Should the streak ever end?

On tonight's v2 Wrestling Podcast, we debate whether The Undertaker's undefeated streak at Wrestlemania should ever be ended.

Paul (Enforcer) explains his rationale for believing the streak is there to be broken, while I offer my reasons for keeping the streak intact. Meanwhile, Chris sits in the middle trying to make up his mind.

I think it's a really good listen, unless you are Dr Gregory House who is repeatedly and needlessly abused by Chris.

Who do you agree with? (about the streak, not House).

You can find the podcast at http://v2wrestling.podomatic.com/entry/2014-03-05T12_46_10-08_00

I agree that House is a bit of a Muppet...

oh sorry yeh the streak

The streak is something that I find difficult to process when I think about it, on one hand the smarky part of me think's of course there's a lot of sense in ending it, all things in wrestling should be used to build up what comes next, the matches can be predictable etc etc, but deep down I really love the streak, I don't know why but I really enjoy it, I enjoy the build up (mostly last year was an aberration), I enjoy the match, and I enjoy the occasion that surrounds it

So no I can't say I think it should be ended

I vote yes because i want Cena to take it.

I disagree with the point that Taker cant retire at Mania without losing.

The whole show could be advertised as his last ever match with promos to match (ie The druids are coming to take him back to his final resting place/ Aces and 8s are recruiting the American bad@ss)

Then the whole build up could be done for months with people competing to be the one to face him at his last show. You could even have the Rumble winner have the prize.

Alternatively, you could have a champ who holds the belt all year but who cashes in the belt for a shot. This instantly elevates it to the main event with others competing for the vacant belt. Call it option C or something.

I very much agree with House on all of that, he is a muppet...I mean, wait, no, the wrestling stuff.

I understand why people would want it to, and the part of me that enjoys the push of new stars and the passing of the torch feeling says yes, but the wrestling fan says no. The Taker fan says no.

I'm also not sure the weight of expectancy is worth it now on any young wrestler.

I end it. I'd take the next Goldberg, Brock type guy to come through, and just have them steam roll The Undertaker in a couple of minutes as part of their debut winning streak. He'd just be another notch to them. It's a HUGE risk: if future Lesberg sticks around for as long as his two predecessors it'd hurt the business, but I'd rather see that than him give it up to Daniel Bryan or John Cena. It solidifies a new stars status rather than enhancing an already established star.

I don't agree with it being a quick match. If someone takes the streak it needs to be a monumental match with Taker looking as strong as he has in any of his recent matches.

I understand the fan side with people saying they don't want it to go - I think I would be sad if he lost it, but that's part of wrestling. When you're properly invested you are sad when the face loses and happy when they win. This doesn't happen so much with older fans as we often look at what is best for business. I think it proves that a lot of us are still 'marks' for The Undertaker and that's not a bad thing, but it isn't a reason for not having someone lose. If it was Cena would have been champion for the last 8 years to not upset the children!

Whilst it's a risk having someone take the streak, it's just a useless statistic once Taker retires as it won't be used to sell his matches. So for me it's a risk worth taking.

For what it's worth, I don't think WWE will end the streak though.

It should not end and it will not end. I could elaborate further but I have done so many times over the last few Wrestlemania seasons when the inevitable Streak discussions come up.

It will never be broken. Never...

If it does end, you've got two approaches. The man who gives everything and snatches the win. Undertaker raises his hand out of respect like the time he beat Jeff Hardy. Or you crush him, like the time Ludvig Borga ended Tatanka's streak. Both methods can be easily as effective as one another if done correctly. I prefer the annihilation approach.

Not sure how much someone gains from just blowing someone over. I mean, you can have a 30 minute match where "Streak Winner" wins and he wins showing extreme ability and doesnt snatch it.

In fact, considering Taker's age, if the person wins quick it just looks like he beat an old man. If he goes toe to toe with the Phenom, who is made to still look a force, but comes out on top then he's got 30 minutes of focus in the audiences mind and hes beaten the best at (what looks) his best.

There's no point in beating someone who doesn't look good. If Taker was wrestling regualrly and winning then it may have an impact, but if he's been out for 12 months and then someone blows him away - it would just look like he's lost it.

You used two examples Jeff Hardy and Ludvig Borga. One was a world champion, the other I have never heard of and I was watching wrestling around the time of Tatanka's streak.

It all comes down to preference. I'd prefer him to be destroyed if he loses it. That might single me out on here against those who'd prefer another epic Taker match (which I'm certainly not adverse to), but I guarantee I'm not alone in that thought.

