The Streak: Should it end?

[Bdubbs]

HBK is spot-on: Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak shouldn't be broken. He's been loyal to WWE for close to 25 years, and he's earned the right to remain undefeated at Mania. Although Taker is a legend, he doesn't have the title runs/drawing power of some of the other mega stars. The streak is Taker's big claim to fame, and it's become so big that it's one of the main focal points every WM season.

Plus, it's hard to believe that the streak will ever end, based on the past 5 years on Mania matches.

WM25 - Absolute classic with HBK, and arguably, the best match of all time. The bar was set ridiculously high, and it saved WM25 for being one of the worst Mania's.

WM26- Although not as good as WM25, this match was still outstanding. I thorougly enjoyed this match, and I like how Taker gave the ring to Shawn to close out the show. Much deserved for HBK.

WM27- Solid match with HHH, although I think their match at WM17 was better. HHH tombstoning Taker at the end had me on the edge of my seat. HHH going for the hammer only to be locked in Hells Gate was an awesome finish.

WM28- Outstanding Hell in a Cell match with HHH. The story telling in the match and the build with HBK being special referee was awesome. They beat the CRAP out of each other for nearly 40 minutes. Sweet Chin Music followed by The Pedigree was a great sequence, and the fans were going nuts. The 3 of them embracing on the ramp at the end was a nice touch also. With it being billed "End of an Era" and Taker becoming 20-0, I would've liked to have seen Taker hang up the boots here.

WM29- Good match with CM Punk, but after the previous 4 matches, I never really bought the streak ending. Punk did a great job selling Taker's offense, and he also sold well with his facial expressions. Although this match wasn't as good as previous Mania's, it was still in the running for MOTY.

I have no doubt that this year's match with Lesnar is going to be epic. Although the match won't be as technically sound as Punk's match, Lesnar will be bought as a bigger threat to end the streak. In my opinion, Taker fights Cena next year at WM32 in Cowboys Stadium. WM32 has a shot at breaking the attendance record, depending on their set-up. Taker beats Cena becoming 23-0, and I think he hangs up the boots for good.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

A streak can end and still be a streak. The longevity of the streak is what matters, not its infiniteness. Death is a part of life and if there anything fitting for a character like the UT is that at some point he has to die. If he walks away undefeated not only does that fail to benefit anyone else, it fails to end the story.

Walking away on top for a wrestler is not fitting to begin with let alone a character like the UT.

 

[Kitten Cutter]

It breaks down to this:

Those who believe the Streak should remain intact believe in the legacy of The Undertaker, and feel that it's a huge part (if not #1) to his stoic career.

Those who believe it should be broken say one of 3 things:

1. It should give the rub to a younger wrestler; or ended by an established star even to Taker's status

2. It "ends" his career.

3. It doesn't tarnish his legacy in a fake sport.

To all these points, I have counters, because I believe in the Streak:

1. Had Taker gotten his way for Wrestlemania 22 (April 2, 2006), Angle would have beaten him. Then, only 4 months later, Angle quit. He was given his early release August 25, 2006. Think about that: breaking the streak, then quitting 4 months later. Good for business?

By the way, top guys like Goldberg lasted less than 1 calendar year. Lesnar went from March 18th, 2002 to March 14th, 2004 in his first run. Point is, wrestling careers are fickle, and the next up-and-coming guy could end up leaving sooner than later. Injuries, drugs, alcohol, scandal, movie career, another company, sick family member, lack of passion for the business, the list goes on and on.

Also, when he debuted, Kurt Angle was undefeated. You know who beat him first? Tazz. Do we remember him for it? No. John Cena was unbeaten at Wrestlemania once. You know who beat him? Randy Orton. Goldberg's streak went down with Kevin Nash. It barely even got a mention 2 years later. Is that part of their accomplishments? No. If someone needs to beat The Undertaker (hell, any undefeated guy) to become a star, they're doing something wrong.

