doesn't always happen 1 on 1

Or could be on Raw.

Not when the title fight is Cena vs the Rock and not many people would question Taker being the Main Event of Mania unless he was fighting H's or something dumb like that.

No, then who would be in it? Cena could win the Rumble then Rock beats Punk at RR then Punk's "rematch" is the EC match...but everyone thinks Cena is winning the Rumble which is why I think there is a good chance it doesn't happen and there will be some sort of twist.

I'm not saying CM Punk winning the Rumble and challenging Taker is going to happen, just that it isn't that wild of an idea and still would make sense as far as logic and character is concerned. Punk has held the title for a long time now once he loses it it isn't out of his character to go onto "bigger and better things". Beating Taker at Wrestlemania would solidify him as the best of all time yadayadayada and is a bigger feat at this point than recapturing the title.

Predictions:

ADR retains (no Ziggler cash-in)
Punk retains
Rhodes/Sandow win

Rumble:
#1: Dolph Ziggler
#2: Alex Riley
#14 (cursed number): Tensai
#30: Kane

Final four: Cesaro/Kane/Ziggler/Bryan

Winner: Ziggler
Runner-up: Cesaro

Ziggler goes to WM, succesfully cashes in MITB and beats Punk in the same night, leaving with both belts.

i'd watch punk v undertaker, but there is pretty much zero chance the build up will be anything decent or in any way convince anyone at all in the slightest that punk has a chance of winning

you're all getting so carried away with what might happen that you're going to be let down when wwe does indeed wwe yet again. a prediction of cena not being in the final four, really?

2005 - 2nd
2006 - won title
2007 - defended title
2008 - won rumble
2009 - defended title
2010 - 2nd
2011 - 5th (out of 40)
2012 - lol match with kane

Yeah, you're right. Replace Cesaro with Cena in my predictions.

Are these actual predictions? Like, a prediction is something that you actually think is really going to happen. Not something that's all "Hey, you know what would be funny?", but an actual real thing that you think is going to actually really occur. Dilph, winning the rumble and BOTH BELTS. AT THE SAME TIME?????? Or are we just tossing the word 'prediction' around all willy nilly?

Last comment was a bit of a "hey that would be fun".

Ziggler is my pick to win though.

I wold like to see Ziggler be number 1 and Big E number 2 and just have the 2 of them work together the whole rumble.

One thing I've always hated about the rumble is the way that they don't use it as a springboard for a young guy to sort of start his push. Obviously it won't work this year, since he's hurt, but a guy like Tyson Kidd should come in at 7-ish and make the final 5 or 6. He doesn't have to win the ****ing thing, all he'd need to do is stick around for like 45 minutes, and use that performance to springboard a push.

Instead we're going to have the same guys get to the end as always, along with people ****ting their pants about how impossible it's going to be to get Albert out, since it's going to take 11 people to lift his fat ass over the ropes when he comes in at #29.

This would work especially well for the "heel on a losing streak organically face turns by his valiant effort in the Rumble" angle.

I disagree. I'd go in believing he has more of a chance of winning than HHH did the last couple times (maybe I'm giving H's too much credit here). But if the WWE was convinced Punk was going to stick around for a number more years I could see him winning. They have proven they will push Punk to the moon and rightfully so. Still I'd probably give Punk a max of 15%-20% to win the match, but that's enough to keep me very interested. Also they could make it seem like this is Taker's last WM which would make it plausible he could lose. He probably won't lose until his last one (if he ever does) as Taker with no streak isn't as much of a draw.

Am I the only one who thinks that Undertaker/Punk has the potential to be a really bad match-up?

I just don't see Undertaker being able to keep up with Punk's tempo, and a match where the heel is the more technical, the more aerial, and the one pushing the tempo up against a slower, brawling face slowing the match down just isn't an appealing dynamic to me. I really think Undertaker would be better served by facing an older, slower-tempoed wrestler if we're all going to live beneath the veil that he "still has it."

Granted it was a few years ago but he seemed to be able to have a couple decent matches with HBK. Not sure it would make that much of a difference who is face and who is heel. I thought his matches against HHH were pretty good as well, but obviously not as dynamic.

Putting Taker up against an older guy basically eliminates any possible chance he could lose. Why would the WWE ever have him lose to a guy who wouldn't be around much longer?

i really hope they scrap the punk/UT idea (especially with rumors he's not close to in ring shape and doesn't wanna do a match this year) in favor of a triple threat. seems like a tremendous waste to do anything but

If anything, the Michaels and HHH matches underscore my point. Yes, there were some good matches in there, but they had all lost a step or two by that point.

I think "the streak" was in far more peril last year under the possibility of HHH's political clout than it would be in a match-up with CM Punk anyway, so the possibility of it ending didn't really enter my rationale.

% chance of punk beating taker is < 1 for sure

I enjoyed all of those matches and each one imo was top 3 on the card. Taker/Michaels 1 was by far the best of that card and the others could be argued to be top 1 or 2 as well on their respective cards. Which one did you not like?

Why? If the match happens I'll take 100 to 1 odds if you want to bet on it.

I didn't dislike any of them, and actually thought that Undertaker/HHH was the highlight of last year's Wrestlemania. All I was trying point out is that they had all regressed and therefore remained somewhat equals in the ring. Their superior story-telling allowed the matches to remain good-to-great despite their lessening physical abilities. A match-up with a much younger and athletic wrestler won't do Undertaker any favors in terms of his legacy, and if it's not someone with a realistic shot of winning then why put it on display?

UT's matches have been snoozefests the last 3 years. Finisher > rest > repeat. Or last years where it's Shawn distracting from the actual effort being put in. His match at WM 25 is my favorite wwf/e match ever though since it had real drama and imo that was the match where they made everybody's finisher not a finisher (when HBK kicked out of tombstone). Now they try to recreate that "ooooooooooooooooh ****" feeling but they're ******s who don't realize it shouldn't be done in every main event.

WWE clearly has their mindset of "house show match", "tv show match" and "ppv match" where the only variables that change are length of rest holds and number of times someone is allowed to kick out of a finisher. that is all they know! (one of the reasons the recent NJPW PPV was so refreshing since there were different styles worked across the board.)

They aren't ever going to have him lose at Mania. Ever. Ever. I think that was the entire point of HHH/UT two years ago. H beat the **** out of him for like an hour, and he had to be carted out after the match, but none of that matters because it's one of Taker's schticks.

He was the American Badass motorcycle dude, he was the deadman who, for some reason, Hulked up when some fat guy held a big metal cup slightly higher in the air, he was the ministry leader who turned Phineas Godwin and Mabel in to his lackeys, and he's currently some old guy who doesn't wrestle for 99% of the year but still doesn't lose at WM.

It's simple, and it's stale, and it's really predictable. We don't need to see it anymore, because we already know what's going to happen.

Agree completely. I can't remember the last time I thought that UT had a chance of losing at WM. Maybe the one against Orton.