How can you not remember Ludvig Borga?! He was a big deal in 1993. Got injured, missed the Rumble in 1994, got released.

Reading up on him was very enlightening! Sounds bonkers

Ludvig Borga? When he destroyed Marty Jannetty at Summerslam a new star was born. He launched him in the air and gut punched him. Brilliant! There was him and Adam Bomb coming through at a similar time, but they proper pulled the trigger on LB, giving him Tatanka's streak and a main event feud with Luger. And then before you knew it he was gone! Typical!

Read his wiki after his Wrestling days, guy has done a bit of everything and been bonkers whilst doing it

Maybe that's why they cut him loose. No one likes a Sean Stasiak around the locker room.

Absolutely

No doubt in my mind at all about this, the whole ideology of Wrestling is passing the torche, this is what separates Professional Wrestling from legitimate sports like Boxing, its the story, the top guy will inevitably be toppled by someone new, its how its always been and how it should always go.

The Undertakers streak for me will be forever tainted, for his 21-0 record you could count on the one hand when he went up against guys in the peak of their characters, he missed Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels (95-98) Austin, Rock, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar (03 & 04) Goldberg and significantly John Cena. Being kept apart from this array of stars wasn't a coincidence in my opinion, they strategically built a legend here, maybe not intentionally to begin with but after he beat Bundy in 95 there was a definite awareness of the situation.

He got Triple H (2001) in his prime, he got Batista and Edge too and last year got CM Punk, even though Punk's build up meant it was the most obvious outcome in recent times he was just off a 434 day World Title reign so has to be included as a guy in the peak of his career, you could add Diesel to this list too for their match in 1996 but for me at that point Nash was so far removed from the guy who held the WWF Title for a year not long before that the outcome was never really in doubt but I'd have no problem with him being included in this list.

Looking at it and realising the thought process that probably went into building this streak then for me its beyond cpmprehension that the WWE wouldn't look to benefit from ending the streak when they feel The Undertaker will be of no use to them, if the Streak remains intact (I think it probably will even if I want it to be broken) then it has no benefit whatsoever to the WWE, if its broken then its a major story, its such a big moment that I'd even bet main stream media outlets would run with the story, the WWE would get insane attention for ending it, it would also give someone an unbelievable landmark achievement on their resume and would almost probably gaurantee that the guy who did end it would never need to be built up ever again, in 5 years time after a losing streak he'd still be the guy that beat Taker and therefore he'd always be considered a legitimate threat.

Not sure nowadays someone would remain still over because he was the guy that beat the streak.

I'm also not sure whether it'd be a dead albatross around someones neck.

And also, they may well have just built it up to be a money spinner, not a star maker.

Finally, I think Adam was right when he says it could be built up as his last match at Mania and he could go out on a win. And I think if it was announced as his last match it might still get mainstream attention. And before Mania too, rather than afterwards.

Mainly, I'm not sure the appetite for it is there. Its a bit of a dampener for a crowd.

Isnt booking him away from people in their primes not a very good move in terms of booking? Until now, when its become a new force all of its own, before it would have just been two very talented guys and one in their prime getting stuck with a loss.

I think he has to beat Cena before he goes, whether he then passes the torch or not.

Thats what you want though isn't it? Or at least that is what you should aim for, two guys at the peak of their powers fighting it out to see who is the best

Your logic would be underatandable if Taker never faced these guys at all during those times but he did, he faced them all, just never at WrestleMania

I suppose you're right, it does beg the question when the Streak was considered, when it was decided on and when it was fully implemented. All of those could be different dates. They may have considered it and left it ticking over without a real idea, decided to do it fully but not really make the fuss just yet and then when they decided to go balls in and make it big.

With titles and other feuds in place too, if it was considered then they didnt want to cross lines with other areas.

The key is that, in kayfabe terms, its been presented pretty well. Its been more Arsenal's Invincibles than Forster's clean sheet record

I've got no issue with how its been presented, I think the WWF/E have done a superb job but I think the importance of it has taken on such a role that other aspects have suffered because of this, before the streak became such a force of nature the biggest selling point was usually the Royal Rumble winner vs The World Champion, I felt that while they still uphold that, it now feels like a supporting role to the Streak match.

I believe too many people give the Streak match more importance than it actually is, its a great selling point true but without it the WWE would just put their time and energy into something else, I also think its actually quite lazy and predictable now, we all know that Taker shows up after the Chamber and so it begins for 4/5 weeks, there's no mystery to it anymore, no mystique or anticipation.

