For The Record 3.01.09: Problems with HBK vs. The Undertaker
Posted by Kristopher Rodriguez on 03.01.2009
In this week’s edition of For The Record, we’ll examine why the Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker match at Wrestlemania may underwhelm experienced wrestling fans.
It looks like we are going to see Shawn Michaels versus The Undertaker at Wrestlemania. I know, it's the 25th Anniversary, it's in Texas, and the match will be a spectacle. We'll see two icons tear the house down and put on a four, maybe five star match. But I have one major problem with the match. It is too predictable…
Does anybody expect Shawn Michaels to win? Honestly, who actually expects him to win at Wrestlemania? If you think HBK has a chance, I am jealous. I really am. The match will be more fun for those who think it could go either way. But most internet fans, and those who have watched wrestling for decades, know exactly what will happen. Michaels will put up a gallant effort, cover for a few near falls, but will ultimately fall victim to the Tombstone for the 1-2-3.
The Undertaker has never lost at Wrestlemania, and probably never will. However, "probably" is the operative word. There is a slight chance that someday The Undertaker will lose in a stunning upset at a Wrestlemania. If that day were to ever occur, the Deadman would hopefully lose to an opponent that would benefit from the win. And I can't imagine that the WWE would ever give such a significant win to a person who doesn't need it. That, my friends, is the reason why the ending to the HBK/Undertaker battle will be predictable and even anti-climatic.
Shawn Michaels is a legend. When historians list the greatest wrestling icons of the past two to three decades, The Heartbreak Kid will be right up there with your Flairs, Hogans, and Austins. Defeating The Undertaker will not change Michaels' status. Because of that, WWE would be foolish to let Michaels taint The Undertaker's most enduring claim to fame.
Ironically, those who were less established than Michaels have posed a greater threat to Taker's streak. Just consider Orton, Batista, and Edge. Randy Orton was a young superstar on the rise and a win for The Legend Killer would have made him a permanent main eventer. However, after a quality match at Wrestlemania XXI The Undertaker got the win. There were moments when the outcome was in doubt, but it was not Orton's night. Two years later Batista attempted to end the streak. He was probably the least likely of the three wrestlers listed to defeat Taker. Regardless, they put on an excellent match at Wrestlemania XXIII and had us all wondering for a second if the Animal would pull off the upset. Batista earned a lot of respect that night in a losing effort. And last year we had the Streak vs. "Streak" match between Edge and you know who. Going into the title bout, an Edge victory was not completely out of the question. A win for the Rated R Superstar would have made him WWE's biggest heel for the next 10 years. Sure, Edge is already awesome in his current role. But ending Taker's streak would have put him over the top. It would have been good for WWE's long term future because as much as a face can sell tickets, a great heel can also draw. Just ask Ric Flair.
A strong case could have been made for Orton, Batista, or Edge ending the streak. They would have gone from being main eventers to legends. That's how significant Taker's streak is. But there is no rational reason for why Michaels should defeat The Undertaker. None. HBK would get another feather in his cap, but it wouldn't make him any more beloved or over than he is right now. Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker. Simply put, Shawn Michaels gains nothing by winning while The Undertaker loses his streak by losing. Use wrestling logic. It's a no-brainer. Taker wins.
I would have rather seen John Cena and Shawn Michaels switch places for their projected (though unconfirmed) Wrestlemania matches. The Undertaker vs. John Cena would be a far more intriguing match. Going in, Cena would be the toughest challenger to Taker's streak that we've ever seen. A Cena victory over The Undertaker would be as surreal as Hulk Hogan pinning Andre the Giant. It would be a true passing of the torch moment. And could you imagine the heat for that match? Beantown's own John Cena walking into Houston and challenging The Undertaker? The crowd noise would be deafening. Now that would be a match where anything could happen.
Shawn Michaels challenging Edge at Wrestlemania would also be a fresh match. The fans would be red hot for that every bit as much as a Taker/Cena bout. And the outcome would be completely unpredictable. Micahaels and Edge have always worked well together and a World Heavyweight Championship match between the two would be one for the ages. But anyway, let's make the best of what we got…
Maybe WWE will add a stipulation to the contest. If it was a match that would force Shawn Michaels to retire if he lost, well, that would be a different ballgame. Then I would question who would win. The tagline for the event could read: Career vs. Streak. Something's Gotta Give. Either way, something would come to an end that night. That would certainly thicken the plot.
If it's a straight up match though, we'll see Taker win. But hey, what can I say? It's the 25th Anniversary! It's a celebration. Taker and Michaels is a dream match that everybody wants to see. McMahon will be giving the fans what they want with those two icons locking horns. The event will be fun either way because of its significance and atmosphere. Wrestlemania XXV will probably not be THE greatest show of all-time. It'll be fun though. And that's what it's all about.
Who knows, with so many shockers the past few months, anything can happen. At least that's what I'll tell myself when the Taker/Michaels match starts.
"Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker."
OHH NO!
Posted By: Paul Bearer (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:46 AM
'Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker.'
That's a pretty bold statement, and definetly questionable.
Posted By: Guest#9854 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:53 AM
I have to agree. Knowing the outcome will take away from the match. Just think about this. Whenever HBK had Undertaker down and looks to win the match, you know he won't.
Posted By: Guest#2950 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 01:10 AM
It's going to be UT/Kozlov, HBK/JBL. You don't throw out months of storylines weeks ahead of the biggest show of the year.
Posted By: Iain (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 01:40 AM
"Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker."
In the legendary words of Edge: WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!...WRONG! You were all WRONG! By the way, that comment better be a one shot deal of EPIC FAILURE!
Posted By: InsideExpert (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:11 AM
They should save HBK vs Taker for when one or both plan to retire. It can't be that far off for either one. There's no way they'd give up on Taker's streak now to HBK, there's very little to be gained from it. Even with Vince's desire to swerve for the sake of swerving, the WM streak is almost sacred at this point, he won't screw with it.
