Comment on this post ›

COMMENTS (11)

1
Page size:
PageSizeComboBox
select
     
1
Page size:
PageSizeComboBox
select
 Wrestlemaniac38Wrestlemaniac38Jobberabout a year agoLikeReply
 
Creative writer? This was GREAT! Kane does deserve a Royal Rumble win. But maybe he should do a 2nd unmasking. Then he could be a BIG heel for Daniel Bryan. Also, Benoit and Eddie Guerrero deserved their title shots at WM 20. Great Blog!
 Wrestlemaniac38Wrestlemaniac38Jobberabout a year agoLikeReply
 
Creative writer? This was GREAT! Kane does deserve a Royal Rumble win. But maybe he should do a 2nd unmasking. Then he could be a BIG heel for Daniel Bryan. Also, Benoit and Eddie Guerrero deserved their title shots at WM 20. Great Blog!
 PhenomvsIconJobberabout a year agoLikeReply
 
I've long been of the belief that while Kane does not and probably would not want anymore Title runs, fact is he does deserve one. I think J-God has it the other way around. He said Kane's the most loyal with Taker coming close. No one has been more loyal to WWE than Taker - no one. But Kane comes in second place in the loyalty department. Kane had a decent World Title run in 2010. That was a great thank you to the big man.

However, since 2001, I have always felt like Kane deserved to win the Rumble and win the World Title at WM. With WM17 being in Texas, it made sense for Austin to win the Rumble and go on to win the World Title at WM since it also allowed them to bring up the 10 months or rehab and all that stuff, which made things even better.

This can tie in to Taker. There's many possibilities for Taker's retirement angle. One being Kane wins the Rumble, wish the TItle at WM, defends it in his final match with Taker and loses it. Therefore, Taker retires Kane and Taker goes out on top as the World Champion. Unless Kane and/or Taker specifically request something else or unless Sting jumps to WWE, this is the perfect way (or one of the perfect ways anyway) for Taker and Kane's storied career to end IMO because their careers were so intertwined with each other. Kane's first big break in WWE came when he feuded with Taker upon his debut. From there, they were on again/off again, from enemies to partners and back again. It'll be like another "End Of An Era", obviously different than WM28.
Liked By: Formerly The Wrestler
 Vice President of Talent RelationsVice President of Talent Relations *
Moderator
Iconabout a year agoLikeReply
 
I have been a fan of Glenn Jacobs (Kane) since he debuted the character in 1997. I have watched for over 15 years as Kane never stood solidly atop the mountain. He has worked has ass off for WWE and have been very loyal to them. He has been in some really bad and controversial story lines, and he has also been in some of the best in the last 20 years. Kane may not crave the top spot or the strap, but he and WWE should do it for the loyal fans who have been clamoring for this for over a decade. Put the big red monster on top of the mountain.
 PhenomvsIconJobberabout a year agoLikeReply
 
It's not about being a Taker fan. Kane may have jobbed more than Taker has. But Kane has not jobbed to the extent that Taker has. Taker's made a ton of careers. One being the man he bled like crazy and jobbed for only for that same guy who disrespectfully walkout. Of course I;m talking about Brock Lesnar.

But there's more to loyalty than just jobbing. The only time Kane faced a limited guy is when he feuded with Khali. By then, Kane already reached HOF status. In his early days, Taker was stuck with Kamala, Berzerker, and Gonzalez. His feud with Gonzalez, which never should've happened lasted most of 1993. Few years later, he feuded with Bundy whose best days were clearly behind him by that point. Then in 2006, he feuds with Mark Henry who isn't as good as he is now and Khali.

Ask anyone in WWE or the biz, including Kane himself who the most loyal is and they'll say Taker. JR's said it. The commentators stated it during the Invasion angle.

Now I'm not trying to start an argument here. You obviously have a different opinion than me (maybe its because you're a Kane fan? Which is fine as I am too) and I respect it. It's just I disagree. 

If you're willing to say both are loyal on an equal level, but for different reasons (Kane loyal most for jobbing and contributions, Taker loyal most for tenure and other contributions), I'll agree with that because there's a valid argument that this point is true.
 WWEUncreativeJobberabout a year agoLikeReply
 
CM Punk barring injury will win the 2014 Rumble. Kane does deserve credit for how selfless he is but I do not see him winning the Rumble. I think Punk is best served in a tweener role. Not the typical stale WWE face (i.e. Cena, Sheamus, Orton, etc). I have no interest in seeing Rock/Brock. Frankly I have no interest in watching Brock Lesnar ever again. Granted his match vs HHH @ Mania far surpassed that snoozefest they had at SS'12. I see no purpose of having Lesnar fight John Cena, HHH and The Rock. Put him against new people. He could elevate newer talent without even losing.
Comment on this post ›