If the streak ends, it should be to someone who is/has their own streak to carry on the tradition.
Knew Michaels wouldn't take it, cared that HHH shouldn't take it and it wouldn't have made logical sense for Punk to due to him losing to the rock and Cena beforehand.
It's not believable that the undertaker could beat Lesnar, but he will. He's old now and they're running out of viable options of opponents to main event so just give it to Reigns or Wyatt and leave them start theirs.

Undertaker has become the Father Christmas of wrestling.
He turns up once a year, makes you all believe for a short while and then afterwards everyone moans was it worth all the effort.

Kay Fabe wrote:I've got no issue with how its been presented, I think the WWF/E have done a superb job but I think the importance of it has taken on such a role that other aspects have suffered because of this, before the streak became such a force of nature the biggest selling point was usually the Royal Rumble winner vs The World Champion, I felt that while they still uphold that,  it now feels like a supporting role to the Streak match.

I believe too many people give the Streak match more importance than it actually is, its a great selling point true but without it the WWE would just put their time and energy into something else, I also think its actually quite lazy and predictable now, we all know that Taker shows up after the Chamber and so it begins for 4/5 weeks, there's no mystery to it anymore, no mystique or anticipation.

They give it that importance through enjoyment. Thats why its there and thats why it remains so strong.

I wouldnt blame it for the title problems either. It might well be the people you speak to and the WWE's direction that have tainted it such a way. Rock/Cena killed the title two years back, Rock/Cena II being the title match killed it last year, Rock/Cena build up killed the title match years before. But much of that is down to personal opinion, and one that resonates on the internet more than with the "common fan" or the "mark" who of course prefer such things.

Only if Bray Wyatt takes it!

Dolphin Ziitsnimgler wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:I've got no issue with how its been presented, I think the WWF/E have done a superb job but I think the importance of it has taken on such a role that other aspects have suffered because of this, before the streak became such a force of nature the biggest selling point was usually the Royal Rumble winner vs The World Champion, I felt that while they still uphold that,  it now feels like a supporting role to the Streak match.

I believe too many people give the Streak match more importance than it actually is, its a great selling point true but without it the WWE would just put their time and energy into something else, I also think its actually quite lazy and predictable now, we all know that Taker shows up after the Chamber and so it begins for 4/5 weeks, there's no mystery to it anymore, no mystique or anticipation.

They give it that importance through enjoyment. Thats why its there and thats why it remains so strong.

I wouldnt blame it for the title problems either. It might well be the people you speak to and the WWE's direction that have tainted it such a way. Rock/Cena killed the title two years back, Rock/Cena II being the title match killed it last year, Rock/Cena build up killed the title match years before. But much of that is down to personal opinion, and one that resonates on the internet more than with the "common fan" or the "mark" who of course prefer such things.

does it get the importance through enjoyment though? I think this all depends on how high your personal regard is for The Undertaker, no doubt in my mind that if the Streak wasn't in tact he'd have called it a day in 2010, I don't personally get joy out of the streak but I perceiver with it because the anticipation of what could happen if it goes keeps me interested, Wrestling is predetermined, we all know and get this but when a match result is set in stone before we even know who Taker is facing it loses any sense of appeal to me, thats my point on his streak being tainted, if he faced Punk last year while Punk was still The Champion and on about a 500 day reign it'd have became unpredictable, if Taker faced Cena the whole will he wont he tuen heel on Taker would also make it become umpredictable, if Taker faced Austin, Rock or Michaels in their pomp, the matches would have been unpredictable, if he faced Brock 11 years ago then no-one would have been sure of thr outcome.

Some people are choosing to buy into the notion that Brock Lesnar would go into business for himself this year just in order to try and trick themselves into belieivng the Streak is in trouble, its quite an outrageous notion, the reality is nothing Brock or Taker do now until Mania will hold much weight, the only thing people are buying into is Brock going it alone, something that is so out of realms of logic that it seems ridiculous to even consider.

if the majority of fans buy into the Streak then they buy into it, I can live with that, from a personal opinion though it does nothing for me and hasn't ever since Michaels/Taker 2 in 2010

As for the title, It's impossible to say what has caused it to lose significance, we can blame this or that, what I'm saying is that without The Streak then its an obvious route for the WWE to go back down as the major selling point, the lauded Royal Rumble winner vs the WWE World Champion, more emphasis I believe would be placed on making this match special again

Well, you're on an internet site where there are smart people, a majority of smarks and barely a soul has predicted the Streak ending recently. Id say the majority also enjoy it.

Considering they know the outcome and know the formula but still enjoy it I would imagine thats why its still up there as a big deal.