2. It "ends" his career.

Sure, every wrestler goes out on their back, right? Well, except Edge, who retired as World Heavyweight Champion. And Trish Stratus, who beat Lita to win the Women's Championship and gave it up the next night. Taker is indeed old-school, and I'm sure he'd happily lay down for someone, but that's the choice of two people: him and McMahon. But don't act like it HAS to end him. He could easily call it a career NOW and no one would fault him one bit.

And as for the story of the Streak, ask the '72 Dolphins how they'd like to end their undefeated season, that STILL gets talked about. Or what about a pitcher throwing a perfect game? I'm sure they'd rather have a batter hit one down the line so their story ends. Going undefeated, going perfect, that's a legacy, one that is hard to do and easy to appreciate. It takes effort and hard work to make such a thing tangible. OH, speaking of which...

3. It doesn't tarnish his legacy in a fake sport.

First off, why bother watching wrestling? I don't normally insult people on these forums, but anyone who throws out "it's fake" and "the writers wrote it" and such is just being a dick. WE KNOW. WE GET IT.

That being said, don't act like this doesn't matter. The Undertaker...hell, EVERY wrestler goes through pain and suffering that we don't. They don't have an offseason so when they miss time, they lose money. Wrestlers die young, and look frankly ghastly when they grow old. The Undertaker is pushing 50, has had multiple surgeries on multiple parts of his body, and he still LOVES doing this. He loves to perform for the fans, and despite his age and wear-and-tear, STILL gives us credible matches. So, don't hide behind "it's a fake sport." You go to wrestling school and still be relevant after 25 years and see how fake it feels to you.

And maybe you'll mention how predictable The Streak is. Fine, don't watch then. It's not like Taker walks out, hits the Fingerpoke of Doom and gets another win on the sheet. Wrestling is still drama, and even though many knew Michaels would lose, did that make Wrestlemania 25 any less of a match? HHH in Hell in a Cell? Or really ANY match in wrestling where the outcome is easy to figure out for experienced wrestling fans? If you need unpredictability in your matches to make wrestling exciting you're watching the wrong thing. Not every match is gonna be unpredictable. WWE isn't, WWF wasn't, neither was WCW, and ECW used the violence to help in that, but in the end still had determinable outcomes. This isn't the NFL. Cena vs. Cesaro was an excellent match, and every bit as predictable that Cena was gonna win. Taker vs. Punk was predictable and still arguably the best match on the card. Both The Rock vs. Cena matches were very predictable. HHH vs. Lesnar was predictable. Just because a match is predictable doesn't make it awful. It only means the wrestlers have to work harder to draw in the fan watching. And more often than not Taker has done just that. While pushing 50.

One more thing: The Undertaker's legacy is The Streak. Flair has won 16 total World titles. Cena has won 14, HHH has 13, Orton has 12. Without the streak, Undertaker is a 7-time World title holder. Sure, he is indeed a legend, but part of his mystique is The Streak. The Hell in the Cell matches, the Casket matches, the invincible aura, the Ministry, all things that pale in comparison to the Streak, and taking that away takes away what truly defines one of the best wrestlers of not just our generation but several.

He DESERVES to keep the Streak. Vince McMahon says he will. The majority of fans want him to as well. I've said my peace.

 

[Sabutage]

It breaks down to this:

Those who believe the Streak should remain intact believe in the legacy of The Undertaker, and feel that it's a huge part (if not #1) to his stoic career.

Those who believe it should be broken say one of 3 things:

1. It should give the rub to a younger wrestler; or ended by an established star even to Taker's status

2. It "ends" his career.

3. It doesn't tarnish his legacy in a fake sport.

To all these points, I have counters, because I believe in the Streak:

1. Had Taker gotten his way for Wrestlemania 22 (April 2, 2006), Angle would have beaten him. Then, only 4 months later, Angle quit. He was given his early release August 25, 2006. Think about that: breaking the streak, then quitting 4 months later. Good for business?

