Dante, The Voc
Main Eventer
If I'm not online, I'm on the toilet
Joined on: Dec 5, 2010 9:48:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,374
|
Post by Dante, The Voc on Mar 13, 2014 14:46:41 GMT -5
Just something that was tossing about in my head today. We've seen wrestlers leave--be it from jumping promotions to taking a sabbatical to retiring from wrestling altogether. We've seen some go out winners; others put over a close friend or rising star. My question to you is which ending scenario is more entertaining to you, or which one is better from a storytelling standpoint? Would you rather see the person ride off into the sunset a winner or usher in a new era of a promotion?
|
|
TheHotshot
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 4, 2013 12:01:46 GMT -5
Posts: 775 
|
Post by TheHotshot on Mar 13, 2014 15:01:35 GMT -5
Depends on who they are I guess. I would say they should always win but some for guys it was pretty fitting for him to lose.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:19:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 15:04:38 GMT -5
Depends who. If it's a guy like Rock/Bret/Undertaker/Hogan then win.
If it's a guy like Miz then lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Mar 13, 2014 17:17:16 GMT -5
Depends who. If it's a guy like Rock/Bret/Undertaker/Hogan then win. If it's a guy like Miz then lose. A wrestler should ALWAYS lose their last match. The only exception is The Undertaker if his last match is at WrestleMania. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:19:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 17:23:26 GMT -5
Depends who. If it's a guy like Rock/Bret/Undertaker/Hogan then win. If it's a guy like Miz then lose. A wrestler should ALWAYS lose their last match. The only exception is The Undertaker if his last match is at WrestleMania. Some people deserve to go out on top. |
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Mar 13, 2014 17:33:10 GMT -5
A wrestler should ALWAYS lose their last match. The only exception is The Undertaker if his last match is at WrestleMania. Some people deserve to go out on top. No. A wrestler should always put someone over big in their final match. What's the point of having him win? Oh, thanks for doing your job so you can beat this guy which leads to nothing because the winner is leaving. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:19:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 17:35:41 GMT -5
Some people deserve to go out on top. No. A wrestler should always put someone over big in their final match. What's the point of having him win? Oh, thanks for doing your job so you can beat this guy which leads to nothing because the winner is leaving. If Goldberg for example came back and had a match with Ryback, Ryback is simply elevated by being in the ring with him. Winning doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Mar 13, 2014 17:36:41 GMT -5
99% of the time.....if you are leaving, you put someone over to help the business. BUT....there are some fair exceptions. For instance, Trish Stratus.....never had an issue with her going out on top over Lita.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:19:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 17:41:46 GMT -5
Just really depends on who it is for me, honestly. I would say they should put someone over on their way out, especially if they're going to another company. If they are simply retiring, then I wouldn't care as much if they won or lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Mar 13, 2014 17:44:57 GMT -5
Depends on the wrestler honestly. If WM8 was truly going to be Hogan's last match, he should have gone out winning. One final pose down and off to do movies. Hart @ Survivor Series, he should have lost & dropped the title. Its the right thing to do. Flair wasnt an established WWF star like Hogan so he left by doing the job, and rightfully so. It just depends on the wrestler and the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhawk on Mar 13, 2014 17:48:09 GMT -5
It really depends, because you can't really have someone be put over because you really have no idea if that certain wrestler they put over will still work for WWE in the next few years. For example say if CM Punk defeated Undertaker last year and then all of a sudden just left, because he didn't like how he was being used. Then it's all lost and Undertaker's streak is just a waste now.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Mar 13, 2014 17:49:59 GMT -5
No. A wrestler should always put someone over big in their final match. What's the point of having him win? Oh, thanks for doing your job so you can beat this guy which leads to nothing because the winner is leaving. If Goldberg for example came back and had a match with Ryback, Ryback is simply elevated by being in the ring with him. Winning doesn't matter. Not necessarily. Were The Miz and Truth elevated when they lost to The Rock? Nope. It wasn't Rock's last match, but same principle. Nobody is elevated simply being in the ring with somebody anymore. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:19:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 19:10:48 GMT -5
Miz & Truth were SLAUGHTERED against Rock & Cena so no being in the same ring as Rock did zero for either man. I think when guys are leaving for another fed they should lose just like Hall & Nash on their way out of WWF in 1996.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:19:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 18:32:31 GMT -5
The old school fan in me says to lose.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:19:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 4:51:55 GMT -5
They should lose and give the rub from their career to someone else. Winning your last match does nothjng for anyone except the person involved. Now if it's the streak, I think it's gotten to a point where it will give someone xpac heat. So taker is like the only one who should win his last match because he's obviously retiring at mania.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:19:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 8:23:38 GMT -5
If Goldberg for example came back and had a match with Ryback, Ryback is simply elevated by being in the ring with him. Winning doesn't matter. Not necessarily. Were The Miz and Truth elevated when they lost to The Rock? Nope. It wasn't Rock's last match, but same principle. Nobody is elevated simply being in the ring with somebody anymore. Completely different set of circumstances though. That match was just fuel for Rock/Cena. Whoever was in that match didn't matter, a one on one scenario is a completely different kettle of fish. Just look at Warrior/Hunter at WM12. Absolutely no one gave a crap about Hunter before that match, just being in the ring with Warrior put him on the map. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Mar 17, 2014 9:06:08 GMT -5
Losing is generally the way to go, but there are several exceptions. The most obvious one is Undertaker, who under no circumstances should lose his last match at WM.
|
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 17, 2014 10:33:52 GMT -5
If Shawn Michaels, of all people, can go out with a loss, anyone can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Mar 17, 2014 11:33:05 GMT -5
If Shawn Michaels, of all people, can go out with a loss, anyone can. To be fair, that was a bit different. HBK faced the one man at the one event where a loss is unimaginable. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:19:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 11:37:55 GMT -5
They should all lose.
Except for Bret Hart in Canada against HBK......
|
|
