Batista betrays; does it make a difference?

If you were at the Staples Center in Los Angeles on Sunday, or watching history unfold live on your television, then you watched in disbelief as it took the most powerful maneuvers from three of the WWE's strongest superstars to defeat the Undertaker. And after witnessing the spinebuster-Super Kick-F-U combination that finally felled the Deadman, you were then presented with the other surprise of the night: Batista's betrayal.

Since the beginning of the Batista-Undertaker feud in January, both momentum and control have belonged to the Phenom: Undertaker won the Royal Rumble (his first) in style, and then terrorized the three brand champions and chose his Wrestlemania opponent (Batista) by chokeslam. The Animal responded in kind at No Way Out, costing himself and the Undertaker their match, and perhaps shifting the momentum in his favor.

But was Batista's betrayal a good idea?

Before No Way Out, Wrestlemania was set to be headlined by the top two fan favorites from both Raw and Smackdown battling for their respective championships. Now it seems that one of those main events has been changed from "good guy vs. good guy" to "good guy vs. bad guy."

A "good guy vs. bad guy" bout (or "face vs. heel" in wrasslin' speak) has been the life blood of Wrestlemania for a good part of the last twenty years. And watching a good Undertaker wrestle an evil Batista on the grandest stage of them all would make for an enjoyable Wrestlemania moment, but not necessarily a memorable one.

Wrestlemania matches worthy enough to be remembered as "Wrestlemania moments" are about more than just belts and wrestling. They're about guts, dreams, and beating impossible odds. Think of Wrestlemania 17, when Stone Cold Steve Austin proved that he was tougher than the Rock. Remember Wrestlemania 12, when Shawn Michaels realized his boyhood dream. Think back to one year ago, Wrestlemania 22, in which Rey Mysterio, a 5'6''-165 pound luchadore, beat two men to win the world heavyweight championship.

In short, a Wrestlemania moment is as much a clash of ideals as they are of fists. And unfortunately, Smackdown's Wrestlemania headliner is looking to be more holds than heart. Matches that make history at Wrestlemania are fueled by emotion, and neither the Undertaker nor Batista has expressed any: no smack has been talked; no personal philosophy has been shared.

For a Batista-Undertaker match to make history, one of these two behemoths must speak and engage the fans. And since the Undertaker hasn't muttered anything more than "Rest in Peace" since his feud with Randy Orton two years ago, it looks like Batista will have to pick up the mic.

There's a problem, though: Batista is boring. He's done nothing but grunt since becoming a main-eventer. His lack of mic skills is probably why crowds don't pop as loudly for him as they do for John Cena and Shawn Michaels, two performers who can tell a story both in the ring and on the mic.

What's worse, if Batista continues as a mic-abstaining heel after Wrestlemania, he may end up like Test, The Great Khali, and the other mindless, mute mid-card monsters in the future.

Batista's turn to the Dark Side may have been shocking. But without a personality, a bad Batista will be no more exciting -- and his match, no more historic, -- to watch at Wrestlemania than a good one.