Should The WWE Have Another Wrestler Go Undefeated At Wrestlemania?

[PlayTheGame]

So we all know that the Undertaker's most prized accomplishment in the WWE is his undefeated streak at WM. I mean, when you think Deadman, you almost certainly think The Streak (16-0). Its truly a great thing for his character and his legacy. Its also very popular with the fans as well. So, my question is, do you think the WWE should have another wrestler go undefeated at Wreslemania, a la Undertaker? Or should the special accomplishment be saved only for the Deadman?

On one hand, if you do allow another superstar to go undefeated at WM (which would most likely materialize AFTER Taker has left WWE in a few years), it could be great for his character, and it would definitely be something they could focus on in every WM, just like they do with Taker now. On the other hand, however, it would be taking away the uniqueness of Taker's accomplishment if someone else were able to attain a perfect WM record.

IMO, I would have another wrestler (whether on the roster now, or just a future talent) build up an undefeated streak at WM, and even compare himself to Taker's greatness (so it could be a heel). Have him go about 10-0 ish and then have one of the WWE's new babyfaces of the time (someone trying to make it big) actually then go over him at WM, ending his streak. Or, if they really prolonged it (and if Taker would be up to it, as he would be pretty old at the time) they could have this wrestler trying to surpass Taker's final record (whatever that might be) and at that year's WM, involve Taker and have him somehow intimidate the thus-far undefeated wrestler or somehow or another get involved and cost him his streak. It would make for a highly-entertaining WM match.

Well, thats just my opinion. What do you think, should the WWE have another wrestler go undefeated at Wrestlemania, a la Undertaker?

 

[The Todd]

If they purposely try and build another streak, the WWE will ruin it. After the second one they'll be going "(name) is 2 and 0 at Wrestlemania, the biggest undefeated streak since Taker" like they do with undefeated streaks on tv, e.g. Kozlov being labelled undefeated after two wins over jobbers.

The Taker one sort of happened by accident if what I read was true and no fuss was made at all until he was undefeated for a while.

They can do it if they don't hype it until about eight or nine undefeated, but I don't think they should have anyone retire undefeated at Mania apart from Taker (if he does). If someone reaches 10 or even 12,13 then they should lose to an up and coming talent like you said.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Eh, I'm not really a fan of having another streak. To me, the reason Undertaker's works so well is because its a testament to how devoted he's been to the product after all these years. The guy's had lots of injuries and is rather old, but he's stayed on the same program and has never missed a WrestleMania. I can't see another person equaling such a feat because you can never know who would be trustworthy enough to be given that much of a responsibility. We're talking 15+ years. That's an entire career. Who's to say you don't run into another Brock Lesnar situation? Undertaker's wasn't really planned - or even mentioned - until rather far down the line when it just seemed to keep occurring, as opposed to planning it from the start with a newer talent like Jack Swagger or Cody Rhodes. Plus, if they started it after Undertaker, it would just seem like a retread.

I wouldn't completely throw the suggestion out the window, but if I were in charge of the WWE, it would take a whole lot to convince me.

 

[Phoenix]

Until 2 years ago, it was Edge who had the nearest thing to an undefeated streak at Wrestlemania, think it was something like 6-0 - the only thing he has now is that he's never been pinned at Wrestlemania. John Cena lost his 4-0 streak last year at WM24. The problem is, right now, who is there to truly have a streak that no-one will take notice of.

Undertaker's streak was only vaguely mentioned each year in his matches until it became an the storyline of Randy Orton vs. Taker at WM21, so given this is the 4th Wrestlemania to have the streak being an issue, it's been pretty impressive that they haven't made it a bigger issue prior to that.

But if you want the biggest losing streak, Big Show is currently on 7, Jeff Hardy could make 5-0 on losses if he losses this year!

 

[OIL]

Eh, I'm not really a fan of having another streak. To me, the reason Undertaker's works so well is because its a testament to how devoted he's been to the product after all these years. The guy's had lots of injuries and is rather old, but he's stayed on the same program and has never missed a WrestleMania. I can't see another person equaling such a feat because you can never know who would be trustworthy enough to be given that much of a responsibility. We're talking 15+ years. That's an entire career. Who's to say you don't run into another Brock Lesnar situation? Undertaker's wasn't really planned - or even mentioned - until rather far down the line when it just seemed to keep occurring, as opposed to planning it from the start with a newer talent like Jack Swagger or Cody Rhodes. Plus, if they started it after Undertaker, it would just seem like a retread.