By the way, top guys like Goldberg lasted less than 1 calendar year. Lesnar went from March 18th, 2002 to March 14th, 2004 in his first run. Point is, wrestling careers are fickle, and the next up-and-coming guy could end up leaving sooner than later. Injuries, drugs, alcohol, scandal, movie career, another company, sick family member, lack of passion for the business, the list goes on and on.

Also, when he debuted, Kurt Angle was undefeated. You know who beat him first? Tazz. Do we remember him for it? No. John Cena was unbeaten at Wrestlemania once. You know who beat him? Randy Orton. Goldberg's streak went down with Kevin Nash. It barely even got a mention 2 years later. Is that part of their accomplishments? No. If someone needs to beat The Undertaker (hell, any undefeated guy) to become a star, they're doing something wrong.

2. It "ends" his career.

Sure, every wrestler goes out on their back, right? Well, except Edge, who retired as World Heavyweight Champion. And Trish Stratus, who beat Lita to win the Women's Championship and gave it up the next night. Taker is indeed old-school, and I'm sure he'd happily lay down for someone, but that's the choice of two people: him and McMahon. But don't act like it HAS to end him. He could easily call it a career NOW and no one would fault him one bit.

And as for the story of the Streak, ask the '72 Dolphins how they'd like to end their undefeated season, that STILL gets talked about. Or what about a pitcher throwing a perfect game? I'm sure they'd rather have a batter hit one down the line so their story ends. Going undefeated, going perfect, that's a legacy, one that is hard to do and easy to appreciate. It takes effort and hard work to make such a thing tangible. OH, speaking of which...

3. It doesn't tarnish his legacy in a fake sport.

First off, why bother watching wrestling? I don't normally insult people on these forums, but anyone who throws out "it's fake" and "the writers wrote it" and such is just being a dick. WE KNOW. WE GET IT.

That being said, don't act like this doesn't matter. The Undertaker...hell, EVERY wrestler goes through pain and suffering that we don't. They don't have an offseason so when they miss time, they lose money. Wrestlers die young, and look frankly ghastly when they grow old. The Undertaker is pushing 50, has had multiple surgeries on multiple parts of his body, and he still LOVES doing this. He loves to perform for the fans, and despite his age and wear-and-tear, STILL gives us credible matches. So, don't hide behind "it's a fake sport." You go to wrestling school and still be relevant after 25 years and see how fake it feels to you.

And maybe you'll mention how predictable The Streak is. Fine, don't watch then. It's not like Taker walks out, hits the Fingerpoke of Doom and gets another win on the sheet. Wrestling is still drama, and even though many knew Michaels would lose, did that make Wrestlemania 25 any less of a match? HHH in Hell in a Cell? Or really ANY match in wrestling where the outcome is easy to figure out for experienced wrestling fans? If you need unpredictability in your matches to make wrestling exciting you're watching the wrong thing. Not every match is gonna be unpredictable. WWE isn't, WWF wasn't, neither was WCW, and ECW used the violence to help in that, but in the end still had determinable outcomes. This isn't the NFL. Cena vs. Cesaro was an excellent match, and every bit as predictable that Cena was gonna win. Taker vs. Punk was predictable and still arguably the best match on the card. Both The Rock vs. Cena matches were very predictable. HHH vs. Lesnar was predictable. Just because a match is predictable doesn't make it awful. It only means the wrestlers have to work harder to draw in the fan watching. And more often than not Taker has done just that. While pushing 50.

One more thing: The Undertaker's legacy is The Streak. Flair has won 16 total World titles. Cena has won 14, HHH has 13, Orton has 12. Without the streak, Undertaker is a 7-time World title holder. Sure, he is indeed a legend, but part of his mystique is The Streak. The Hell in the Cell matches, the Casket matches, the invincible aura, the Ministry, all things that pale in comparison to the Streak, and taking that away takes away what truly defines one of the best wrestlers of not just our generation but several.

He DESERVES to keep the Streak. Vince McMahon says he will. The majority of fans want him to as well. I've said my peace.

