VS… Starring Matthew Michaels & Widro~!

Features, VS.

PK couldn’t be here this week, but we’ve got a guest in the hot seat for the latest edition of… well, GRUT and Daniels’ threats nonwithstanding, we’re moving forward with this column, so sit back and get ready for some fun.

We’ve pulled another topic from the news bin, traded off on opinions, and thrown in a little bickering for good measure.

The topic at hand: The Undertaker vs. Michaels — who will/should win the Rumble, can Mania be successful with two face vs. face main events, and if not, if someone turns, who, why and how?

/Widro/

The Undertaker has never won the rumble, and with him penciled in against Batista for the streak vs. title main event, I could definitely see him winning. With that said, HBK is being pushed to the top and the Rumble is in his hometown… It’s just that he’s won 2 already.

/Matthew Michaels/

Wrestlemania has had two babyfaces in the main event in the past, and matches like Warrior vs. Hogan have been a success, but to have TWO main events featuring all theoretical ‘fan favorites’ makes no sense. There’s no way WWE is turning John Cena heel now, especially if they didn’t throughout all of 2006 when he was getting much less of a favorable reaction from live crowds. And HBK has said he doesn’t want to be a heel, and is way over with the fans. In order to set up this main event, Shawn needs to win the Rumble. Whereas, on Smackdown, the seeds have already been planted for Taker to face Batista … and I could easily see DAVE transform into a heel the moment his feud with Kennedy is over with, making that match a lot easier to book for Mania without the ‘easy’ Rumble win as the catalyst.

/Widro/

How would they turn Batista, and at this point, why? He is very over and the only full time superstar on Smackdown with Taker working a part time schedule. I think that feud works best as one based around respect. The seeds are more planted for a heel turn for HBK. They have been pushing how he is ‘returning to his old ways’ which could include him acting heelish and like a cocky, arrogant bastard. He could get so over-into himself as a World Champion, he could demean Cena as Champion, and turn heel even just for that feud like he did against Hogan.

/Matthew Michaels/

That’s exactly the reason HBK’s not turning heel. He just did it against Hogan, and it’s transparent, even to the biggest marks in the audience. You just can’t keep doing the same thing over and over again, and unlike the RAW midcard, HBK has the stroke to not let it happen. On Smackdown, you can easily turn Batista heel — just have Undertaker challenge him next week, have Batista turn him down, then jump him from behind, and cut a promo about how he’s “too good” for Taker. In fact, in that promo, DAVE should talk about how he’s been “carrying the brand,” is “the only one the fans pay to see” and how Undertaker’s “past his prime,” “a part-time freakshow,” etc. With the streak on the line vs. the World Title, that belt’s going on Taker at Mania. That means Taker will be full-time on the roster at least for the two months until Batista wins it back at Judgment Day. Will Smackdown need to create another top babyface to face Batista over the summer? Sure. But you’re talking half a YEAR from now — plenty of time for the best booked wrestling show on television to figure that little detail out.

/Widro/

It’s very tough to cast Batista in the role of ‘young punk’ when he’s over 40 and nearly the same age as the Undertaker. I don’t think fans are blind to that fact either and it doesn’t ring as something Batista would do. I also don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that Undertaker wins the title. He could lose, and lose the streak, which could be something used to propel Batista, or he could win via DQ with someone like Kennedy running in, setting up Taker and Batista as a team or a rematch at Judgment Day that Batista could win clean. I could see them giving the Rumble to Orton, doing Orton/Cena and Edge/HBK on Raw as the top two matches, which eliminates the multiple face/face matches entirely.

/Matthew Michaels/

Well, that leads to the other possibility I would imagine WWE is considering: making the RAW main event a four-way with Cena defending against not only HBK but also Edge and Orton. This eliminates the double face-vs.-face main event issue, but in order for it to make sense without completely f*cking with the “win the Rumble, win a title shot” stipulation, you either need Sunday’s battle royale to end in a three-way tie (Edge/Orton/Michaels) — a complete cop-out that I couldn’t IMAGINE Pat Patterson booking — or with a Smackdown or ECW guy outlasting the rest. And we all know ECW’s NOT winning the Rumble. That leaves Taker.

/Widro/

If I had to predict a Rumble winner today, i’d pick the Undertaker. I think HBK winning a third Rumble in his hometown seems like overly obvious booking, and I think the Undertaker would like to add a Rumble win to his amazing pedigree as he winds down his career, and he’s certainly earned it. I love the idea of a 4way, and that solves a lot of problems, I’m just not sure thats the direction they go. If they book a 4way, that opens up some post-Mania angles where say HBK could pin Orton, meaning Cena loses without getting pinned and has a legit gripe, and they could accelerate an Orton/Edge breakup (although I’d like to see both stay heel for 2007).

/Matthew Michaels/

I’m glad to see I’ve convinced you that Michaels won’t win the Rumble, and that it’s finally Taker’s time to win his first. Wait… uh… Like WWE often does, I think I just wrote myself into a corner… How do I get out of this one? Let’s start over!

The Undertaker’s never won a Rumble before, and he’s one of only two major names from the Monday Night Wars Era to NOT have a run with both the WWF/E Title and the Big Gold Belt (the other being Sting). However, I don’t think both of these things will happen for the Dead Man in 2007, as it would be way too obvious, since the Rumble winner has gone on to win the title at Mania every year since 2001. Plus, Batista’s just a few years younger than Taker, and therefore not the guy to break the streak, but I think they can easily write up a storyline that puts Batista over as a cocky heel (or tweener) who THINKS he can beat Taker at Mania, and make it a compelling main event that’s a lot more interesting than a respect angle that would no doubt come out of a Taker win at the Rumble. The alternative — HBK winning the Rumble in his hometown a few days after ending RAW on top — may seem obvious based on recent booking, but it also… works. I wasn’t loving the “Shawn beats the odds” storyline at first for a variety of reasons, but the fans are getting into it hard, Michaels plays the part better than anyone, and just like Trish retiring as Women’s Champion in Toronto made sense, the story of HBK winning the Rumble in San Antonio is simply the right way to go. Plus, even WWE’s got to know that if anyone on the roster can give Cena the match of his career it’s The Showstoppa, and in the long term, putting Cena over and making the champ look strong has got to be WWE’s highest priority come April 1.

Don’t forget to add your two cents by commenting below, and come back to Pulse Wrestling throughout the week as we get set for RumbleMania to begin!

Matthew Michaels is editor emeritus of Pulse Wrestling, and has been since the site launched.