I think if you speak to most fans, even the smartest tell you at some point they feel the streak might be in trouble during a match, I cant quite get my head around that one but I can understand it from the point of view that they really like Taker and the obvious nerves kick in and they dont want to see their favourite lose as it'll likely signal the end of their guy, I was the same in 2010, I knew it was coming but didn't wanna see Shawn go down to Taker as it signaled the end.

To all of those who think it needs to end in order to elevate someone else, I ask you:


Do you really trust WWE to maintain this person as a start? or will they just feed them to Cena at Backlash and spend the rest of the year in the mid-card. Frankly I don't trust the WWE to build new stars due to their loyalty to HHH, Cena et al. Most of the top stars in recent years have had to put themselves over.

Look at the likes of Del Rio and Sheamus, both rumble winners, both considered mid-card/upper mid-card wrestlers respectively.

If an up and coming wrestler beats him, WWE will drop the ball with him. Anyone who already is a top star doesn't need to take the streak.

I think its too big a legend now to end. I dont care if they give it to someone who starts to build a streak of they're own, it will be sullied if it ends X - 1. As long as it stays intact, they can market it for decades. Keep the streak intact. It doesnt matter if he didnt really face anyone in their prime, its still a phenomenal feat. 21 - non sequential - WrestleManias the guys been at, and for the past 5 years they have been serious MotY contenders. And the first HBK match should have been a 5 star.

I hate The Undertaker. Every year I get all bitchy about him and how he should retire. Then that damn gong sounds and I mark out like a little boy. Every. Damn. Year.

psycho-gooner wrote:To all of those who think it needs to end in order to elevate someone else, I ask you:


Do you really trust WWE to maintain this person as a start? or will they just feed them to Cena at Backlash and spend the rest of the year in the mid-card. Frankly I don't trust the WWE to build new stars due to their loyalty to HHH, Cena et al. Most of the top stars in recent years have had to put themselves over.

Look at the likes of Del Rio and Sheamus, both rumble winners, both considered mid-card/upper mid-card wrestlers respectively.

If an up and coming wrestler beats him, WWE will drop the ball with him. Anyone who already is a top star doesn't need to take the streak.

You don't trust the WWE to build new stars?

Punk, Bryan, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose and Bray Wyatt could be the next 10 years right here, Del Rio and Sheamus have ingredients to be top level players but with 2 World Titles they had more scope to experiment, now with onky one World Title I believe you'll see a more focused and detailed push to the top tier, Daniel Bryan has been on the crest of a wave for 2 years now, absolute classic old school building, this started 2 years ago when he got jobbed out to Sheamus at Mania and hete he isabout to beat the big bad boss to stake his claim as WWE's number one face for the rest of the year

I think they should build another streak with the intention of usign that one to elevate someone. The Undertakers streak wont be broken, but they can take someone who they think will be around for a long while, let them have 8-10 Wrestlemania wins (they can start acknowledging it as a streak after 5 or 6) and then they can let someone take that streak cleanly.

A perfect person to carry this streak would be Bray Wyatt. Then when whichever wrestler they feel the need to make the top babyface in 10 or so years time beats him to end his streak, you have a sure-fire main eventer.

Thats the last thing the need, the best thing about Taker going will be no more obvious outcomes, building another one is completely underwhelming

Id like it to be Cena next, then 2 of Wyatt/Reigns/Cesaro/Bryan/Ambrose to take up the last 2 slots. Will add some drama and give them a huge feud each

Kay Fabe wrote:

psycho-gooner wrote:To all of those who think it needs to end in order to elevate someone else, I ask you:


Do you really trust WWE to maintain this person as a start? or will they just feed them to Cena at Backlash and spend the rest of the year in the mid-card. Frankly I don't trust the WWE to build new stars due to their loyalty to HHH, Cena et al. Most of the top stars in recent years have had to put themselves over.

Look at the likes of Del Rio and Sheamus, both rumble winners, both considered mid-card/upper mid-card wrestlers respectively.

If an up and coming wrestler beats him, WWE will drop the ball with him. Anyone who already is a top star doesn't need to take the streak.

You don't trust the WWE to build new stars?

