Vague WrestleMania 32 plans via wrestling observer
 

Taker and the Freebirds need to go into HOF this year.

Other than that, plans always change. Look how WM 30 Main Event ended up.

Dare I say this I wouldn't complain about a Rock v Cena III if only "to settle the score" once and for all but I do think Rock v Triple H looks set and I predict that will be a snoozefest.

Would like to see Taker take on Lesnar in a "rematch", Taker wins and then retires citing he has now beaten all of WM opponents.

I might be way too soon but what about someone like Wyatt or Owens taking on the WWE Champion? Sheamus will have already cashed in by then but I don't think he will be the champ. I predict Ambrose or Reigns might be holding the belt.

I'd personally like to see Taker win the most hard fought mstch of his @ WM, but then stating that he'll be back for one last match next year @ WM 33, and somehow the build is to one more massively epic and legendary and all that against his half-brother Kane whom he defeats in a 40 or 45-minute WM classic as his retirement match to bringvhis record to 24-1, thus giving him a nice round 25 matches. Have thought 25 WM matches for him would be perfect once I realized 20-0 wasn't going to be the end.

will the rock v triple h be the first time they have ever squared off?

nope WM 2000 fatal four way match

Undertaker vs. Kane in a 45 minute WrestleMania Classic.

Nothing about that sentence makes sense.

Seeing how we are not even at SummerSlam yet I'll take this lightly

I t hink that was the point

Yay. The same fucking people as every year. Why does Triple H NEED to be at Wrestlemania anymore?

How about one of the top four matches being something like Dolph Ziggler vs. Cesaro?

How about not having the same five/six people in all the headline matches whilst all the talent that bust their asses all year long are thrown in a cheap-ass battle royal.

Can't be fucked with Wrestlemania or wrestling anymore.

Judging by Raw ratings, you aren't the only one. Sad thing is, this is the result of years and years of bad booking. Hard to know how they halt this slide now. And sadly, news like this seems to indicate that they are content ignoring the problem and using bigger names to flog Mania yet again.

It is tiresome, I actually never watch Raw now, no stories or interesting, intriguing feuds. Just watchvthe specials for the matches now. Missing Raw doesn't make a difference and it was a slog anyway

It's funny you should say about Cesaro, I heard he had a really competitive match with Cena on Raw, but what's the point of that if he loses in 5 minutes to someone else who loses regularly like Barrett in a few weeks. They can't be in main matches at Mania cause they mean nothing

Cesaro is over as fuck with most crowds.

People.do like him but you still need to be booked strongly to get in a big match at Mania. Could Cesaro, as it stands, be in a main event match at Mania. They won't take the risk, and the reason why they won't is because it IS a risk because of their own boring, stop-start, repetitive booking

I like both Rock and HHH but the prospect of them going head to head (or even in a tag match w/ the ladies) as one of the top matches just makes me want to sigh very heavily

Injuries, the nearly annual Rumble fan uprising, term agreements, backstage politics, and 9 months stand in the way for any of this. This report means nothing.

Probably. But won't change the fact that come Wrestlemania, the main booking will focus on the same names as the last ten years... Cena, Rock, Lesnar, Triple H, Undertaker etc...

I would be cool with Cena vs Undertaker in Taker's last match

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Yes, first time ever.

Agreed!

I'll be a little shocked and angry if The Freebirds don't finally make it in the HOF.

They sure as hell deserve more than some of the people already in there.

yeah put sting in a match he can win

Whats wrong with Taker/Sting damn it. Its been my dream match since I was a kid all the way back in like 1997. I know it wont be a very good match because both guys aren't that good anymore and their styles probably wont clas well, but damn it Vince, at least give it to us on RAW or something.