I wouldn't completely throw the suggestion out the window, but if I were in charge of the WWE, it would take a whole lot to convince me.

Wrong. He missed WrestleMania 2000.

On topic. No they shouldn't. The Undertaker's works so well because he's such an interesting character. Furthermore, if they did another then it would only take away from his streak. If they did that then they would be killing part of Taker's legacy.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Ah, forgot about WM2000 as I wasn't watching wrestling at that time.

Still though, only missing one WrestleMania throughout such a long tenure in the company is something that most likely won't be able to be matched, especially when you consider that most people wouldn't be wrestling for the same promotion unstopped for that long. You'd have to entrust the responsibility in someone that is really young right now and has a firm hold on wanting to remain in the wrestling business. Best two choices for that, in my opinion, are Rhodes and DiBiase, but they haven't been around long enough that you could fully place that on their shoulders and expect them to Atlas through it.

I wouldn't be surprised if WWE tried to do it with someone in the near future and it bombed.

 

[OIL]

Have you watched WM 2000? If not, do. It's a fantastic show.

But yeah I agree really. Knowing the way creative work, they'll fuck it up. Most probably by choosing the wrong wrestler for the job. I mean, someone like Rhodes or Dibiase would be a good choice. Adds more to their 'legacy'. They're both 2 wrestlers who would stick with the WWE, and they'd be a good choice.

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

Even if WWE did build up a wrestler to try to attempt to match, match, or even surpass Undertaker's undefeated streak, I feel it wouldn't work. The Undertaker is one of WWE's most greatest commodities, and the streak is the only think that keeps him going... he isn't greedy with title reigns (thought I think he should have been), he isn't afraid to let other wrestlers (most rising stars) go over... he's pretty much the opposite of Triple H, which is a good thing. If you think about it, Undertaker could put a lot of people over, unless it's at Wrestlemania, while HHH will usually go over many people, unless it's Wrestlemania.

At the time that Undertaker's streak began, WWE wasn't very consistent with certain pushes (unless your name is Hulk Hogan of course). The commentators never even talked about his streak until at WM 12 or 13, I'm not sure, but whereas today, commentators (especially Jim Ross) will talk about someone being undefeated at Wrestlemania by the time they get their first win. If someone else would attempt to have an undefeated streak at Wrestlemania (much like John Cena and Edge, who both lost at last year's Wrestlemania), they would have an advantage over Undertaker because times has changed in the WWE.

I personally would not like for someone to have a streak at Wrestlemania, if it goes on for more than about 8-0. I feel that Undertaker should be the only person to never lose at Wrestlemania. If you take the streak away from him, what's left? First competitor of the Hell in a Cell match (which he lost by interference), master of the Casket and Buried Alive matches (lost to both Shawn Michaels and Vince McMahon respectively), just being legendary? He's never been a very dominant champion, so taking away Undertaker's streak would really hurt him, even with his legendary status.

So, in closing, leave Undertaker's streak alone, do not have any wrestler come too close to it, unless they lose, and everyone is happy.

 

[ACMerk]

I think they shouldn't have another undefeated streak at Wrestlemania, cause then after Underatker Retires, it wont seem like much, and that would just make the Undertaker a lost cause. I think they should have another undefeated streak at another major Pay-Per-View, for example: Summerslam. I think they could make someone who isn't really going anywhere with the business, like Evan Bourne undefeated at Summerslam matches or even a certain match type, like TLC or just a regular Ladder match, something a high-flyer would be good at.

 

[Phoenix]

Wrong. He missed WrestleMania 2000.

On topic. No they shouldn't. The Undertaker's works so well because he's such an interesting character. Furthermore, if they did another then it would only take away from his streak. If they did that then they would be killing part of Taker's legacy.

He also missed Wrestlemania X as well.

I think where we feel his legacy at being undefeated at WM really shines and everyone places emphasis on that each year. I really can't see WWE doing it again, they already go over the top with undefeated streaks since debuts, a feat that Undertaker himself did have for well over a year. WWE really should leave streaks alone, or not place so much emphasis when a superstar is still only on the go.