I also suspect with Kozlov going over Taker on Smackdown this week, he'll be involved one way or another. A streak vs streak match would be decent enough to build on, Taker can drag Kozlov to a watchable match and Michaels can be used somewhere else on the card (hopefully not against JBL, No Way Out didnt make me want to see those 2 again).
Posted By: Common Sense (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:15 AM
did anyone actually think edge or batista was going to end takers streak?
Really?
HHH and Orton were the only times i personally thought taker might lose but thats it.
Posted By: Guest#3416 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:22 AM
i agree with the article. but i can't see them giving the W to cena. He is pretty big as it is. The year Orton almost did it, the benefit was clear. If they were going to end the streak the benefit needs to be clear. And if Cena lost to Taker that would be bad all around.
Posted By: hi (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:25 AM
"Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker."
thats really questionable....case in point when you think Wrestlemania , to the casual fan (not us here who all remmember the ladder match and the ironman match) , you dont even think shawnmicheals (Mr. Wrestlemania ) , its alwayz THE DEADMAN , THE UNDERTAKER
Posted By: Guest#8070 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:38 AM
IMO, the Taker streak takes a backseat this year to a great match-up, over a decade in the making. I've been waiting years for a Shawn/Taker program. Finally they are doing it before either man retires. About time. Hopefully they can play off their past and juice it up a bit. It should be one of the more anticipated matches on the card.
Posted By: Jonathan Solomon (Registered) on March 01, 2009 at 02:52 AM
I Agree 100 % .
These are my Thoughts exactly .
EDGE / HBK *
Taker / Cena would have been FAR
better .
Very thoughtful and intelligent writing , I must say .
Posted By: HBK Fan (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:53 AM
HBK is better than Taker .
No doubt about it .
Even Undertaker knows it .
Ric Flair CHOSE HBK for his final match , because he KNEW HBK was the best .
Taker is not bad , but he is not in HBK'S league , in my opinion .
Posted By: It's true (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:56 AM
I don't see the Undertaker losing at Wrestlemania until he retires. I thought a few years ago, with all his injuries, that would be it.
If I am right, then this will be saved for the next Hogan/Austin/Rock type.
As for who is better, Michaels or Undertaker, I don't see Undertaker being able to carry as wide a range of opponents to a decent match. Monday will at least show who can get a better match out of Kozlov.
Posted By: Guest#0061 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:56 AM
Makes a decent point. Now if the guys lips werent firmly planted on HBK's ass, it would be a little better.
Posted By: hgh (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:59 AM
'Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker.'
That's a pretty bold statement, and definetly questionable.
Posted By: Guest#9854 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:53 AM
If you have ever watched a Shawn Michael's WM match
No it isnt questionable
it's fact
Posted By: Showster (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 03:03 AM
do i expect taker to win? YES!!!
do i care? NO!!!
we're getting this because we know we're gonna get 25-30 minutes of EPIC wrestling, with guys who haven't had a regular match in ELEVEN YEARS!!!
Posted By: CJ (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 03:14 AM
alright first of all, michaels IS better than undertaker. for christ's sake, he could put on a great match with a corpse. 'taker unfortunately, has had alot of partners that haven't exactly carried their weight, but the same could be said for michaels. and (all due respect) 'taker hasn't done with the deadweights what michaels has.
secondly, as a diehard michaels fan it's hard for me to admit, but yes, he's going to lose. but i would argue that he deserves a win on the basis that chances are, he's never going to have another title run.
and as much as i am going to hate to see mr. wrestlemania do the job AT wrestlemania, i just don't want some bullshit no-contest.
in conclusion, we all need a little rub sometime.
solid column rodriguez.
Posted By: csonkamaniac (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 03:27 AM
You actually want Cena to end Undertaker's streak ? Cena isn't Hogan.
Cena vs Taker maybe more unpredictable, but HBK vs Taker will be a better wrestling match.
Posted By: Bob (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 03:48 AM
"Use wrestling logic. It's a no-brainer. Taker wins."
Then why do you sound as if you think you are imparting some great wisdom when you say that? I think everybody already knows what the outcome will be, given it is a 'no-brainer'. Sometimes the best matches are those that give you exactly what you expect.
Posted By: antman (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 03:54 AM
"Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker."
Prepare to incur the wrath of the internet hate machine, Rodriguez...
Posted By: ausjimmy (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 03:58 AM
If anyone will win who do you all think it'll be,i think someone like rhodes or dibiase or jack swagger,up and comer
I thought RVD would be facing taker,or was that a one shot deal?
Posted By: Guest#0225 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 04:03 AM
I disagree with HBK being better than Taker, but that's personal preference more than anything.
I agree that Cena/Taker would have the better mystique over who would win, but I don't think XXV should feature that degree of drama from Taker, especially with the emotional angle they're taking with trips and Orton. For whatever reason people are invested in Taker's streak, and putting the drama of that possibly ending with something as personal as they're pushing with trips might burn out the audience. I mean look at HBK/Flair from last year, it wasn't till Edge and Taker started really busting their asses in that match that the crowd got back into the show. Something as cathartic as Flair's last match, or Taker's streak ending, or Andre being slammed, it has to stand on it's own. Let us enjoy HBK/Taker and sweat that Cena or someone else might end it all next year. For now I'll just enjoy the ride.
Posted By: Last_Rider (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 04:28 AM
Just like the cheap pop there that cheap form of cashing in your respect check ( like going to TNA ) and reliving old feueds or what not or trying to out a strap on someone whos clearly done just of who they were ( sting ) but if you earn your keep in WWE chances are you can get all of what I said on the grandest stange of them all its going to be 97 all over again i love it
Posted By: CrizzMane (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 05:03 AM
Weird! I was just re-watching WM24 tonight and thinking much the same thing!
Hopefully Taker doesn't lose at WM until he's sure it's his final year, if even then. The Streak adds SO MUCH to the event, and has for the past five or six years.