Rock/HHH would be pure gold though.

no mention of brock lesnar for WM main event plans in the report, that's smart. don't let lesnar steal your spotlight hunter

how the fuck can any fan say hhh v the rock will be pure gold from any standpoint? they never had a feud worth a fuck, only decent match I ever recall was their ladder one. at this point in their career whats the angle? oooh hhh I know ronda rousy so we should main event mania cause I am in fast and the furious. winner gets to molest paul walker's corpse match? that seems up hhh's alley

Whole Observer report is a lot longer but implied Lesnar-Reigns II was being considered as a possibility. Reigns wins and uses that as the official start of his era as the top star in the WWE. Cena's time on top and/or as the big focus of the WWE likely is finally over by next Mania.

WWE still worried about Mania ending in a chorus of boos if that is the final match but also considering a back-up plan of them going all out to "manipulate the crowd" to get the reactions they want.

i have a feeling we are getting lesnar austin

if next year is takers last match then that would probly end the show, I think kane should be his last match.

Why no?

It makes sense from a "legacy/storyline" viewpoint, i.e. Undertaker wants to avenge that defeat, Lesnar may not be in the title picture, hype it up as one of the biggest rematches of all time etc.


I stand by my other point of rather Rock v Cena III than Rock v Triple H.

Would Rock v Sting work at all?

Who else could Sting work with apart fro Triple H (again) or Rock? Cena?

Cena v Sting could be like Rock v Hogan but would Sting be keen on losing a second WM in a row and most likely his final match, assuming he hasn't wrestled his final match already?

Undertaker (biker) and Sting (Surfer) vs Kane (demon) and Triple H (snob) in an iron man match. If Triple H's team loses then Taker and Sting get to honk Stephanie's titties.

I honestly don't understand the UT-Sting dream match. Sure, they are both legends and wear black, but beside that I don't get it. They are both longterm, "franchise"-like guys, but I never understood the fan fervor and clamor.

When I think of WCW, Sting is somewhere around the fifth name that I think of, and UT was always the ancillary piece behind Bret, Shawn, Diesel, Austin, Rock and HHH. He is basically Foley with longevity (And by no means do I intend that as any type of slight). Add in that Sting isn't even the same type of mysterious/supernatural like gimmick, or at least hasn't been since 1998. It all seems like nothing more than a smark wet dream that does not lend itself to a mainstream/casual fan dependent event like this Wrestlemania has to be for the WWE.

I think it's BC it's the two guys that never jumped over to the competition. So they're considered loyal or some shit. IDK. Whatever.

I wanted Lesnar vs. Austin since, like, January.

I'm pretty much with this. WrestleMania is now almost "non-canon" in WWE terms. Sucks that the biggest show of the year is like that. Why not bring back bigger stars throughout the year to pad your lesser PPVs and create a more general buzz about your product?

Very few regulars on WWE TV get the chance to be presented as major stars at WrestleMania.

Cena vs. Cesaro should have been one of the top matches at WrestleMania this year. As it were, winning the Battle Royal meant nothing for Cesaro, and it actually took away from its meaning this year. Rusev is getting better all the time, but Cena vs. Cesaro would have just been...better.

Rock vs Triple H would horrible.

Rock and Rousey vs Triple H and Stephanie however would be a pretty great spectacle.

I'm thinking they may go Reigns vs Lesnar for the title again with the idea being that the smark crowd will be firmly behind Reigns now and they can safely put the title on him.

Meng vs Steve Blackman

I don't see why they are so high on Rousey. I have no interest in Steph vs Ronda. If she is going to be at Mania I would rather her have a real fight, that probably wouldn't last 20 seconds. Dana won't let that happen though.

Of course it doesn't. I mean it's not like WM has been a 4-hour show for the past few years or anything. Besides you did partially take what I said out of context/selectively left out that I said 40 OR 45-minute WrestleMania classic. I meant that as an idea for a taker retirement match at WM 33 where the "monster" version of Kane is back and motivated to retire Taker "for good", not just his career...a couple months of back and forth head games between a masked Kane and Taker, and then just let them blow the roof off the building with an epic match that Undertaker comes from behind to win in his 25th and final WM match, ending on 24-1...huge 24-1 graphic on screen as the cameras follow him up the ramp and he looks back at the crowd one last time as he raises his right hand up high and pounds his chest with his left fist a couple of times to a loud pop and "Thank You, 'Taker! chants".

