I dont think this question has been asked

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Danielson, Jan 29, 2015.

  1. Dun Dun Dun

    The topic: The Undertakers WM streak

    The question: Many, including myself don't believe Brock Lesnar deserved to break the streak. My reasoning is that I wanted it to be to a career WWE guy. A guy that never wavered. Who, if anyone, do you think would have deserved that honor?

    My opinion: I think Triple H (as much as I dislike the majority of his career, specifically the steph date rape stuff) would have been great to end it. Say taker won that first Mania, then HHH the second. Now you have a third bout which Taker could have won, remain realitivly healthy, and retire on a win.

    HBK would have been another guy I wouldnt have mind to break. You could apply the same HHH scenerio here, but it seemed 20 was the goal to get to, so who knows

    John Cena: Fans would have hated it but to be fair Cena has never wavered from the WWE. He could have maybe even used an epic heel turn ala attitude era to achieve the ONE thing no one has done. I think that would have launched Cena to HollyWood Hogan status of a heel. My only issue is then John Cena would undoubtably go down as the highest decorated superstar off all time ( Isnt he tied or one away from Flairs record?)

    Lastly, maybe a up and comer that you could gurantee would be in the buisness. The guys Im thinking wouldve been Bray, or Rollins.

    Either way, something about Lesnar doing it will never sit well with me given the fact he left, its not his true passion, and the fact we will probably not hear from him (in the E) soon for awhile, if ever (until HOF or some random rock RR thing)

    I def dont think the rock because, well, PT after.

    So, what do you think or say?
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Kinda wanted it to be Bray or Rollins. Brock was definitely not my choice but credit to WWE they used the momentum and turned Brock into a formidable beast. (remember RR 2014 where Brock was facing Big Show? and Had to go all 'dirty' to get the win. Far cry from the Brock we see today)
  3. At the time it seemed stupid, in hindsight it was brilliant.

    WWE could never make a monster quite like brock lesnar without the streak. He was an extremely beliavable person to actually break the streak, but no one really did give it thought because of how smarky even the casual fans can be.

    If the undertaker was defeated by a young guy, this could end the guy's carreer. One little misreading of the crowd by wwe and boom, eternal outrage. If even a rumble elimination could make things so desperate this year, imagine how disgraced the fans would feel if they thought the guy to defeat taker was a nobody?

    Lesnar worked pretty much like a voltage stabilizer to prevent the future stars to be damaged by the massive rub of the undertaker. I doubt anyone that beats Brock Lesnar will risk getting outrage, like they would with taker. But being in the ring with lesnar is still a great, great rub, without any considerable risk.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. I'd rather it not be broken at all if we're being honest. I don't even think Bray would deserve it just for his size and build.
    Great talker, but I don't think that means he should break the streak.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. Brock was fine.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Brock was the most believable choice to end it, but I still didn't care to see arguably the biggest rub in modern-day wrestling be handed to an already established part-timer. Also, it didn't do anything for Brock. He isn't innately any different than the Brock he was before, it's just that they've gotten their heads out of their asses and stopped treating him as someone who actually needs Heyman's help to get the job done (against Punk), or as some "monster of the week" for guys like Cena and HHH to overcome. They didn't need to give him the Streak to accomplish that.

    In the interest of fairness, though, I'm sort of content with it only because Taker was getting up there in age and it's still better to give the Streak to someone like Brock than to give it to no one at all and let a historical moment go to waste (although I don't know about that; I would have really loved to have seen how big a Cena vs Undertaker with the Streak on the line would have been, but I've complained about that enough in the past, so I'll move on.) McMahon even echoed similar comments on the podcast with Austin, where he said he felt the time was right to end it and Lesnar was the best option on the roster to grant with the task. And as long as they do their best to make a new star out of someone (Reigns) conquering the 1 in 21-1, I guess I can live with it.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Should've retired when he was 20-0, after that, well, I couldn't give a toss what would happen to the Streak.

    So yeah, I don't mind Lesnar breaking it.
  8. Brock had to go 'dirty' and the match lasted about 2 minutes because Show was injured. I think his hand was broken or whatever it was.
  9. Daniel Bryan - If he was never going to be A+ then this rub may have been the fans may have settled for.

