WWE's Return of 2 Legends: Why Did One Get a Bigger Pop Than the Other?
Last night on Monday Night Raw, all the speculation came to an end. The mystery man in black in that dark house on that stormy night was revealed.
That man was The Undertaker.
From the beginning of the show, we were teased with a countdown clock which would subtly appear every now and then, reminding us (as if we needed reminding) that the time was almost upon us.
The spectacular promos came to an end in an eerie fashion. The Undertaker opened the door in menacing fashion as if to say, ''Enter if you dare.''
Back to the arena, the lights were out except for one on the stage which allowed us to see the silhouette of The Undertaker.
In what was an impressive moment, Undertaker stood there while Ain't No Grave echoed throughout the arena.
For some reason, possibly a botch, Taker went backstage again and reappeared and completed his normal entrance.
But then, Triple H's music cut through the excitement and received the best pop in the last two or three years, with the exception of The Great One last week, of course.
Now, I've read about WWE being disappointed about the crowd's reaction to Undertaker's return, and I've read about people debating why Triple H got such a bigger pop.
That got me thinking, because in my opinion, Undertaker is a bigger and more valuable asset (slightly) to WWE than Triple H is, or likely ever will be. This is what I came up with.
1) Absence makes the heart grow fonder
It has been almost a year since Triple H has been seen in WWE due to various reasons—filming movies, injuries and rehab or just time off.
Undertaker, while he was gone from our screens for a considerable amount of time also, has been seen more often in the last year than Triple H.
He returned, got injured, returned and was buried alive due to injury once again.
With Triple H being gone for 10 months solid without returning, it was only natural that he would get a bigger pop.
Don't read too much into it, Vince. If you want to judge an audience's reaction to Taker's return, base it on a return that was not expected by the fans and spoiled by the idiots on your website. Base it on his return at Summerslam a few years ago.
2) Everybody expected Undertaker to return
Taker's return was spoiled by the arena's website, it was spoiled by WWE's own website and the promos hinted at Undertaker returning.
I'm sure even the kids could put two and two together, Vince.
Yes, the promos were very creative and got everybody talking, but a lot of the momentum was taken out of the equation by the two spoilers on two different websites and by showing some of Undertaker's face in the promo.
Mark my words, if those two spoilers, the music used and Taker's face had not been shown, he would have gotten a much bigger pop.
3) What's so special about an Undertaker return?
Obviously, every Undertaker return is special in its own way, but how many times has he returned over the years?
He returned once in the last 12 months already.
The more he returns, the less important and less special they become.
We're guaranteed at least one return by Undertaker per year as long as he still wrestles, so why should we jump up and down about a spoiled second return inside a year?
Nevertheless, it was a great moment to see the two standing nose to nose. It was a moment that told its own story, a moment that needed no words to explain it.
However, there will be some explaining needed to be done down the line, especially with HHH rumored to be facing Sheamus in two weeks (as per promo aired during a commercial last night).
On a side note, Cena's promo was very entertaining last night, and I, for one, would like to see more of the same.
Also, WWE should be ashamed of themselves for using the late mother of Jerry Lawler to further a storyline and garner heat for Michael Cole.
I don't care if Lawler agreed to it, it is far too soon to mention it in such a manner. By the way, how can such comments be deemed ''family friendly'' or ''PG?'' Just a thought...
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?