You don't have to like my idea, but if you're going to try to poke holes in it bring something more than that weak tea, bro.

I'd prefer his last match to be WM 33, but other than that it seems we are the only ones in this thread who get how he should go out. :y:

I"m not a workrate snob at al. At fucking all. Even I wouldn't want to see them go more than 15 minutes.

I believe a match with Kane would be a good send off for the both them. Kane and Taker at WM33 seems like a better time to do it rather than this year.

Taker vs. Kane wraps things up nicely from a storyline POV (if that's even possible given the amount of retcon done on the Half-Brothers of Destruction) but a FORTY to 45 minute (because shaving that 5 minutes off could be the difference between a ****1/2 and 5* match, guys) "classic" it won't be.

They've had WM matches before; over 10 years ago, and nearly 20 years ago, neither of which were classics when Taker still had a lot more "go" in him. They've had non-WM matches too, Hell In A Cell and Buried Alive matches 5 years ago, that again were nowhere near classics.

Takers last 2 matches at Mania haven't been classics, with arguably more capable opponents than Kane is.

What I'm saying is, Taker and/or Kane aren't capable of a great match even with the tacked-on "oomph" of a huge gimmick match, yet you think they can put on a 40 minute "classic"?

I disagree.

I have no desire to see Undertaker vs. Sting, Austin vs. Lesnar, Rock vs. Triple H, or anything involving some UFC chick. Fuck all of these old-timers who come back for Wrestlemania and fuck off and leave the rest of the roster to pick up the scraps. So sick of Wrestlemania every year being booked around what the same five or six people are gonna be doing. Fuck this shit.

Also the Undertaker doesn't need any more matches. Seriously he's had ONE HELL OF A FUCKING RUN but seriously all his matches are fucking boring and repetitive now. No matches with Kane or anyone else please. Just fuck off and let someone new start to build a legacy for themselves.

And we don't need any bullshit "passing of the torch" matches like Sting vs. Cena because Cena is now in that position where he should be passing that torch. God I'm so sick of all these "dream matches" that are just the same ol' BS these days. Even Austin facing Lesnar doesn't interest me. Austin's had his run, it was fantastic and it was 15 years ago. The only way Austin would interest me today is if he was a guest referee/enforcer etc, and even that would be boring and predictable, ending with Stunner's etc.

Fuck guys. It's been 22 years of my life, but I'm really starting to think I'm done with wrestling. :( I'm so bored of the product, I skip through Raw and get through most of it in 15 minutes, same for PPV's. I just don't care for all these old timers anymore. I wanna see more of Cesaro, Ziggler, Rhodes, Barrett etc. And their pushes come and go so often I struggle to maintain interest. Fuck what a rant...

Do you think that would work though? I'm kind of feeling like whilst Reigns is working his heart out and is clearly going to be a major part of WrestleMania, people will still be calling for his blood come WrestleMania. Especially with the repeat Rumble win giving it a potential "Here we go again" feel.

I think the best way to do it would be to have Reigns show signs of being desperate, hinting strongly at a heel turn. Probably even officially turn him before this point. That way it's "cool" for people to boo Reigns. Then Heyman can turn on Brock (although I don't know why you would take Dr. Jekyll away from Mr. Hyde), and Reigns can screw Brock in the main event and set-up a fucking HOT Extreme Rules rematch.

I'm thinking the best opponent(s) for Reigns at WrestleMania would either be John Cena. Cesaro or Ambrose and Rollins in a Triple Treat. Cena, because it's the old franchise player versus the new franchise player, and you know the crowd would be fun. We could even see an odd Hogan/Rock moment, where the crowd completely supports Cena.

Here me out on Cesaro: He's so fucking good in the ring, and Reigns has been working his ass off to make his matches feel organic. I feel they would be a really good match-up -- like a REALLY good match-up -- both with something legitimately to prove. The inventive spots they could do -- sneaking in dropkicks up to the apron and uppercuts -- it could just tear the house down. Sure, it doesn't seem special on paper, but you'd obviously have some sort of build towards it. There's also this "company favorite vs. smark favorite" dynamic. Reigns would obviously win the match, but Cesaro being a test would be enough of a showing for him.