    Vince McMahon - For the poetic justice of it all. It wouldn't make sense now, yet so wonderfully masterful looking back in hindsight.
  10. The Streak should've never been broken, and Taker's last win and retirement match should've been against Sting.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. I could see taker's last match being against Kane...outcome both retire. One drags the other to hell.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Hopefully.
  13. I swear I'll rip my fucking hair out if I have to ever watch these two wrestle again. I think these two have probably had more matches with one another than anybody else on the current roster has. Hell, I think they're only #2 behind Cena vs Orton (who have a total of ten) as far as the most singles matches on PPV itself goes.
  14. I've never been a huge Undertaker fan. It's weird but I guess around the time he debuted I really hated the way he supposedly had "powers" and the whole urn thing. I had my fill of him in 1994 when they had that idiotic urn gushing green smoke and the horrid Undertaker vs Undertaker match at Summerslam (which was the first PPV I attended live).

    Although I came to respect his ability later, I still never became a big fan. I was always rooting against the streak. I think that made me enjoy the streak matches more though. I always had stake in them.

    That being said, I think my reaction when it happened was "Holy fucking shit" or close to that. Lesnar was the first guy ever that I actually did not want to break the streak. It was the very first streak match in which I cheered for Taker. By that time, I had decided I wanted Undertaker to retire with it intact.

    But I agree with a before mentioned post. It had to ve an established guy because I think breaking the streak would have killed the career of a younger guy because he would 1. Always be booed and 2. Would have that monkey on his back forever. Can't you just hear Michael Cole:

    "Hard to believe that the man who ended the Undertaker's streak at Wrestlemania couldn't defeat [insert name]."

    Followed by Lawler's :

    "Well he may have beat the Undertaker's Streak but he couldn't beat [insert name]."
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Zing! Zing! x 1

  15. I'm hard pressed to believe WWE would allow the breaker of the streak to backslide like that.
    Even if that individual did job out, I doubt the announce team would make light of it on national TV.
    For example, Jericho defeated Austin and Rock in one night, but the announce team never degrades his accomplishment by mentioning he lost to Fandango.

    Assuming a heel broke the streak, the announce team could make a d*ck move and bury somebody for losing matches but isn't it human nature to lose anyway?
    Had Barrett broken the streak how long would be an acceptable stretch of time before he could lose again? One year?
    Would WWE allow the breaker of the streak to lose a consecutive streak of matches so soon after? Even if they did (which I doubt), what business is it of ours?
    Everybody loses eventually otherwise everything becomes redundant. A 'payoff' only fails if the person was sh*t to begin with and nobody is implying that the streak breaker be a sh*thead.

    For the record, I gave Jacob Fox a positive rating. I just reject the notion of an invisible rule that said the breaker of the streak better not end up a failure.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. WWE has done some tremendously dumb things, so don't they wouldn't do something like let the guy who broke the streak backslide. But OI wasn't really talking about them. I would assume that such a feat could have the effect of the wrestler peaking too soon. If a younger guy had beaten the streak early on his career, it would set the bar pretty high for the rest of his career. Hell, even winning the WWE title might not be a comparable feat.

    For example, the Ultimate Warrior cleanly defeats Hulk Hogan and holds both the World and Intercontinental belt. Hogan had not been cleanly defeated in over six years.

    So what became of the Warrior? He fights Rick Rude. A formidable opponent no doubt, but hardly a challenge for a man who defeated Hulk Hogan cleanly. What next? Mr. Perfect, Haku, Ted Dibiase... all fine wrestlers, but shouldn't be tough from the man who beat Hulk Hogan cleanly for the first time in over 6 years.

    So where was Warrior left? Dropping the title to Sgt Slaughter Less than a year after he won it.

    Warrior was hard to book because he accomplished a feat that could not be matched by anything WWF had to offer. Ratings and buy rates plummeted and the belt was taken off him.

    It's just my thinking that a new guy would have this problem. Brock Lesnar was already seen like this, thus thete was no chance this would happen to him.

    As far as the announcer comments, I was just trying to be silly at that point. I don't actually believe they would do if.
  17. ^I think with Warrior, the bigger problem was that people just didn't relate or take to him once he was on top as much as they did Hogan (was probably too eccentric for some folks.) He had the enormous crowd reactions on his side, but we all know that alone isn't the immediate measurement of overall popularity and drawing power. It shouldn't have mattered that he beat Hogan since that match was booked carefully enough to look as if both men were equally matched and that either one could have walked away victorious, only just happened to be Warrior who won that night. If he had squashed Hogan in a matter of minutes, I'd agree.

