purityofevil2003

"Where are all the rumors coming from regarding the retirement plans of the Undertaker? Some emailers are contacting us as if these rumors are fact and are etched in stone. These are the same, unfounded rumors that begin making their rounds after each Wrestlemania. My take on this matter is that Undertaker isn’t retiring after WM27 in Atlanta. I can easily see the Deadman competing for another three years or so if his schedule is well managed. If forced to speculate, and that’s all I’m doing, wouldn’t calling it a day after, say, Wrestlemania 30 make more sense? Bottom line is that Taker will retire when he’s damn well ready to retire plus I still stand by what I have always said that he will never lose a match at Wrestlemania."

Hopefully this will put a stop to all the constant retirement rumors.

The minute the Undertaker's match with Punk ended, all the smarks start complainging about how it was a squash, how CM Punk was buried, how 'Taker should ahve put him over, etc. The whole purpose of the match was to show that the Undertaker was back and ready to take on Kane at Hell in a Cell. It was not an attempt to make Punk look weak. SInce the Undertaker's matcht this Sunday was more important, Punk had to take the loss. That's the way WWE works. What is it with the IWC that they always fail to understand this?

...how would you do it?

This isn't meant to be taken seriously. Just a interesting, creative question I thought would be fun.

Best answer goes to the most creative scenario.

One of the popular complaints from smarks regarding the Undertaker is that he "buries" talent and never puts anyone over. But history has shown that the Undertaker has put many, many Superstars over. He helped establish Mankind and Kane. He jobbed clean to the likes of Brock Lesnar, Khali, Batista, and Kozlov. He's helped to turn Randy Orton, Edge, and Batista into main-eventers. So why does the IWC still continue to make the claim that he never puts anyone over, when evidence has shown otherwise?

Seriously, what is going on with all these retarded little mutants and their "Ministry of Trolls"? Wasn't this section bad enough as it was?

I just realized this. Neither one of them has ever been drafted to Raw since they got to SmackDown. Just an interesting observation I felt like pointing out.

Raw and TNA just went off the air, and all the forums are on fire with marks going on and on about how much better their show was than the other? Does it really make that big a difference? Why can't we just sit back and enjoy whatever show we want without beating our chests bellowing about our favorite promotion all over the Internet?

...if he ever got wind of one of her anti-Taker rants? Would she have the balls to call him "Old Man 'Taker" to his face?

Why is it that I keep seeing this question over and over again? Why can't they just leave other people alone and let them watch wrestling in peace?

I think he would be the perfect director, and if WWE tried hard enough, they could probably get him to do it. Any thoughts on this?

Also: How else should star in it besides the Undertaker?

I heard from some wrestling Web site that the Undertaker dated Maryse for a while before dating Michelle. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this?

Also: What would be good titles for each of them?

Just thought this might be kind of fun.

Or will the Internet idiots keep bashing her as long as she's dating the Undertaker?

Every forum I go on, everybody's bashing someone, whether it's John Cena, HHH, the Divas, and even legends like the Undertaker. Why is it that people can't show more respect for the people who put their bodies and health on the line to entertain them?

Who would win in an Inter-Gender tag team match between Shawn Michaels and Mickie James vs. the Undertaker and Beth Phoenix?

The Undertaker

Triple H

Chris Jericho

Stone Cold

The Rock

Trish Stratus