Undertaker vs. Triple H II Wrestlemania 27 question? Joker, LOD, The Last Outlaw all of you should answer this?

I just hope Michaels won't participate as ref cause his presence would be too distracting and may hurt the match's overall quality, just like he did to Bret vs Taker at Summerslam 1997 and Rock vs HHH at Judgment Day 2000. The whole time people was busy imagining whether HBK will screw Bret or not and the other time whether he will help HHH or not SO MUCH it makes both matches completely underrated despite being two wrestling clinics. I mean, have you ever seen someone praised Taker/Bret in Summerslam 1997 or Rock/HHH in Judgment Day 2000 here in WZ?

I've been reading WZ and WF forums for at least two years as well as joining Wrestling Section in Y/A! For more than two years, but I can barely recall seeing any praise for either of these two underrated gems. I mean, no offense to HBK cause I'm not his hater, but come on, he already screwed two classics but still going to screw the third one?

He screwed enough no? And no, I don't believe third time's the charm. That's BS.

Taker vs HHH is cheap enough way to a desperate buyrate (I say cheap cause that means all the push Sheamus got for a year would be nothing and The Streak will add yet another same name instead of new credible name like Vince McMahon. And I only said Vince's name cause Jericho's not here whereas WWE will never book Taker vs Cena at any Wrestlemania), adding HBK is insulting. It's as if Taker/HHH isn't a big enough draw on their own.

Taker & HHH can be as big as Hogan/Rock or Taker/HBK if WWE let them do their in-ring psychology thing, HBK's presence will be too distracting because people will focus more on a possibility of a screwjob rather than enjoying the match like they did Hogan/Rock or Taker/HBK. Because I guarantee you if Austin was playing special ref in Hogan/Rock or Bret was playing special ref in HBK/Taker, I doubt both matches will be remembered for their quality as they are today, but more for the fact "Austin didn't screw Rock" or "Bret didn't screw HBK". And in all honesty, I find it completely stupid if we got a match of Hogan/Rock or Taker/HBK caliber ruined by an unneeded cheap tactic.

Even now in Wrestling Section in Y/A! , a large number of users have been discussing the possibility of HBK screwing Taker rather than talking about how good Taker/HHH match would be and that only further prove my point. I can even see it in this thread.

It would be ironic if HHH's last match ever will be remembered in the future not as a match for the ages like say Rock/Austin or Hogan/Warrior but a match where HBK didn't screw Undertaker. It's ironic, dumb, and cheap all in one package. If WWE insist doing this Career vs Streak, I'd rather see it HHH vs Taker PURE!

For all I care, Diesel and HBK can come out after the match is over and join HHH in his loss (The Streak will never end. FACT). That's more like it.

Then again, Vince and WWE ALWAYS find a way to ruin something good it's almost scary, as if it's written in the stars like it's a destiny waiting to happen. And no, I'm not trying to bash HBK, I'm trying to bash Vince and the so called creative writers. I only hope Shawn Michaels has the decency to know what's right and refuse to participate as special ref if they go with this match, because I think if my best friend is about to have the biggest match of his lifetime, I would want my best friend to be remembered for his performance not because of my presence.

IiDnt thiink that would happen cause hhh cannot beat the undertaker .! iit could be hhh vs. y2j vs. batista vs. the undertaker - fatal four wayy iiGuess!

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.