The Shield Triple Threat speaks for itself. They've battled in forms before, but this would be the first pure "Shield Triple Threat."

The Undertake vs. Kane, for whatever reason, actually makes me more interested than most potential Taker matches. Maybe Taker vs. Cena takes the cake. I'd like to see Taker work with someone brilliant in the ring, like Cesaro, to have one more classic; but I don't see that one happening. But yeah, I'm not totally pumped about him working another Mania.

Shield Triple Threat match for the WWE championship should be the main event.

Why don't they build Reigns to beat Cena at Mania? Honestly, who has Reigns beat in the last year and a half? Orton? Beating Cena, possibly for the US title, means a lot right now. Even if not for the title, and just a good old fashioned old guard versus new with Reigns actually beating a legitimate, protected mega star at wrestlemania in front of 100,000 people would do a lot more for him than being over pushed to the belt, again.

I doubt Lesnar vs Reigns would work. I can just see them going in that direction. It's especially not gonna work if they keep rolling with him as a face after he's done with Rollins.

And Cena vs Reigns would be awesome especially if the crowd went pro-Cena.

If it is a US Title match, they'd have to have a monster fucking match for the world title for that to work. I'm fine with Cena as champ right now even though it's kinda weird. I can see what they're going for. But having Reigns vs Cena for the secondary title while two lesser stars fight for the world title at WrestleMania would just not make sense. The world title match would need to involve Lesnar and... I don't even know who else they could build to that level by that point.

I don't think Cena vs. Reigns would be a US Title match at that point. I've enjoyed Cena as the US Champion, and it was cool to see him breathe some life into the title (I kind of view it as equal to the World Title just because he's holding it). They took a page out of New Japan and Nakamura winning the IC Title there, and it worked. And they probably would have done the same thing with Bryan and the WWE IC Title if it weren't for his injury.

Reigns vs. Cena would probably be either a World Title or a "feature match" all on its on. Bragging rights on the line, etc. Lesnar would seem a shoe-in for the World Title match, unless he does face Austin. If those both happen, what would be the World Title match? I honestly can't see it headlining whatever it is. It could involve Kevin Owens, given how much of a tear that guy is on and the heat he has been getting. But given that Austin vs. Lesnar isn't likely, I could honestly see it being Owens vs. Brock.

I'd like to see Brock be held off on regaining the belt till Mania honestly. Have him just rip through the rumble and regain the strap at Mania. I cannot think of who else would be a decent choice to win the rumble and headline. Also no clue as to who he would face. Feel like Owens won't be ready in enough time

You're watching the wrong company. Wrestlemania needs a healthy mixture to draw the casual fans. Not saying every part timer who can still go should be in.it, but to say they should do away with them is absurd.

The solution is to actually try to build guys up throughout the year so that they can draw the casual fans. As it stands though, they HAVE to use the older guys with some name recognition because coasting throughout the year and then suddenly throwing Dolph Ziggler or Cesaro's name on the marquee to sell WrestleMania over The Rock or Taker or Sting is a bad idea.

If truth be told I feel the same way. I mentioned to another user recently that I haven't really watched Raw or a PPV fully since WM 31.

A lot of it was the disappointment I felt with WM 31 which a lot of people seem to feel to the contrary. I don't know whether it was a case of building something up so much and then having expectations dashed. As a huge Sting fan I was disappointed by the way the match ended, it was good and had memorable points like NWO v DX but it could have all been executed so much better. My ideas for the Sting v Triple H feud and having the match go last etc. perhaps I have become out of touch with wrestling today etc.?