You're right about a Cena/Taker match being far less predictable. And I think an HBK/Edge match would be just as great as an HBK/Taker match. If the E's smart, they'll leak a Taker injury or Taker retirement rumors a few days before WM25 to give HBK/Taker a little more intrigue for 'net goobers like us!
Posted By: Sam! (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 05:04 AM
I love Taker just as much as any other wrestling fan but HBK might just be the greatest of all time if we combine: wrestling, mic work, charisma etc.
I fully agree with Taker vs HBK going nowhere, it dosent take advantage of these 2 last remaining major stars (bar Triple H).
They should be used to build the new people up, especially at something like Wrestlemania.
Posted By: Nights (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 05:22 AM
I'd assume the general disappointment will be based on the fact UT moves in bullet-time. JUST.FUCKING.RETIRE!
Posted By: scott (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 05:33 AM
'Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker.'
That's a pretty bold statement, and definetly questionable.
Posted By: Guest#9854 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:53 AM
No its not. Its the absolute truth.
Posted By: Guest#4865 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 05:47 AM
This is precisely why I don't see what all the hype is about. Taker never beat HBK in their feud a decade ago and Taker never loses at Wrestlemania, so the only obvious result is a Taker win. So what's the incentive in watching?
It's not like last year where we all knew Ric Flair was going to lose, but we watched the match because of the significance of the match. There's nothing significant about this HBK/Taker match...unless one, or both, announce their retirement for this WM.
Posted By: The Doctor (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 05:51 AM
so what if the ending is predictable, it doesnt mean the match is going to be any less enjoyable, would you rather see The Undertaker jobbing to Kozlov at Mania, giving up his greatest claim to fame to those less deserving. Taker should get to keep his streak the same way Triple H is allowed to bury every up and coming star and break the records of former stars. The HBK/Taker match will be great regardless.
Posted By: HeelTurn86 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 06:38 AM
Yeah, so in all likelihood Taker is going to take the win, but will that really make it underwhelming? In the past decade Taker's had some fantastic mania matches against the likes of Flair, Haitch, Orton, Batista and Edge. I expect Taker-HBK to be no different.
Posted By: The Ratings Killer (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 07:45 AM
WWE doesnt book for the internet fans. It books for the kids and the people who watch it, who really think both guys have an even shot at winning.
Posted By: James (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 07:46 AM
The ending is only a small part of the story. Enjoy the journey dude.
Posted By: Bahb (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 07:47 AM
"Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker."
False.
Posted By: Kurt (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 08:20 AM
I like the analysis, and especially this statement:
'Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker.'
THAT is just awesome. Arguments can be provided for both wrestlers and really, they could build a storyline that could piggyback off of this. Further, as you said, an added stipulation to the match would really add to the intrigue of a potential Taker loss. Let's not forget that Michaels vs. Flair was essentially a forgone conclusion: Naitch was retiring. However, they still turned in an exceptional match.
I called Taker/Cena last year, and the year before, because I truly believe Cena is the only person who has a snowballs chance in hell of ending Taker's streak at Wrestlemania. The only other person who could've before that was HHH or Orton. As well as that, it is a very fresh and unique matchup. Maybe next year...
Great column :)
Posted By: Banz (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 08:29 AM
I agree that HBK is better that the Undertaker, and this comes from a Taker fan, but quite frankly, the 90% of Taker's matches are not nearly as good as an average Shawn match, that's not something against Taker, it just says the truth and that is Taker is almost always portrayed as such a strong and powerful wrestler he often dominates his opponents, while Shawn usually gives a lot of offence to his opponents even if they're not main eventers, see his golden stuff vs Shelton Benjamin, just to make an example, and if we start talking about character development and promos, then nobody is more complete than Shawn, think about his promos, from funny guy in DX to superdramatic broken down man, from angry bitter man to caring and sensitive born again, you can hate him or love him but Shawn both with the mic and in the ring is just "another thing". Taker in the big ppvs is just awesome in the ring and arguably the best big man in the history, it should be a great match at WM 25, but it could have been much more interesting feud with a much different and longer build-up... and Edge vs Shawn would have been one awesome titlematch, worthy of Wrestlemania, I think Shawn deserves to be chanp again and to get the gold at Mania (possibly after a Rumble win, something he would truly deserve), Shawn vs Edge for the gold next year, now that would be cool.
ps: is there's a guy that could deserve to end the streak, that's HBK, he's even ended Ric Flair's career, I believe they're gonna play that in the promos before Mania, but I don't think Taker's gonna lose..
I completely disagree on the statement that "if you beat Taker at WM you're a main eventer for life", you're a main eventer if you can wrestle and can draw, or if you do so well one of the two things and the E trusts you're gonnaa get there with a push (not a good move, but that's what you gotta do with a lack of great main eventers). Max
Posted By: Max (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 08:32 AM
i dont think the fans really care that The UT's chances of winning this are about 99.9%. I cant speak for everyone but i just want to see a classic match between these two while they are still capable. It should have happened two years ago.
Posted By: hum (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 08:34 AM
Flair vs Michales last year was predictable but it was still amazing.
Posted By: Guest#1763 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 08:42 AM
Also if anyone is worthy of ending the Streak it's HBK.
WWE can't have the streak ended by a new guy who might end up on TNA 4 weeks later.
Posted By: MichiyoYoshiku (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 08:50 AM
michaels dosen't need a rub and this column wasn't needed.
lol bitching about a match everyone knows will suck.
Posted By: Mike Shinobi (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 08:57 AM
I think we're just going to have to bite the bullet with this one.
If this match took place anywhere other than Texas... there would be no single reason for this match to take place.
But with the Texan crowd going wild and a almost definate 5* match, I think we can look forward to a truly special match.
Posted By: JPCymru (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 09:05 AM
I'd rather not see Cena end Undertaker's streak either, Cena is already very established, plus he gets enough Hulk Hogan comparisons as it is, let Cena be Cena not Hogan.
