on the bike" then JR started marking out.

I tot it was Chainz of the DOA! (Who ironically played the fake Undertaker in 94 )

Degag

rovert wrote: »

Vince was ready to beat the Undertaker at Wrestlemania 22 with Mark Henry. Then those around him alerted him to the significance and potential of the streak.

Are you serious! I've never heard that before. What a fúck up that would have been!