I've just realized, a lot of people say that guys like Undertaker, Big Show, HHH should all go out on their back to get an upcoming talent over.. But when looking at recent history I've begun to notice that doesn't really seem to happen. HBK lost to the Veteran Undertaker, Ric Flair lost to Shawn Michaels, Austin went out against The Rock, The Rock out against Cena, Undertaker's streak rub for Lesnar, Lesnar left years ago to goldberg, and now there are rumors that Big Show's last match will be against Shaq, and I'm guessing Undertaker's last match will be against John Cena.
I mean I guess one can say Sting went out against a young talent.. But in actuality I guess the whole idea of giving someone young a rub doesn't seem to happen in wrestling. I mean it's probably happened quite a bit if one where to go far back enough, but when people say Taker should let someone younger like Wyatt or Finn beat him, I just don't see it happening, though I would like to see it, it's probably not going to happen.
So my question is do you think vets should be letting younger up and coming talent go over instead of other veterans who may not need the rub, or do you think its best for the vets to go out in a match that would draw more money, and that you believe that the whole idea of putting over young talent on the way out is a naive idea.
For me I think it's probably the best idea to go with the match that draws the most money, I mean sure a guy like Flair could have put over Mr. Kennedy or a John Morrison or HBK could have done the same thing, but I think those guys deserve to go out in a spectacle, and I mean this for all wrestlers who have contributed so much in the business, that going out in a dream match, is what's best for business.
I mean I'm sure most would rather see Undertaker fight Cena in his retirement then a Finn, Baron, or even Wyatt, cause it would make the match a lot more special, and get that much more attention.
For awhile I would hate the idea of vets not putting younger talent over on the way out, but now I totally understand it.
I mean I guess one can say Sting went out against a young talent.. But in actuality I guess the whole idea of giving someone young a rub doesn't seem to happen in wrestling. I mean it's probably happened quite a bit if one where to go far back enough, but when people say Taker should let someone younger like Wyatt or Finn beat him, I just don't see it happening, though I would like to see it, it's probably not going to happen.
So my question is do you think vets should be letting younger up and coming talent go over instead of other veterans who may not need the rub, or do you think its best for the vets to go out in a match that would draw more money, and that you believe that the whole idea of putting over young talent on the way out is a naive idea.
For me I think it's probably the best idea to go with the match that draws the most money, I mean sure a guy like Flair could have put over Mr. Kennedy or a John Morrison or HBK could have done the same thing, but I think those guys deserve to go out in a spectacle, and I mean this for all wrestlers who have contributed so much in the business, that going out in a dream match, is what's best for business.
I mean I'm sure most would rather see Undertaker fight Cena in his retirement then a Finn, Baron, or even Wyatt, cause it would make the match a lot more special, and get that much more attention.
For awhile I would hate the idea of vets not putting younger talent over on the way out, but now I totally understand it.