Posted By: Guest#8052 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 09:07 AM
i seem to remember that the undertaker has never beaten shawn michaels ever...just watch bad blood from 1997 and royal rumble 98...taker lost both times he's never ever beaten HBK i think HBK would beat taker at westlemania
Posted By: sith666 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 09:18 AM
HBK does need the rub. He's the legend loser at Wrestlemania since 12. He's lost to Austin, Hogan and Flair. Losing to the Undertaker seals HBK's career as Mr. Legend match loser.
Posted By: Brian (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 09:24 AM
Even if it is predictable, i still want to see it! It has the potential to be a 5-star classic.
Posted By: Ryan (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 09:25 AM
Hey last year it was a no brainer that Michaels would beat Flair, but during the match I found myself buying Flair's nearfalls. If the match is good (like I'm sure it will be) you'll believe enough in it that its predictability wont be a problem, like the obvious ending to a really good movie.
Posted By: The Bo (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 10:16 AM
It's plain stupid. The Flair-Michaels bout was predictable too and was one of the matches of the show. I want to see a great wrestling match not a unpredictable bullshit.
Posted By: Rend (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Yeah, but everyone knew the outcome to HBK vs. Flair last year too and that was one of the MOTY.
Posted By: Doesn't Matter (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 10:26 AM
While we "know" that Undertaker will win, both wrestlers are close to ending their careers, so this could eb the last time they can go at WM. I think it'll be worth it.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 10:57 AM
This column should have been titled. "Stuff you already know about the Taker/Michaels match"
Posted By: The Other Ryan (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Does this article really need to be done? Of course we know Michaels will not break the streak, but we don't care. We want to see a damn good match, and these two will give it to us. This article just comes off as "You know he won't win right? So why care?" and that is no fun.
Posted By: Travis (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Meh. I see the argument, but REALLY, does knowing who is going to win take away from the match? I've seen countless matches where I knew who was going to win just because of booking, but that didn't make the match any less entertaining.
So Taker will win. Who cares? The match will be GREAT. And that's all that really matters in this case.
Posted By: Chief Runs With Beer (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Sure, there may be SOME Superstars who may actually have a LEGITIMATE chance of ending The Streak... ON PAPER, anyway. In fact, when it looked like they were building towards HBK/Bradshaw at WrestleMania, I was REALLY HOPING that McMahonagement would build up Chris Jericho as Taker's WM opponent; the promos leading up to the match would be worth the price of admission alone AND (like Taker/Edge and Taker/Orton) enough to cast REAL DOUBT obver whether or not The Streak would continue. I can also see a John Cena/Undertaker "dream match" at WrestleMania in a year or two, as Cena may literally be THE ONLY GUY IN THE WWE that Taker may acually job The Streak to (in a "Pass the Torch" moment).
With that said though, Undertaker VS Shawn Michaels probably WILL be a ****+ Match of the Year Candidate... even though the outcome really isn't in doubt. Last year at WrestleMania, everyone KNEW that Shawn Michaels was going to END Ric Flair's career, yet that didn't stop Flair/Michaels from becoming ONE OF THE GREATEST MATCHES IN WRESTLEMANIA HISTORY. The Mchaels/Flair match not only included some spots where it looked like Flair may actually SHOCK THE WORLD, but it included some of the greatest in-ring storytelling in WrestleMania; "I'm sorry, I love you" will be remembered as a classic WM moment DECADES from now. If Undertaker and Shawn Michaels bring their working boots, there is no reason to think they WON'T be able to fool the audiance with some EXCELLENT spots and false finishes, if only for a few moments. What if Michaels kicks out of a Tombstone, then counters Taker's next move into a Superkick and goes for the cover? What if Michaels is able to counter the Triangle Choke into a rollup? What if, when all is said and done, instead of hitting one of his signature moves Taker wins by countering one of Michael's signiture moves into a quick rollup? They could even play off of last year's "I'm sorry, I love you" spot for either the finish or a false finish!
Even though Shawn Michaels isn't really a threat to end The Streak, THE ATHLETICISM and THE STORY he tells in the ring with The Undertaker will be worth the price of admission alone, and just may provide us with yet another classic WrestleMania Moment when all is said and done. (Of course, this is assuming that IT IS Undertaker VS Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania; if McMahonagement decides to turn it into a clusterfuck involving Bradshaw and/or Vladamir Kozlov, it will go down as one of the Worst MISSED OPPORTUNITES in WrestleMania History.)
Posted By: Guest#7550 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Even if Taker retires at 17-0 or 21-0, whatever the case....he will still return EACH year for a match at Wrestlemania. Finally when he has been retired for a couple years and made a couple appearances at mania and won a couple...he will lose the 3rd match after he retires.
Posted By: JackHacksBack (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 11:41 AM
if the HBK and Taker match is the main event, than HBK will win
Posted By: kevin jordan (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 11:53 AM
I can't say I'm too psyched for the big fest this year. There does look to be some big matches, but nothing new. Mania is supposed to be about the big stars meeting a new challenge, and new blood getting a chance to shine. I can't get too excited, because the biggest matches are all ones we've seen before, and all predictable.
Posted By: anonymous (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I don't think HBK will win, however:
They gave Triple H the rub of getting Kane's Mask. They gave HBK the rub of retiring Ric Flair.
WWE gives stuff to these two all the time that they don't need.
I'd argue that the main reason that HBK is a threat to Undertakers streak is the fact that he doesn't need to break it...
WWE does this type of bullshit booking all the time.
Posted By: Tim Haught (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:02 PM
yep. cause you know taker is going to win so it ruins it. straight and simple. Hogan should come in and end Takers streak.
Posted By: Joe Mastronardo (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Cena? Really?! Come on dude, you can think better than that. It wouldn't be a pssing of the torch moment; it'd be a Vince and Cena jackin each other off moment. Cena would never be beloved..ever if he was the one to end the streak. The heat would be great of course, but you dont want THAT kind of heat on their biggest guy. The WWE has got to let Orton take it. Orton is the true future of the company, far more than Cena could ever be. Orton beating Taker would be a true passing of the torch moment as Orton is far more capable of turning back and forth between heel and face. edge would be a second chocie as he is already the best heel period, and beating Taker would make him the greatest heel of all time probably.