Punk, Bryan, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose and Bray Wyatt could be the next 10 years right here, Del Rio and Sheamus have ingredients to be top level players but with 2 World Titles they had more scope to experiment,  now with onky one World Title I believe you'll see a more focused and detailed push to the top tier, Daniel Bryan has been on the crest of a wave for 2 years now, absolute classic old school building, this started 2 years ago when he got jobbed out to Sheamus at Mania and hete he isabout to beat the big bad boss to stake his claim as WWE's number one face for the rest of the year

Punk and Bryan put themselves over. No way did WWE intend for Bryan to become as popular as he is now. I'll reserve judgement on The Shield until they all go their separate ways. All deserve to be in the upper-midcard at least and hopefully WWE will make it that way. Bray I'll give them as one they have definitely got right, Sheamus has been awful since he's become face. As for Del Rio, I can't put my finger on why he doesn't get a bigger reaction given the push he's received, some would argue he was pushed too much, too soon.

Punk was the first man to win two money in the banks, had two World Heavyweight championships, and was the last man to enter into a fully fledged feud with Undertaker, sure Punk did it all on his own...

Bryan was a little more organic, but the E has done a fantastic job of building him up, to the point where he can be automatically inserted into two upper card feuds at WM (HHH or Orton-Batista)

psycho-gooner wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:

psycho-gooner wrote:To all of those who think it needs to end in order to elevate someone else, I ask you:


Do you really trust WWE to maintain this person as a start? or will they just feed them to Cena at Backlash and spend the rest of the year in the mid-card. Frankly I don't trust the WWE to build new stars due to their loyalty to HHH, Cena et al. Most of the top stars in recent years have had to put themselves over.

Look at the likes of Del Rio and Sheamus, both rumble winners, both considered mid-card/upper mid-card wrestlers respectively.

If an up and coming wrestler beats him, WWE will drop the ball with him. Anyone who already is a top star doesn't need to take the streak.

You don't trust the WWE to build new stars?

Punk, Bryan, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose and Bray Wyatt could be the next 10 years right here, Del Rio and Sheamus have ingredients to be top level players but with 2 World Titles they had more scope to experiment,  now with onky one World Title I believe you'll see a more focused and detailed push to the top tier, Daniel Bryan has been on the crest of a wave for 2 years now, absolute classic old school building, this started 2 years ago when he got jobbed out to Sheamus at Mania and hete he isabout to beat the big bad boss to stake his claim as WWE's number one face for the rest of the year

Punk and Bryan put themselves over. No way did WWE intend for Bryan to become as popular as he is now. I'll reserve judgement on The Shield until they all go their separate ways. All deserve to be in the upper-midcard at least and hopefully WWE will make it that way. Bray I'll give them as one they have definitely got right, Sheamus has been awful since he's become face. As for Del Rio, I can't put my finger on why he doesn't get a bigger reaction given the push he's received, some would argue he was pushed too much, too soon.

I think you're airbrushing history slightly with regards to both CM Punk and Daniel Bryan, no doubts they got over enough with the fans but you have to look at how they were used beforehand, CM Punk won back to back MitB's at WrestleMania in 2008 and 2009, he won the WHC Title twice with that when it was the main title on RAW then SmackDown, he was given his own stable too based around his real life beliefs, this is long long before they gave him a chance to drop a Pipe Bomb, after that moment he had enough fan power behind him were the WWE couldn't ignore his popularity but to say it was down to that alone is wrong in my opinion, the WWE gave him a huge platform.

Daniel Bryan too, before the whole Yes No chants the WWE gave him the 2011 MitB then had him go over Big Show and he held the belt for about 4/5 months heading into WrestleMania, obviously the Mania match was a joke but the WWE definitely for one reason or another gave him a huge opportunity with those big accolades

That Mania match was the best thing they ever did for him

Inadvertently though!

I dont think we can ever prove that either way!

not for me. they've missed the window for ending the streak

I dont really get excited for the streak any more. Even if somebody does win all theyve done is beat a near 50 year old who comes out for a big payday once a year, he isnt exactly in his prime any more

Brock STILL looks like he could kick my ass.

I would only get excited about the streak if lets say there was a new monster type heel came in to play and then it would have to be some one who would capture everyones imagination some like a Big daddy V or the Giant Gonzales (spelling).

Someone who could really push the Undertaker to his limits, That's the only way I would really get excited to the streak ending.

I don't think they'd ever give the streak to a monster heel as they always have really limited shelf lives at the top of the card. Once a monster heel loses (and they have to eventually) the air of mystery goes from them. The two examples you've given had the exact same problem, as well as people like Khali and Umaga. You've also got to consider that 90% of monster heels are shocking in the ring.

I think I'd only truly buy into the streak ending was if they were facing a young-ish wrestler who the WWE obviously had faith in their ability. At the moment only Reigns or Bray Wyatt would be in that category for me, but who knows what the situation will be in a year or two!