Part of my "faith" in wrestling was shattered with the ending of the streak too and I a adamant it was neither necessary to make Lesnar big nor the right thing to do with regards to the Undertaker's legacy. Many will swipe me for this but I just cannot hold Undertaker in that same high regard anymore as that aura of invincibility he held which set him apart from the likes of Rock, Austin, Hogan, Flair, Savage, Warrior, HBK, Triple H, Foley, Cena, CM Punk all the legends I can think of.....it's gone. Before he was The Undertaker, the phenom the only man to be unbeaten at WWE's flagship show. Now he's just like everyone else. A legend yes but nothing special above and beyond the rest. Even though McMahon claims it was Taker's decision, I think it was the wrong move and from a WWE perspective they should have convinced him otherwise.

I just don't feel that excitement with wrestling anymore and whether it's because wrestling really has gone crap or perhaps I have outgrown it and it's got to the stage where the big stars are now either my age or younger........there was always something exciting about idolising people older than you like a hero or role model etc. Sting making his debut in WWE rekindled that emotion.

I just don't feel that way about say Rollins or Wyat or Ambrose though I rate them all highly. Cena and Kane are the ones I like still and Undertaker until the day he final hangs up his boots. Big Show and Jericho still exist from that era but more a fan of the latter. Mark Henry never liked then and certainly not now.

Once Sting and Undertaker and Cena and Jericho are gone/scale back on their work, I will probably sign off.


Apologies for the rant but it's nice to see someone else echoing similar sentiments.

Do people really think they can maintain Owens' momentum until next March/April?

Why not. They did a good job with Rollins last year.

The old trusty workrate-o-meter predicts a Kane vs Taker match at Rasslemania to have a work rate level of only 56.362, not that impressive. The longer the match goes the more the workrate goes down. For the sake of serious business, Kane vs Taker at Rasslemania next year needs to be a reverse Ironman match.

Seth Rollins had momentum?

Naw, I'm thinking Cena is going to squash him and then he will spend the next few years in midcard hell putting on good matches

Or he gets bored again and gets lazy

I can actually see him ending up going the Bray Wyatt route where they "commit" to pushing him every other month while having him job randomly in between and he just ends up a directionless mess.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before but I haven't seen it...

Bray Wyatt vs Finn Balor, in theory, could be an incredibly feud leading into a WrestleMania match. Their characters seem like a perfect fit for each other.

@Bad News Gertner: (fucking library wifi won't let me post with a quote in it!)

I totally understand that, I really do.

But by not making "big stars" of the roster of today, who will be the big draw when guys like the Rock, Triple H and Undertaker etc are well and truly done in the ring?

I don't mind a couple of them, because obviously like you said, Wrestlemania needs that big match feel to it. But the last six/seven Wrestlemania's have all been pretty much booked around the same handful of guys, who are all part-timers and all pretty past their prime.

Cena, Lesnar etc are still current and belong there. The Rock being in a match is fine, but please not with Triple H! Remember, Wrestlemania's such as 17 (often cited as the best Wrestlemania) didn't rely on big names from the past. And yeah, they had that gimmick battle royal but that was not a big selling point of the PPV.

They've been spicing up Mania with outside help since 2003 when they put Hogan, Vince, Austin, Rock, and a not quite returned Shawn Michaels in the show's key matches. It's not an entirely new phenomenon, but the state of the product's writing now is a dumpster fire and these returning stars are bumping the full-time workers down or off the card completely. Wrestlemania 19 had a nice blend of the old and new and allowed newbies to casual fans like Brock, Angle, Rhyno, etc.. the opportunity to flourish. That would not happen today due to myriad factors, mostly stemming from the terrible management and production of the WWE.

I really think they need to start booking based on the talents strengths rather than making them do pure WWE style. With the talent they have there is no reason they should be having "piss break" matches at any PPV let alone Wrestlemania. They have so much talent available to them right now it's a fucking travesty they can't figure what the hell to do with them. This ain't the tail end of WCW its the fucking "E" .

It's crazy to think Orton is an after thought now. Correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't heard him mentioned once this entire thread.

I'm still hoping for a Kurt Angle retirement match to happen at a Wrestlemania. He mentioned yesterday he would like it to be against Bryan. Health for both men obviously needs to change but that would be the ONE Dream match left I couldn't miss. The rest... just meh honestly.