 

[CDR]

Another undefeated superstar at WrestleMania? Absolutley not! There's two specific reasons I have for this. It would obviously take away from Undertaker's streak's prestige. The second being that it just wouldn't work.

The prestige and uniqueness to The Undertaker's streak would be squashed to less than half of what it is right now. As much of a deal that the WWE and its people make about this streak, they can't afford to have somebody go undefeatedand take so much away from what they've built up for The Undertaker. Somebody going 5-0 isn't a big deal, but somebody going 15-0 just wouldn't be right. The undefeated streak at WrestleMania should only be left for The Undertaker.

Another thing is that an accomplishment this great would not work for everybody. Only some superstars are good enough, entertaining enough, and accepted by the fans enough to have this streak. The WWE can't put the streak on somebody who the fans think doesn't deserve it. The fans just wouldn't like it, therefore it wouldn't work. Now, making somebody go 10-0 and some years down the line have Undertaker break their streak, that would be good because Undertaker would be involved in protecting his streak's prestige, and that might be more accepted. But having somebody besides The Undertaker go undefeated over a long period period of time, just wouldn't work right.

 

[kenvin100]

No, for 2 reasons:

1) It will ruin the spot light of the Undertaker: unfortunately, this is what WWE talks about the most, not his legacy, not what he did but this specific streak..have anyone else hold a streak of this size and it will ruin the Undertaker

2) Its honestly not entertaining: Having one person win so many times consistently may be great, but remember this is wrestling..its supposed to be entertaining...Although I respect Taker, I only watch WM for one thing: his legendary entrance..i just dont care much about his matches due to the fact that he will win..it would be interesting if WWE did end the streak, but again dont expect it to happen..

 

[Captain Bean]

i would only allow someone else to go undefeated if i were creative IF that person was of big enough importance and could be built up to challenge taker in a few years before taker retires. cena should have been the man. up until wm 24, he was 4-0, he could hav won say another 3 manias, then at WM 27 in a streak v streak match, he could finnaly face the undertaker and win, that way cena has the streak and the undertaker has passed on the torch.

however, thats out of the window, and so there isnt really anyone that the wwe could build up fast enough as undefeated before taker retired, and i would onbly have another undefeated streak if it were to one day go up against takers streak

 

[rowdy ruben]

if taker had a son that would b a great storyline. to have a second generation star trying to beat his fathers streak. other wise would not want to see any superstar undefeated at wm

 

[The Palace of Wisdom]

Absolutely not.

Not only would it not work, I hate the logic behind some of the decisions recently. That anyone not involved in the fall does not take the loss. Anyone involved in the Money in the Bank doesn't count as losing if they don't get the briefcase. It noticed it when they were mentioning Edge as being undefeated even though he'd not won the MITB at 23, even though he'd competed.

The only current person on the roster it would work for would be Orton, but he has some Mania losses already.

 

[TwistofRKO]

It would be too hard to build another one up. The fans are impatient, and with the top guys now already having lost you'd have to start with someone young and build them up, and everyone would already be clamoring for a loss when they are only 5-0.

The Undertaker streak worked because there was no mention of it until recently.

 

[DeadmanInc.]

Sure, why not? The thing is, I doubt that any superstar will be able to match such a streak because of how many years it will take. Taker's streak is nearly as old as me! I don't think the newer generation superstars are going to be in the business as long as Taker has to build up such a streak. Edge's "mini-streak" was the next comparable streak and it was miles away from Taker's 16-0 streak. WWE could decide to have someone try to match the streak but it'll take nearly two decades to complete. Only someone that is truly passionate about the business, like Taker, will even be around for that long.

Another reason Taker's streak has become so legendary is because it was never really in the spotlight until his feud with Randy Orton. It was treated as more of an "interesting fact" rather than the most epic streak in the business. That's why it has become so prestigious. When a character is based entirely around an undefeated streak that's all they're going to be about. Look at Kozlov, now that he has taken his first losses, he is destined to be nothing more than a jobber to the stars. Same thing happened to Umaga.