Cena...NO!!!
Posted By: Nikki (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Everyone knew Flair was going to lose to Michaels at WM24 but that didn't keep them from putting on a great match. Especially the ending.
Posted By: EVIL (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Did anyone really expect Flair to win last year at Mania? HBK was always going to go over, but it still delivered. Sure Taker's going to win, but if creative can get some good emotion into the build-up then I don't think knowing who'll win will even matter.
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Posted By: Jim Duggan (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Just because you supposedly know the outcome shouldn't hinder your enjoyment of a match. These two would put on such a good show that you're sure to get caught up in it either way. Both are so good that they'll get you to believe what they want you to believe. And since when is wrestling all about unpredictability? Sure, it adds tension and suspense to a match, but there's plenty of other qualities that make watching enjoyable.
Posted By: Mike (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 01:00 PM
they'd only do cena/taker in houston if they wanted to turn cena heel. Cena would be booed ten times worse then one night stand. and if he won, I dont even want to imagine.
Posted By: Adam (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:20 PM
I agree with this column almost 100%. Especially the "Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker" line, which is completely true and has been for years.
The problem with the assessment that Michaels doesn't need the rub is the same as last year with Ric Flair. Michaels didn't need that rub either, but anyone who could have benefited from the rub was simply too unproven to be worthy of it.
In fact, I'll point out that this exact same column could have been published last year nearly word-for-word by exchanging "Undertaker" for "Ric Flair" and "streak" for "legendary career." Yet Michaels ended Flair's career. It's true that we knew that Flair was ready to go down, but we also know that Undertaker has been mulling over calling it quits for a long time now. We also know he has tremendous respect for Ric Flair and the business, and perhaps he wishes to pay homage to him by ending his streak to the same man that ended Flair's career. It is sentiments like that that keep the idea that HBK can win at Mania alive for me, even though I do fully expect to see Undertaker win.
Posted By: DXSSI (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:21 PM
For all you internet wrestling genius, you should all know that The Undertaker has never defeated The Heartbreak Kid Shawn Michaels in a one-on-one competition. Remember Unforgiven 1997 & Badd Blood 1997, the first ever Hell In A Cell? I am sure that the WWE will bring up their past history matches to hype their match at Wrestlemania 25.
Posted By: The Overtaker (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:42 PM
I cant believe I read this article.
Complaining about a HBK/Taker match. Yeah a match with Cena would be more unpredicatble but that not going to happen this year. Would you rather see a match with HBK where you know the outcome? Or you would rather see a match with Kozlov, Umaga, or JBL where you know the outcome?
Posted By: bjw819 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 03:58 PM
"Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker."
thats really questionable....case in point when you think Wrestlemania , to the casual fan (not us here who all remmember the ladder match and the ironman match) , you dont even think shawnmicheals (Mr. Wrestlemania ) , its alwayz THE DEADMAN , THE UNDERTAKER
Posted By: Guest#8070 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:38 AM
Actually, when I think Wrestlemania, I think HULK HOGAN. Like it or not, that's Mr. Wrestlemania. Then maybe Shawn Michaels, then Taker. He has the streak but prior to the last two years of title matches, his matches haven't always been that high on the card. Mark Henry, Giant Gonzales, Bundy??? All matches that Mania could have done without (although the feud with Gonzales had great build).
Again, nothing against Shawn, Taker or anyone else but is Hogan is Mr. Wrestlemania.
Posted By: Guest#7631 (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 04:51 PM
No Comment
Posted By: mr_wishart (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 06:44 PM
Completely disagree.
Just look at HBK/Flair from last year. Everyone knew Flair would lose and it still was still a helluva match.
"But most internet fans, and those who have watched wrestling for decades, know exactly what will happen."
Funny, I thought that was a pre-requisite for being in the IWC? Believing that you know precisely what's gonna happen at each wrestling event and complaining about it online.
The IWC generally remembers that wrestling is pre-determined and focuses on the quality of the match. And HBK/Taker should be a WM classic. Just enjoy it and don't let it bug you.
Posted By: mr_wishart (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 06:52 PM
Shawn is far superior to taker .
Taker will never ever be half the man HBK was
Posted By: Yes (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 08:52 PM
It's going to be a triple threat at WM25; Taker v. HBK v. KOZLOV!!!1
Posted By: EZMark (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 08:53 PM
The Undertaker IS vastly Superior to Shawn Michaels in a lot of areas and totally deserves to remain UNDEFEATED At Mania.
The more I was reading this article and the more I was telling myself than Mr Rodriguez was either a HUGE HBK Nuthugger OR A HUGE Anti Taker Mark.
Ending reading it, I do think you're both.
When I read your points about how both RKO and Edge should have gotten over the Dead Man to become "main eventer" I was laughing my ass off.
Randy Orton was ALREADY A Main Eventer when he feud with The Dead Man at Mania.
Hell The guy looks like a BILLION BUCKS Prospect IN LOSING To One Phenom that night in Hollywood.
Same for Edge, he was ALREADY and IS One of the biggest HEELS in the history of the business.
The Dead Man made him his very EQUAL last year in the Main Event Of Mania XXIV.
So much some people were feeling he could end up the streak.
And who did not mark out for this Chokeslam into an RKO moment in the closing moments of the Mania XXI Encounter ?
Again if two guys were the closest to ever ending this "streak" it was both members of the RATED RKO Faction IMO.
The Whole "he should drop the streak to put someone over HUGE" is pure BS to me.
It's not the outcome of the encounter which matters here for his opponent to become over HUGE, it's how well booked and how beautifully The Legend Of Legends Known as The Undertaker will have sell the other guy as a legit threat that does matter in the grand scheme of things.