WWE needs to have strong Heels come out of Mania next year. Rollins, Owens, and Wyatt all need to have major matches at Mania 32 just to help the future of where the company goes. Soon these guys they call on to come back and work just won't be there.

For what his character is, yes.

They need special attractions now for Mania because the audience gets oversaturated by every one else.

Of course I want to see Triple H wrestle at Mania because he doesn't wrestle the rest of the year.

Do I care about seeing a Dolph Ziggler vs. Cesaro match? Sure, it'll be a good match, but not a "special moment" because it is a match we have seen and will continue to see on any given episode of Monday Night RAW.

Like, everybody has wrestled everybody, so very hard to make a match feel "special". Last match between two "regulars" that felt "special" was Daniel Bryan vs. John Cena.

Otherwise they need those attractions that will draw people in.

WrestleMania 17 didn't need to rely on big names from the past because the names of the present were so huge. That luxury doesn't exist today unfortunately.

I haven't watched any full WWE shows outside of Wrestlemania since 2013.

True, but I was surprised the first time I watched a clip online of the gimmick battle royal how great they did with it.

Same with when I watched LIVE on PPV @ my friend's...pretty huge "shindig" for RR 2002, all the surprise entrants like Perfect, DDP, etc...so awesome.

The gimmick battle royal was fucking awesome at the time. I remember being ridiculously excited for it.

How does that make the WWE money?

How is anything else making the WWE any more or less money? Bryan winning the IC title? Ruseve dropping the US title to Cena? How did Taker v Lesnar at WM 30 make WWE money or Taker's matches prior to that? What about each and every match on the card? All money makers right?

Undertaker is still a draw and will be until he retires. Besides it's not like people tune in for the one match. A Taker v Lesnar rematch would be a decent draw especially if it's his last match. It wouldn't be a given that Taker would sign off with a win, we were dead cert Taker would remain unbeaten or that Sting just couldn't possibly lose to Triple H in his debut.

Also to go back to the money issue from a WM perspective,it's WM it WILL be a sellout or near to full capacity at Cowboys Stadium. You're not drawing fans locally, nationally but worldwide, WWE is a more "global" brand now than it ever has been regardless of what we all think of the quality of the product or feud etc. The event sells out months before the card is even announced.

So Taker gets the win over the wrestler that has more momentum going for him than all of the active roster and then Taker retires. Not best for business.

What momentum would that be? You make it sound like Brock Lesnar is "flavour of the month" or "the In thing". Brock Lesnar always was a big deal, beating the Undertaker would never have changed that and losing to the Undertaker in a hypothetical rematch would do no harm either.

Also the only reason he has "momentum" is because WWE have been using him sparingly/part-time more to do with his terms and agreements. If he was week in week out then it may well be a different story.

If anyone has momentum it's Rollins and Ambrose.

Lesnar is seeming "bigger" than he was before because of his sporadic appearances and the air of unpredictably that's created.

Surely using Taker, HHH, Brock, Rock, Sting, etc makes each of them less special? If Austin were to wrestle it'd be really special but having the same part-timers crawl out of the woodwork every Mania season makes them less special every year. Same as seeing the same guys every time they do a Raw Reunion/Old School Raw/anniversary show.

Brock Lesnar turned into an unstoppable badass since beating the streak, you don't have him lose to Taker who is retiring.

Ambrose has lost a lot of his momentum since MITB.

I thought the whole point of Austin "retiring" was his injury hence we won't be seeing him wrestle again?

Those mentioned above are all "special" in terms of the legendary status they attained over their regular careers. Having them come back for the first or second match of the year does no harm/benefit to either.

The first point in bold; I keep saying, Lesnar was never portrayed as anything less be it during his first stint or current WWE run. His whole character, look etc fits that persona and makes no difference if he lost a match.