 

[Agent-67]

What the Undertaker has met to the WWE is just plain down phenomenal and so is his streak at Wrestlemania's. However, your all forgetting one major fact. THIS STUFF IS SCRIPTED; IE ITS FAKE! Please don't jump on this right away and think for one minute. 2-3 years after he retires permanently, this streak will mean nothing. Talk to some kids(who are the future marks that we are today), they don't know about Hulk Hogan, Hollywood Hogan & the nwo, the Rock(as far as his wrestling history goes), Bret Hart, Horsemen, Dusty Rhodes, Hogan vs Andre, Rock vs Austin, Macho Man, etc. Wrestling is about nWo and what have you done lately. I really think the Taker's streak is amazing & I am not even a fan of the guy. But what is the point of a streak in the ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS if its not ended or broken? This streak should be used to put over someone that could become one of the next major players. I don't mean give it away, to a jobber or someone who is already established like HBK. But how big would it legitimize as, a real legend, Orton, Edge, Jericho, or Batista? How big would it solidify Cena? I'm not even saying it has to be one of these guys, but Taker's streak needs to end. I've said it before, Hogan always get tore apart for not wanting to put people over...except Savage(the Mega Powers feud did build him), Warrior, Luger, Giant(Big Show), Sting, & didn't Undertaker get his first title win against Hogan?! Who has Undertaker ever put over? I am hard on this guy for that. He gets a lot of credit AS HE DOES DESERVE, but that does not mean you can't criticize this guy at all. Let him run with this streak until his last WM if he wants. But in this business you need to help the upcoming guys when its around your time to step down. Then someone else could run at his streak in the future or maybe start a new one that people would care about. It takes a long time to chase 20-0(around 20 years for those of you counting) or whatever he will finish at. Who is going to care about breaking the record till around 15 or even more. BOTTOM LINE IS THE TAKER NEEDS TO EVENTUALLY LOSE AT WRESTLEMANIA!

 

[Black Snow]

No, it's not needed and it'd seem way too manufactured. The great thing about 'Taker's streak is that no one really talked about it until he was already 8-0 and the only reason it was brought up then was because the original plan was for HBK to help HHH end the streak at 'Mania x-seven. If someone starts one now I can see them being forced into crappy matches just to get a win or they win matches that many fans think they shouldn't.

Manufactured success turns fans off. I know that was a big reason why so many people weren't hip to Cena since he was getting so many wins as a way to force him down fans' throats.

Besides, winning at 'Mania isn't a huge deal if you're a big name. Just ask Austin or HBK. Lots of big names have records right around .500 at best. Even Hunter who forces himself into title matches every year loses most of them. Having a great 'Mania match year after year is worth so much more than winning. Heck, lots of fans can't even remember who Undertaker beat in most of wins. Who would you rather be at 'Mania XIX: Jericho who lost a great match to HBK that is remembered to this day or 'Taker who notched his 11th win in a handicap match against A-Hole and Big Slow?

 

[Tastycles]

Should they? No. Will they? Yes.

The WWE have a real problem for flogging a dead horse and they almost always repeat something that was succesful in the past to no avail. Examples include reforming the nWo, or simpler things like making debutants do lengthy and unecessary winning streaks.

The Undertaker will probably be somewhere around 20-0 when he retires. There are very few people who can expect to have careers of 20 years, and even then they have to be good enough to get on the Wrestlemania card 20 times and stay injury free. It is very unlikely to happen.

There aren't many firsts in wrestling that don't end up being replicated, but this really should be one. It is a landmark acheivement and would only be diluted if someone a few years down the line went 5-0 or something shit like that.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't think so and for one simple reason: there is no way to predict who is still going to be around for such a streak. I've always thought that Taker's win streak happened by accident. I've been rewatching old Manias and it's not mentioned until 2001 when he comes into it at 8-0. I can't imagine that when he beat Snuka back in 91 that the writers knew it was going to still be going nearly 20 years later. Hardly anyone knows how long someone is going to be in the company for. Eventually the streak just took on a life of its own. That's the problem I had with Edge's mini streak. He got up to 5 in a row and he wasn't even 1/3 of the way to Taker. When Taker did it, he really didn't get noticed until he already had eight wins in a row. Also, Taker was never really a jobber. Often times stars lose in the midcard early in their careers, yet Taker won two squashes his first two years there. Things like that are almost impossible to predict and therefore, I can't imagine this happening again.

