Wow why so much hatred from those against Taker moving?

In one of the first post about which show undertaker fight who from what brand and choosing, whenever a person says that he will stay on smackdown to face batista, there seems to be an extra fire behind the statements. Why is that? It's almost as if those people take it as an insult to even suggest the possibility that he won't be on smackdown anymore. I think it would be better to have Taker on RAW personally, just take a look at the reaction he got last week. That was an atmosphere not seen on smackdown ever. But if he did move, who would be able to face batista?

Certified Jabroni Number of posts : 61 Registration date : 2007-02-01

Well I'm biased toward Taker facing Batista because I believe he will that match but if he faces Cena I fear he will lose his undefeated streak

EWF Chairman Number of posts : 1233 Age : 41 Registration date : 2007-02-01

Because Undertaker is SmackDown to most people. Without him--or someone of Triple H or Shawn Michaels's stature--the show has no legitimate main event. Batista? Already past his prime and getting worse. King Booker? Never serious because even with the World Title reign, he hasn't been pushed right. Chris Benoit? Stuck in the midcard? Kennedy? MVP? Too green. Kane? Not pushed right. Undertaker is what holds the whole thing together: he can make a star in an instant, like he did with Mr. Kennedy--without that feud with the Undertaker, he would never have been facing Batista at the Royal Rumble.

Furthermore, what good is Undertaker on Raw's roster? They have John Cena, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, Umaga, the Great Khali, and so on. They have stars. They have big, strong nobodies being pushed to the sky. They've got too much talent on the roster as it is. Why take away Smackdown's legitimacy just so Raw can have one more legendary man soon to retire on it? Smackdown needs to use Undertaker as long as he's willing to stay--and the goal of that would be to create someone to take his place when he retires as Smackdown's legitimacy. Raw, on the other hand, doesn't need anything of the sort.

It's the Top Face Syndrom of wrestling.
Undertaker is now the top face in the company by winning the Royal Rumble. He's got the ability to choose the title he wants and the show he wants. The same thing happened when Cena said he'd go to Smackdown for 3 years if he lost to Edge.

Top Faces polarize and split the fans. They always do and always will. It's easy to agree on how to feel about the bad guys. It's the choosing between the good guys that always makes everyone take a side.

Certified Jabroni Number of posts : 67 Registration date : 2007-02-02

The Rock wrote:: Because Undertaker is SmackDown to most people. Without him--or someone of Triple H or Shawn Michaels's stature--the show has no legitimate main event. Batista? Already past his prime and getting worse. King Booker? Never serious because even with the World Title reign, he hasn't been pushed right. Chris Benoit? Stuck in the midcard? Kennedy? MVP? Too green. Kane? Not pushed right. Undertaker is what holds the whole thing together: he can make a star in an instant, like he did with Mr. Kennedy--without that feud with the Undertaker, he would never have been facing Batista at the Royal Rumble.

Furthermore, what good is Undertaker on Raw's roster? They have John Cena, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, Umaga, the Great Khali, and so on. They have stars. They have big, strong nobodies being pushed to the sky. They've got too much talent on the roster as it is. Why take away Smackdown's legitimacy just so Raw can have one more legendary man soon to retire on it? Smackdown needs to use Undertaker as long as he's willing to stay--and the goal of that would be to create someone to take his place when he retires as Smackdown's legitimacy. Raw, on the other hand, doesn't need anything of the sort.

Couldn't have said it better.

EWF President Number of posts : 1117 Age : 40 Registration date : 2007-02-01

For me it is plain and simple: 'Taker against Batista hasn't been done before and I have been waiting months for it. Cena-Undertaker already took place, admittedly in a very different environment, but I still have less interest in seeing it.
If Cena does face 'Taker, Batista against Shawn Michaels would be likely. Michaels can't save a Batista match, I know that. Not that 'Taker can, but I'd just rather see that match and any one out of Cena-Michaels, a triple threat or a fatal four way on Raw, even though personally I would have rather seen Orton-Cena to start with.
That is my reasoning anyway.

Future EWF Hall Of Famer Number of posts : 200 Registration date : 2007-02-01

666 wrote:: In one of the first post about which show undertaker fight who from what brand and choosing, whenever a person says that he will stay on smackdown to face batista, there seems to be an extra fire behind the statements. Why is that? It's almost as if those people take it as an insult to even suggest the possibility that he won't be on smackdown anymore. I think it would be better to have Taker on RAW personally, just take a look at the reaction he got last week. That was an atmosphere not seen on smackdown ever. But if he did move, who would be able to face batista?

Taker will come to Raw the #1 brand in the WWE! And will face Cena end of story,As for who will Batista fight i dont give a damnm maybe he will likely face Shawn for the heavyweight championship!!!!!!!!!

Certified Jabroni Number of posts : 85 Registration date : 2007-02-01

It would be unfair to put all the top talent on RAW, I would want to stay on Smackdown if I was Taker, look at the booking on RAW! I dont know why people get fired up though, I havnt noticed it. Welcome to the club

EWF Master Number of posts : 589 Registration date : 2007-02-01

Well it looks like he is staying on smackdown to fight batista. maybe he will move after beating batista after wrestlemania. and as plans follow, HBK is suppose to beat cena for the title. then hbk will move to smackdown, IMO!