And both RKO, Tista and Edge looked like GENIUNE SUPER MAIN EVENTERS after doing the job The ICON from Death Valley on the biggest stage of them all.
As for Michaels being "better than Taker" how exactly ?
By doing the very same routine of moves and acting like jesus on each of his match like the JBL feud proved ?
The guy has been working the VERY SAME bland match again and again and again for years but hey it's HBK Shawn Michaels people ! he is untouchable !
Unlike Michaels , Taker didn't need to kiss Vince's ass in his office to look good towards the WWF Chairman and getting his career over for real back in the early's 90s.
No The Dead Man did it on his own with a gimmick guys like Masters, Morgan or Kozlov would have failed HUGE TIME with.
Taker is the greatest super heavyweight in the history of pro wrestling.
What he was and is doing with his very size and age are pure genius.
And if someone has to go over in HIS VERY HOME TOWN of HOUSTON TEXAS....It's The Dead Man not The "Heartbreak Kid".
Epic Fail for Kristopher Rodriguez ULTRA BIASED COLUMN FROM START TO FINISH !
Posted By: Blue Shadow (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 09:11 PM
And again the whole "By defeating Taker, RKO, Edge and Batista would have become LEGENDS" is a pure BULLSHIT/ANTI TAKER MARK argument and absolutely stale and crap.
RKO and Edge will become "LEGENDS" because they will get booked in LEGENDARY FEUDS and STORYLINES with LEGENDARY OPPONENTS, no matter if they WIN or LOSE !
That's how you're making a LEGEND.
You do think Flair, Hogan or Austin did need to "break a streak" to become LEGENDARY ?
They became thanks to great storylines and pushes and their commitment to this very business and connection with the masses.
Plain and Simply.
It's NOT a SINGLE Match which is making you a "LEGEND" FOREVER, it's the work of a LIFE TIME !
And again some guys like RKO, Batista and Edge against Taker at Mania looked one billion times more LEGENDARY in LOSING when The Dead Man made ANY SINGLE of THEM his very COUNTER PART and EQUAL in the RING than in Winning against the likes of Booker T for A Shampoo, Pinning a Washed Up Foley in a Handicap Tag Mess 3 on 2 or Destroying Umaga in a lame encounter last year.....
Can you SMELL THE IRONY of your NON SENSE K.Rodriguez now ?
Hopefully your absurd and lame column here was a ONE SHOT DEAL !
Posted By: Blue Shadow (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 09:16 PM
I hate wrestling now. Mma turned me off on it. But I will say this time of year is the only time I follow the recaps. WM is an icon and the best time to be a fan. I must say this: flair and micheals the end was inevitable but a classic to go down so even if you know who's going to win which mostly we always do it can still be amazing. Second micheals is souch better than mark. Dude pulled great matches out of, what's the term? Ah yes broomsticks. All of takers recent great matches have been with guys that can help carry the load (not necessarily carry) edge, randy, kurt. All good in their own right. But micheals? Got 3 stars out of vince, apparnly the jbl matches weren't the worst things ever. HBK is WM. Taker? Big show, a-train, sid, and many other forgone conclusions
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on March 02, 2009 at 02:14 AM
so... does anyone else think blue shadow's a fuckin' idiot with a dumber name???
anyone???...
Posted By: csonkamaniac (Guest) on March 02, 2009 at 03:51 AM
Did anyone really expect Flair to beat Michaels?
Did anyone really expect Edge to end The Streak?
The answers are very clearly: no and no, but that didn't stop either of those matches from being absolutely amazing at last years classic. All four performers in the match were able to make us think, even for a moment, that what we *knew* was going to happen wasn't, and if given the chance both Taker and HBK will be up to the task this year, because frankly, they are both that damn good.
Posted By: G (Guest) on March 02, 2009 at 04:17 AM
U guys r all underestimating Vladimir Kozlov.
Posted By: who cares (Guest) on March 02, 2009 at 05:15 AM
This is the best story line i heard in a while.You make a good point!
Posted By: UsExpress (Guest) on March 02, 2009 at 03:49 PM
"HBK is better than Undertaker?" "This was admit by 90% of Taker's fan" excuse me...where did u get the fact? from ur own preception i assume? Rick Flair choose HBK for his last match was becoz Taker was schedule for a title run. U should go to the main event once in a awhile and u will find out that taker will definetly have the loudest pop! and yes, Taker is better than HBK is every aspect. HBK is definetly not in Taker's league. not that i dun like HBK but im sorry...in this WM25, u will definetly REST IN PEACE!!! along with HBK's fan!
Posted By: Galasura (Guest) on March 06, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Further more. Compare HBK moves and Taker. Lets see....Taker evovled from time to time and he always brings out something new....now taker also got a lots of moves in technical. Guy with his size can move pretty fast is amazing. HBK? all the moves he got many years ago....and dats the moves he got today. Outdated!! and not creative!. He can still pull out a good match but Taker far superior.
Posted By: Galasura (Guest) on March 06, 2009 at 11:18 PM
"Shawn Michaels is a legend. When historians list the greatest wrestling icons of the past two to three decades, The Heartbreak Kid will be right up there with your Flairs, Hogans, and Austins. Defeating The Undertaker will not change Michaels' status. Because of that, WWE would be foolish to let Michaels taint The Undertaker's most enduring claim to fame."
what the fuck are you talking abut so will the Undertaker, obviously your a Taker hater that doesnt not know what hell your talking about, what's your problem with the Undertaker, if you cant even recognize that
and how the hell can you want Taker/Cena & Edge/HBK over this dumbass
Posted By: RizaJ (Guest) on March 07, 2009 at 01:40 AM
when its all said and done, you tell me how HBK is better than Taker overall, all he does oversell, is that what makes him a better wrestler, while Taker evolves over the time and gets better and more creative.
and when its all said in done, Taker will also be up there with the lights of Hogan and Flair, by the tone of you article it doesnt feel like you feel that way, must be a typical Taker Hater, or overzealous HBK Mark.