Of course any wrestler could break a contract, fail a test or whatever, but its a risk I think is worth taking. Anyone, in any position could leave. Bray Wyatt could quit the night before Wrestlemania and ruin Cenas plans, or Lesnar could run away before Wrestlemania and leave the Undertaker hanging. Givng anyone a huge push is risky, but doesnt mean we should be scared to give someone the opportunity.

Regarding undefeated records difference is the Streak means much more than another undefeated record, so to beat it would be talked about and remembered, only if it was his last match, or he rematched the same wrestler and lost again but thats asking for too much lol.

Also, the argument that if a wrestler cant get over without the streak he doesnt deserve it doesnt make sense to me. I'm not advocating giving it to Curtis Axel or someone from NXT, but to the right person I truly believe it could take them to the next level if done correctly.

Really I dont appreciate you calling me a dick for having an opinion you dont like, just by saying its scripted or fake Im not insulting anyones intelligence or the product, Im a wrestling fan myself. The point I'm trying to make is, it obviously does not mean as much as any real sports record, neither do title wins or any other statistic. So imo, theres no need to have a emotional attachment to the Streak. Imo it doesnt define him at all, his matches and everything else you mentioned define him to me. The memories thst hes given everyone not a number on a wall. Its a fabricated statistic that when the Undertaker retires will be useless to everyone else but his own ego, but before then it can be used for some good for the future of another wrestler.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

Thing is, the Undertaker's career is on its last legs. Chances are this might well be his last Mania, as he doesn't confirm his participation in the next Mania until late in the Wrestling calendar.
That said, as HBK alluded to, as long as it seems there is a chance of the Steak being broken, people will definitely be interested in it.

Hence, I would have put Cena to face Taker this year, or someone else of similar status to Cena. That would mean there are very few viable candidates to do it, perhaps Only John Cena and the Rock. Maybe if Sting comes and can wrestle a match, they should have done Cena this year as a Blockbuster Main Event of WM30, then next year,2015, setup Sting vs the Undertaker, then in 2016, have a Career vs Streak match, the Rock vs the Undertaker. That would be three blockbuster matches that the majority of WWE fans would love to see,lMO. By 2017, the likes of Bray or Roman might me over enough to take a shot at breaking the streak , and let either of them get closer than anyone ever before, and Taker breaks kayfabe, and gives them respect for their effort, thus paving the way for another Face of the Company since Taker has seen it all, From Hogan to Austin to Rock to Cena....

25-0


That said, I am a huge Taker fan, and I am also fond of Brock since he returned, I just like the whole Badass,Monster role he plays. Thus, I will be following this feud closely even though I fully predict that Taker will win the match and continue the Streak.

I generally agree with you. If the streak doesn't end, it's not like it makes any difference to me. But when you say "as long as it seems there is a chance of the Steak being broken, people will definitely be interested in it" that's the part I'm also alluding to. They haven't been doing that.

There has been less and less a legitimate chance that the streak might end, at least in my opinion. You're right, they should do more to try and legitimize this... like put him against Cena or Sting... or put him in the WWE Championship match even. But, since they're not... I'm caring less and less about Undertaker's match. Just retire then. He's done everything and the streak is already legendary. It's not like anyone is going to think any less of him without the "padded stats" of a few more wins added to the streak.

 

[Softcore Holly]

For me I want to keep the streak because it's unique, it'll go down as the books as one of greatest things in WWE history and it's something that won't happen every again. Now I'm sure plenty of you will say that the above will still be true even with 1 loss, but it just won't be as special. It's like if someone put a small but very noticeable dot on the Mona Lisa, it's still a masterpiece, it'll still be one of the most talked about paintings in history but now for some reason it has something that doesn't have to be there at all that makes it not as great.

The benefits of breaking the streak are not unique. Can it give someone a great push? Sure but there's a million other ways to do that. Look at Orton, he was supposed to beat Taker years ago but he declined, and look at him now. He's one of the top guys in the company and going to stay there for a very long time. He didn't need to break the streak to get to the top, and if neither will anyone else. