Sunday, 26 September 2010

Undertaker vs Kane in 2010 -WHY?? By Shaun Nichols

If you to were to blindly follow the WWE' s view then you would say that the Undertaker vs Kane is one of the great WWE rivalries of the last 20 years, that is something that I cannot agree with. Let me explain why.
If you had to explain this feud to someone who had no interest in wrestling and also did not know who these guys are, how would explain it? Well here goes, the Undertaker who arrived first as the elder brother and was successful in the company winning titles and becoming a main eventer. Several years later his younger brother appears apparently unhappy with how his elder brother treated him in the past to get revenge. This idea can work great for example the 1994 feud between Bret and Owen which was centred on Owen feeling that Bret wanted to keep him in the background which bred Owen's jealousy however the feud lasted months and featured some fantastic matches. Now also remember this feud as being fought on and off for the last 13 years, not 13 months but years it's ridiculous. Worse still everytime they feud it is exactly the same feud, Kane as the heel becomes jealous of the Undertaker and off they go with matches which are typically boring and don't particularly draw very well. The Undertaker always wins in the end and will no doubt win again this time. N£0 wrote in his review of NOC that you aren't going to switch channels during Taker-Kane, well because I didn't watch it live I had the option to fast forward and move onto the next match which is exactly what I did. Throw in the which wrestler has magic powers to turn off the arena lights at will or to disappear whenever they want to and are you losing interest yet?
I will give Kane credit on his delivery on his promos, it is just a shame that he is talking a lot of shit about being the most powerful demon or some such thing. These promos are typically taking over 15 minutes TV time and the Undertaker's interviews are only ever effective when they are greatly restricted in numbers, having him talk week after a week is just foolish. To up the ante or increase the ludicrous nature of this feud, Paul Bearer was brought back who despite being the victim of being buried in concrete at the Great American Bash 2004 by the Undertaker, as not only forgiven his former charge but as somehow restored the Undertaker's magic powers. Now despite this being in a lot of ways quite a camp feud which you can't really take it seriously, the WWE see this currently as the main PPV draw for both the Night of Champions and the HITC PPV on 3/10/2010. Which again is one of the reasons why buyrates are really struggling especially in the US.
Also ask yourself if here in the UK you had to buy the NOC PPV on Sky box office would you have paid for it? I'm guessing not.


  1. Have to slightly disagree with some of these thoughts if I'm completely honest. Undertaker/Kane has a bit of a different dimension this time, in that Undertaker has been weakened since he returned from his status as a potato. We've seen Kane actually pick up a clean win over 'Taker, something I don't think we've seen before in their 13 years. I wouldn't dispute the fact that Undertaker will win in the end and will go on to take the world championship, but with both guys coming to the end of their careers (or so we all assume), it kind of makes sense to have them retiring after one last feud together.

    Regarding Paul Bearer's return after being buried in the crypt. You have to remember that this is the WWE, the company who referred to Edge and Christian as brothers for years and years, but now call them (I think) childhood/long term friends. WWE changes history as they please to make things suit them.

  2. Hey Stu.

    I have to disagree as well. I don't think UT/Kane is intended for new viewers. You know my thoughts on a personal level if you've been listening to Wrestling Soup (cheap plug :P). I think it's pretty much being designed to be a wrap up to Kanes feud with Taker after all these years as Kanes career winds down to a close. It is being done to perfection imo, as I think many fans would feel robbed if Kane just left and disappeared with no recognition of his attachment to "his brother" or to his roots as a character, and as a wrestler.

    Even Ric Flair and Sting closed the doors of wCw.

    Wrestling and more importantly WWE is a show based on theatrics and drama. UT/Kane is the epitome of what WWE stands for to this day. WWE doesnt attempt to try and mimic alt. sports like MMA or boxing. They do not try and build up the physical ability of the wrestlers to create the story. If that was the case, guys like Orton and Cena would never of been in positions they are today, and guys like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, would have never had their opportunity as Main Eventers. Guys like Heidenreich and Sylvester Terkay and Haku would be leading the pack.

    Anyways, my point is this. Its a story for the hardcore WWE fans and not necessarily meant to "draw" in new viewers persay.

    - Mish

  3. My views on it are as follows, as I mentioned when I was on the Still Real To Us show that covered the PWI 500, I have never really cared for the Undertaker as a worker or a character and Kane, well even less. Where Mish says "I think it's pretty much being designed to be a wrap up to Kanes feud with Taker after all these years as Kanes career winds down to a close" I pretty much agree as I have been saying that I thought that WM would see these two face each other with both retiring following the match. But now I am not so sure. For newer viewers maybe this is OK, I think there are fans that are still into Taker but Shaun & I have left the undertaker behind in the 90's

  4. Thanks for your comments, to those who enjoy this feud I have no problem with you. It's just that for me it does not entertain me at all for the reasons I have covered in the article.