The outcome of the match, will not subtract from the good match these 2 will put on, just like it didn't with the Flair/HBk match and Taker/Edge match last year but at the end of those matches people didnt complain about that, only a smark would complain about such a thing.
and how dare you even think Taker/Cena and Edge/HBK would be more intriguing. The only deafening noise during a Cena/Taker match would be a whole lot of booing towards Cena, & a whole load of cheering towards Taker.
To be honest Kristopher, I think you need to look back at your article and realize how ridiculous you sound
Posted By: wow just wow??? (Guest) on March 07, 2009 at 01:58 AM
@ sith666, I think you need to look back at your tapes.
Out of all the 3 matched these 2 had:
Ground Zero: The match was DQed
Bad Blood: Kane Tombstone Taker and shawn just pinned taker after that
Royal Rumble 98: Kane once again Tombstones Taker and puts him in the casket and Shawn closed the lid
if HBK was to win, it would be because of Kane, not his own doing
Posted By: wow just wow??? (Guest) on March 07, 2009 at 02:02 AM
I been through a lot of debate on youtube because of that statement "HBK is better wrestler than Taker". HBK is a great technical and high flying wrestler but that doesn't mean Taker cannot keep up with him, Taker can fly over and walk to the top rope. In terms of technical the Angle vs Taker match at NWO 06 will speak for themselves. Taker however beat HBK in terms of power. For me performance values more than the outcome. HBK matches were classic because his rivalries were against to a superstar who really can wrestle while Taker rivalries was against some talentless giant. Lastly, Kurt Angle once said that Taker can equal his skills which means Taker has a skills like an Olympic gold medalist and that he consider Taker as THE BEST EVER.
Posted By: Grim Reaper 05 (Guest) on March 07, 2009 at 06:18 AM
To me, Michaels is not better than Taker, Taker is a big brawler, probably the greatest brawler of all time, you can't compare HBK to the Deadman, they are great at what they do.
And yes, in terms of suspens, a Taker vs Cena would be better, BUT, i have to say, WE DON'T CARE who wins, you got two legends in the greatest stage, just watch the fight, just watch the historic moment and just like it. Yes Michaels will lose, it's logic, but i don't care, i know it will be a great five star match.
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on March 07, 2009 at 08:24 AM
im pretty sure everytime taker vs. hbk in the past it was pretty predictable that taker was gonna win and he didnt like in the hell and the cell...so you really don't know what will happen so not as predictable as ur saying
Posted By: joeeeee (Guest) on March 07, 2009 at 09:38 AM
ok let`s be real. The thing of who is better it`s a cuestion of who you like more. Personaly, those two are my favorites wrestlers of all times, the bring such and old school style that in my perception they are the greathes. Now, i`m a mayor undertaker fan, but been sincere there are some areas in whick HBK is better than UT. Technycal skills is one, michaels is more an atlete, but lets be real, UT is more of a heavy dude than Michaels. You can`t also disagree that taker is the more respected legend in the WWE, with HBK very close to him. I think that they are going to bring us a UNFOGIVABLE MATCH, i`m 90% sure that taker will win, but that just how it is, the streak should never die in my opinion, and we should not be discusting who is better, for some of you HBK is the greatest, for some of us is TAKER. The two of them together in a match it`s a dream men!!!!! The Icon vs. The Phenom, The Two Greatest of them all!!!! Let`s just enjoy the ride and after wrestlemania we will see how the match was, but at the end of the day, they just going to be even more Inmortals. Peace from Venezuela ;-)
Posted By: giorgio (Guest) on March 07, 2009 at 03:30 PM
Are you kidding man. I have watch and participated in Wrestling for 30 years and you are full of s**t. Are your eyes painted on. Give us all a break will you. I never saw that hissy fit you are refering to, so if you have it, give us a link so we can see it. Other wise go and knitt something.
Posted By: Shrek316 (Guest) on March 08, 2009 at 05:43 AM
"Michaels doesn't need a rub; he's already better than The Undertaker."
People inside of the business and the vast majority of fans would disagree with that statement. Besides the Shawn Michaels bias of Mr.Rodriguez, article was full of points and very good.
Posted By: Tom (Guest) on March 08, 2009 at 05:37 PM
I'm surprised that you mentioned Michaels to be better than the Undertaker. First off, I think that Undertaker can do everything that Michaels can, but Michaels can't do half the things that Undertaker can. For example, Undertaker is so fast and flexible despite his huge body that he could easily execute the sweet chin music on anyone (he does the snake eyes followed by big boot) or the elbow drop from the top of the rope (he did that against Big SLow from the steel cage, not just the rope). But I don't think that Shawn Michaels can tombstone piledrive Mark Henry or chokeslam Khali with one arm or execute the last-ride on Kozlov walk the top rope (Old School) or do the suicide dive (flying over the top rope) - it is amazing that Undertaker is able to execute some of those flying moves despite his huge size and age. I can't forget the moment when he executed the suicide dive in the inferno match against Kane when he flew over the top rope while it was on fire - nobody else in the WWE could have executed it. Undertaker has given us the most memorable moments in wrestling, like when he threw Mankind from the top of the cell to the announce desk in arguably what was the greatest match of all time - their infamous Hell in a Cell.
Michaels has always had the same "se*y boy" entrance and the same heart break kid gimmick. Look at the variation in the Undertaker's gimmicks from dead-man to ministry to bad-a** to big-evil to hybrid, and the way he maintained links between them and changed his wrestling moves/ style based on the character (tombstone piledriver as the deadman because an Undertaker plants the tombstone after burying his opponents, then last ride as the bad-a** to show a different character, then Hell's Gate/ Gogoplata when his knees got injured). The dark-side character is very difficult to present because he can't dance or jump or smile or laugh or show emotion or shake hands with fans, but he has to make the crowd relate to him just by rolling his eyes back and slashing the cut-throat sign.