 

[rolltide_pisco]

It doesn't need to happen cause you can't duplicate something like that. It's not believable to the wrestling fans cause it would be a ripoff of Taker. It's just a once in a lifetime thing we've got to witness. I wonder when Vince McMahon realized that "hey, he has never lost has he?"

 

[JJYanks121]

The streak did happen by accident. Though I always question is because Taker DID get counted out against Giant Gonzalez, thus losing, but then the match was restarted and we all know the rest. However, the "streak" was an infant at the time so no one thought about that technicality. Fastforward a few years and every year a new monster was fed to Taker, either by accident or by storyline (Kane-brother, Bossman-corporation) and my guess is, when Wrestlemania 2000 happened and Taker wasn't there, someone on creative was looking through old manias and realized "WTF, this dude has never lost at Mania, keep that in mind for next year" And thus there was mention of it at X7 where he beat HHH, then he had 2 easy ones against Kane and the handicap against Big Show and Albert.

This is where it starts to get dicy. An up and comer, recently turned heel had charisma, a look, and his father on his side and became "the legend killer", which is, perhaps, one of the better gimmicks we've seen in a long time. This young buck challenged the legend and his streak and for once, it seemed this streak (now 10-0) could be in question. And it was, especially backstage.

There was much talk of ending the streak at that Wrestlemania, mostly from the Undertaker himself. In feeling this would be the ultimate rub for Orton, who Taker saw as a future star (and boy was he right), he felt the streak should end to him. However, Randy Orton, in a sign of maturity, which we all know he lacked most of the time at that point, said he wouldn't let that happen due to his respect for the Taker and his veteran presence. Eventually the conclusion became a Taker victory and the legend lived on.

Given that unless another young kid comes around worthy of the ultimate push, the streak will not end, nor should it. The ultimate rub to someone would be to end the streak. The promos write themselves to the lucky guy who gets that honor. However, Randy Orton became one of the best in the game. It will be tough to find someone that young and that good to be worthy.

As for another wrestler going undefeated, it's purely a year to year thing. If it works for storyline, you might see a streak build, but it would be best done with no mention, the way Taker's began. If it's realized, then maybe it's something to run with, albeit not get to whatever number Taker will get to because, in all honesty, I think Taker's streak is the WORST mania match every year. I say this because the outcome is known by EVERYONE beforehand. Take last year's mania for example. We all knew a title change was coming and Taker would emerge the victor, so even though the match was pretty good, you can't believe a false finish because you know the streak won't end. However, the other main event featured 3 huges stars and you had no idea who would win. I remember reading this board and some were positive HHH would win because it was the biggest stage he'd ever been on and with his pull he'd make it so. Some believed Superman aka Cena would pull it out "against the odds" like usual. Very few believed the heel Randy Orton would retain, but low and behold, he did and it was great. So unless you have a match that could go any which way, it's not much of a match. I love the shock value, so if you want a product that stays edgy and unpredictable, DONT DO ANOTHER STREAK!

 

[MrPlatano1989]

I havent read the posts on top of me, but i think they should have someone get close to is record, to build up if theyre going to surpass takers streak or lose at WM, but then have that person fall short, but it should be something they keep on the low, like we dont even notice hes never lost until they start mentioning it 10 years in.

 

[Queers and Steers]

Eh, I'm not really a fan of having another streak. To me, the reason Undertaker's works so well is because its a testament to how devoted he's been to the product after all these years. The guy's had lots of injuries and is rather old, but he's stayed on the same program and has never missed a WrestleMania. I can't see another person equaling such a feat because you can never know who would be trustworthy enough to be given that much of a responsibility. We're talking 15+ years. That's an entire career. Who's to say you don't run into another Brock Lesnar situation? Undertaker's wasn't really planned - or even mentioned - until rather far down the line when it just seemed to keep occurring, as opposed to planning it from the start with a newer talent like Jack Swagger or Cody Rhodes. Plus, if they started it after Undertaker, it would just seem like a retread.

I wouldn't completely throw the suggestion out the window, but if I were in charge of the WWE, it would take a whole lot to convince me.

he missed wrestlemania 10 and 16 aka 2000. and i dont think anybody else should go undefeated because thats the basis of takers legacy and cthats what makes taker the most dominant character of all time!