    I actually always thought this whole perception that ending the Streak would turn someone into a mega-heel for life was way overblown. I mean, Lesnar ends the Streak, Heyman cuts an epic promo putting it over the top, and here we are only a year later and Brock is being greeted with positive roars from the crowd. CM Punk does everything in his power to get booed throughout the second half of 2012 and early 2013 (including dumping Paul Bearer's "ashes" on top of Taker just a few weeks after Bearer's real-life death), and yet he's greeted with a 50/50 reaction when he fights Undertaker at Wrestlemania. I honestly think he would have still been loved by the audience as well, had he ended it.

    My point is, I don't think it would have tarnished a young guy's career, or even guaranteed turned them into a life-long heel... not that that the latter would necessarily be a bad thing in itself especially if you're someone like a Bray Wyatt.
  18. I have to strongly disagree about the Ultimate Warrior thing. Back at that point in time Hulk Hogan was seen as a completely unstoppable force. That's how he was built up. Here was a man who had this knack for becoming invincible during his matches and no one could really get the better of him. Here was the man who defeated Andre the Giant, which at the time seemed very formidable. While others had definitely beaten Andre before, the majority of the people watching WWF at the time had not been watching wrestling long enough to know anything about Andre's real past.

    Personally, I always hated the Ultimate Warrior. I never connected with him at all, but I can understand why others did. But I think you're downplaying his accomplishment quite a bit. In comparison, there were plenty of wrestlers who absolutely dominated Hogan, only to lose at the end. For the majority of the typical Hogan match, it really didn't matter who was more in control because the only thing that every mattered was the moment when he "hulked up." Everything else was always irrelevant. This is actually a great article: http://camelclutchblog.com/why-did-the-ultimate-warrior-fail-as-wwe-champion/

    I agree with your comment about the "mega heel" thing and I have never felt that would be the result if someone broke the streak. I can't really argue the counter point there since I technically agree with you.

    As far as whether it would harm the career of someone who broke it, it really depends upon who it is that broke it. Some people feel that whomever beats a long winning streak are rarely remembered. Do we remember Nancy Zerg or Ken Jennings? Do we remember Al Smith and Jim Bagby or do we remember Joe Dimagio? James Douglas or Mike Tyson? How many people off the top of their head can name the NBA team that ended the Boston Celtics 8 year championship streak (The 76ers).

    I'm not saying it's a rule, just that it happens often that a long standing champion or someone who is on a streak and someone breaks it, the person who usually benefits most in history is the person who got defeated, not he whom defeated. We really don't know what would happen until it happens. I think having Lesnar do it was the safe bet. Undertaker doesn't in any way look bad that it was Lesnar who ended it. I mean, come on, it's Broooocckkk Lesnar. Lesnar benefited from it somewhat, but as shocked as everyone was, Lesnar winning was probably the most likely opponent he ever faced.

    It's funny because lately I seem to really play everything up as variables. Not really sure why.
  19. You're trying to win a debate even though you don't believe it. It's unemotional for you, not unlike a lawyer. It's being competent and a tough balance when you really don't want to come off like a d*ck.

    My criteria for breaking the streak is: What can you do that nobody else can?
    I don't care about wins or losses or even the gate. The streak breaker was never written in stone as the next 'draw for the ages'.
    Undertaker was never 'the guy', so why should the breaker of the streak be 'the guy'?
    Undertaker was the phenom, capable of miraculous feats that nobody else could, and this was his legacy.

    The streak breaker ought to be the same. Wrestling is a subjective artform. A phenom should break it, somebody who brings something to the table that nobody else can.
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  20. It was just not a safe bet. Making someone be defined as the streak-breaker and hope fans will buy it is risky. Undertaker was just too simbolic and nostalgic. Brock isn't, Brock's just a guy who happens to have a shitload of titles, who was aways a monster in his carreer and then further estabilished that by beating the undertaker. He has nothing to lose in the eyes of the fans, even the ones that respect him. The suspense of disbelief given by brock and his legit strong and formidable in-ring demeanor is great for giving rubs. Fans like to see him in action and buys him as an unstopabble monster. However, they do not worship him and do not try to protect him as religiously.

    Saying that, I do think people overestimate how much of a push the guy would get by beating taker, and usually dismiss the huge weight wwe has lifted by unburdening themselves with the need to find the perfect challenger for his once in a lifetime defining moment.
    • Winner Winner x 1