Look at how many other people Undertaker has made famous - Paul Bearer, Kane, Mankind, etc. Why was Kane created as a brother of Undertaker and not Michaels or any other? Why is it that you instantly become famous if you have a rivalry with Undertaker? Remember Batista and Edge recently? There is a reason why Undertaker is called the Phenom and the Measuring Stick for all other superstars. Look at how many innovative kinds of matches the Undertaker's character and its derivations could introduce - Hell in a cell, Casket, Inferno, etc.
Add to it the fact that Undertaker is the locker-room leader, a mentor for younger wrestlers and consider his contributions to the business backstage - I really don't see how Michaels is better than Undertaker in anything.
Posted By: Mayank Shridhar (Guest) on March 11, 2009 at 05:03 PM
Your article makes some sense but it is VERY one-sided!!! If you are talking about the match please do so objectively. I am a big TAKER fan and I never liked Michaels... but over the years I too have come to respect him... to the point now where I am a fan... though not as big a fan! yet still I wont come out and write in an article such as this that Undertaker is better than Shawn... its not ethical and it obviously is the main topic of discontent in all the comments... unless that is what u were hoping for!!! Suggest ur points but do so objectively!!!!
Posted By: Joel (Guest) on March 11, 2009 at 11:14 PM
You said: >> "When historians list the greatest wrestling icons of the past two to three decades, The Heartbreak Kid will be right up there with your Flairs, Hogans, and Austins."
Oh yeah, and Undertaker is on the head of the list. All WWE wrestlers and employees themselves consider him to be the greatest of all time. I will post an interview from Kurt Angle below:
Kurt Angle: My match with Undertaker on Smackdown was one of the greatest matches I’ve ever had. Ummm…. you know, people will say the fans consider Undertaker the greatest wrestler in WWE history. He is the most popular wrestler in WWE history. But the one thing that he has, that no other wrestler has, is the respect and admiration of his peers. In other words, they - we, as WWE wrestlers, think he’s the greatest ever. Umm…. that’s a bigger compliment than being the ‘greatest ever’ from fans. You have your Hulk Hogans, you have your Stone Cold Steve Austins, you have your Rocks, you have your Eddie Guerreros, Chris Benoits, umm…. you know…. Kurt Angles, obviously I’m not gonna name myself in the top list. But Undertaker I can consider…. and him and Shawn Michaels, I have to go with Shawn - he’s a great one, HHH. But Undertaker is the greatest wrestler I have ever seen. For his size, his speed, his skill, his psychology, everything about him, his look - he has the total package which makes the WWE special because you can take a man like him and make him your top player. And obviously he’s done it for so long and this company has done so well for so long - why? Because the Undertaker’s been on top. He is without a doubt the greatest ever. The reason the match is important to me is because I had to prove to Undertaker that although I’ve only been wrestling for 5 years, that I am a top guy, that I am a tremendous wrestler, that I am as good as people think I am in this company. I wanted to prove to Undertaker because here he’s like the dad and we’re all children. I wanted to prove to my dad, which is why I do things for my real father - I wanna prove to him, God rest his soul - that I can be a champion, that I can be the best at something. And I wanted to prove that night to Undertaker that “hey, I’m the kind of guy you wanna wrestle with every night because you’ll get this kind of match”. So, I felt like a child to his parent saying, you know, “look what I can do, dad, and I hope that you can see this and say, ‘Man, you’re incredible and I love wrestling you’”, because what we got out of it was the most competitive match.
Posted By: Mayank Shridhar (Guest) on March 12, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Kurt Angle interview continued:
Kurt Angle: And you know, when the fans…. although they didn’t get the ending, because Brock came in - Brock got the biggest boos ever. When we stood up, we got a standing ovation without a finish, without an ending. And when you have that kind of match and both people get standing ovation, you did something right - and that doesn’t happen very often. Since I’ve been here, I think the only other times I’ve seen standing ovations for a loser or someone that didn’t win was when I wrestled Shawn Michaels, and I left and he lost at Wrestlemania, and when I beat Chris Benoit, and I left and he lost. They got louder cheers for losing than I did for winning. And that night, we tore the house down. And I wish, I pray to God that someday I can wrestle him again, and that it can be at a Wrestlemania or a Summerslam…. because you know, we have a lot of tremendous pay-per-views but those are the big ones. You know, Wrestlemania, Summerslam…. you know, I pray to God that I can do one with Undertaker so that I can sit back and say, “I did it, I had the best match ever”. And I honestly believe I already have, with Shawn Michaels and Chris Benoit - with Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania. But I really believe deep in my heart I can out-do with the Undertaker, and that’s the kind of athlete, that’s the kind of wrestler he is, and that’s the kind of person he is. He is our leader, and I consider Undertaker the best ever.
Posted By: Mayank Shridhar (Guest) on March 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM
undertaker will never ever lose at wrestlemania when undertaker go to hall of fame they will name him undefeated at wrestlemania
Posted By: ravin (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 10:49 PM
The Undertaker is way... way better then HBK in many ways. What has HBK done?? no one and I mean no one wants to fight taker on a one on one. taker has many ways to take you out, Hbk had help in the pass that made him a legend. Taker had to prove himself over and over and over. take had more two on one fights and WON! then HBK, by the way I'm a HBK fan since the NWA Rock and Roll Express; but I have to give taker a lot... for what he did in the NWA, WWF, WWE. if you want to see a match look no further but with Sting.
Why? conpair them!! I know that sting wants a match with the undertaker for a long, long time, something had happened in the past between them in the NWA. (look it up)
I'm not a taker fan but I felt that some how some one or HBK would jump him EARLY to get the advantage and taker do gets beat down a lot; and thats why I'm not his fan, but this is his moment 17-0.
For taker to lose it will take a young up and coming star with special talents, some one different, smart, loves to fight and into his roll in the WWE. We have A year to go let see how this will pan out for WM #26.
Posted By: MassGov (Guest) on April 07, 2009 at 02:13 AM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