The second point: who better to "stop" him as it were than the man he beat some two years before? For me Taker v Lesnar is more of a story, closing a chapter i.e. Taker wanted to end on a winning note and beat the man he hasn't beaten at mania and who inflicted his only defeat. It would be a perfect way to sign off. Again it does no harm to Lesnar just like having Lesnar lose his first match back post WM-29 to Cena did no harm to his run/character.


I just think if WM 32 will be Taker's last WM then rather than having a boring Taker v Sting with all of the potential hype/charm ebbed away over the years, just throw him into a feud with Lesnar, that's more exciting i.e. Taker going on about the pain of that defeat and how it tears him up inside and how he can't retire not having avenged that defeat.

I find it odd that Undertaker never "addressed" that loss on TV obviously he didn't resurface until Wyatt called him out. But simply accepting the loss and "moving on".....doesn't seem like "the Undertaker way".

Besides the rematch would still have an air of unpredictability: will he or won't he avenge that defeat?


Apart from Sting which would be pointless who else is left? IMO he should have dropped the streak to Cena or possibly the Rock or Sting. None of those are options I think, Cena unless he's in the title picture or involved with another star.

I just can't imagine allowing the Undertaker character to retire without addressing that loss one way or another and it wouldn't be unrealistic nor far-fetched to expect the two to square off again given Taker went at it with Triple H, HBK and Kane more than once at WM.


Also going back to the "unstoppable" bit, Lesnar has pretty much been "unstoppable" since he returned in 2012 (he returned in 2012 right?) so losing to the Undertaker in 2016......quite a long stretch of being unstoppable even if appearances have been sporadic.

Undertaker v Sting should remain a pipe dream or better yet host it at another PPV and make that a huge draw e.g. Summer Slam, Survivor Series, maybe revive an old PPV like Starrcade etc?

Lesnar portrayed a chicken shit heel for parts of 2003, like when he needed the FBI to help him to beat Taker. And when he returned in 2012 He lost to Cena and then lost a rematch to HHH. He didn't become the character he is today until he beat Undertaker at Mania.

And until then he was what, seen as some weak guy?

Lesnar was no where near the draw nor remotely as interesting before they activated Skynet and put Operation:Terminator gimmick into place. It started with his squashing of the Big Show and has continued since.

And it needs to continue because without it the only thing he has going for him is Heyman and I think if that happened the ratings with Heyman and Lesnar or Heyman without Lesnar would be about the same.

Gosh it seems nobody thinks much of Brock Lesnar then?

You need to understand that it's not about Lesnar. It's about how his character is presented and how the show is built to showcase him. Outside of the first return feud with Cena, where he fucking lost, he was a featured attraction with lame storylines. That's no longer the case. He's the fucking man, the crowds are absolute shit hot for him, and he's presented as a huge fucking deal.

And what I keep asking is how that would be any different if he did supposedly lose to the Undertaker? Surely that would make a "rematch" all the more exciting as we'd genuinely believe there's a possibility Taker would lose a second time.

And if you think losing to Taker would "harm" Lesnar's rep/character then really the guy isn't that popular at all.

Wrestlers always have to win and lose and Lesnar is no exception. 2012-2016 even sporadic appearances is still a long streak with few losses: Cena, Triple H and you could call WM 31 a "loss" of sorts but I don't. Having Taker inflict that defeat would be interesting from a storyline perspective.

Taker shouldn't be pinning anyone at this point unless its a jobber, much less Lesnar.

Who would that jobber be then?

I dunno, Otunga?

Sting?

No to both. The first was a joke obviously and Sting wouldn't job at a second consecutive wrestle mania.....heck I predict he won't wrestle again at WM.

Either Taker comes back gets the win against Lesnar and retires or indeed another loss, or he just quietly says good bye.

I agree he should just quietly say goodbye.

I wouldn't mind Taker coming back to take a loss and put someone over before walking away. He definitely doesn't need to be going over Lesnar though. Would be horribly counter-productive.

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks Taker getting revenge on Lesnar was a good idea?

I thought it was a bad idea having him beat Wyatt though as that guy seems to have stayed static.