Bob Holly Talks About WWE's Ultimate Warrior Tribute, Roman Reigns Vs. The Undertaker, More

Bob Holly Talks About WWE's Ultimate Warrior Tribute, Roman Reigns Vs. The Undertaker, More
Former WWE star Bob Holly recently spoke with Ross Williams, who helped write his book "The Hardcore Truth: The Bob Holly Story." The full interview can be read at this link where Holly talks about The Wyatt Family, Cesaro and more. Here are a few highlights:

Ross Williams: We've got to start with this - what did you make of the deal with Undertaker and Brock? Was ending the streak the right move?

Bob Holly: I think it was the right move with the wrong guy. Brock is a part time guy who wrestles what? Three times a year? They could have used that slot to make somebody who is full time. I think people would have accepted that more and wouldn't have been in as much shock if it had been somebody else.

Williams: The comment one of my friends made, which I thought was quite interesting, was that if you gave the win to a lower level person to try and make him, you run the risk of the audience completely rejecting that guy. If they put over a guy like Roman Reigns to beat the streak, you could have the crowd piss on everything he ever does, you might put a cap on his career.

Holly: I think it would have been good to have Roman Reigns go over on Taker. I think they're moulding their next big star there and it would have been perfect to have him work with Taker instead of Brock. That would have made Roman Reigns. Right into main event status. That would have made him and once he beat Taker, his next thing should have been Randy Orton, Daniel Bryan or John Cena. Go after one of those three.

Williams: How would you have done the match? Would it have been a long drawn out affair or would you have had Roman dominate Taker?

Holly: No, it needs to be competitive. Long - at least 30 minutes because if Roman Reigns is going to beat Taker, it's not going to be easy. That's the way it should be - he should be fighting for his life and pulls out a win. People would have accepted that. I don't think people are accepting Brock beating Taker because of the part time thing. Hearing reactions and stuff, I don't think it's as big a deal as it could have been. If Reigns would have beat Taker, I think that would have been a bigger deal - I really do.

Williams: They got a fair amount of press out of the result. Do you think that was because it was Brock Lesnar, former UFC Champion, beating the Undertaker or would they have got the press no matter who it was who ended the streak?

Holly: I think they would have got the press no matter what.

Williams: So in that case, they could have got Roman Reigns' name in front of millions of eyes - and he's the nephew of the Rock! People will go "oh, hey, let's check this guy out!"

Holly: And it makes sense. Look at who the Rock is, and Reigns is following in his footsteps. It's a good story. The thing to do now would be to put Roman Reigns against Brock and have Roman go over on him. Hopefully he'll get a rub off that.

Williams: Well, they're bringing up a bunch of other people right now like Rusev, Bo Dallas, Adam Rose and putting the spotlight on them, so where does that leave them with guys like Dolph and Kofi Kingston, guys who are excellent wrestlers but never really got used to their full capacity?

PAGE:   [ 1 ]   2 »

Got a news tip or correction? Send it to us by clicking here.

Short URL:

« Previous Headline | Comment | Main | Next Headline » is the largest independently owned wrestling website in the world (Source: Alexa). Become a fan on Facebook, follow us (@WrestlingInc) on Twitter:

Back To Top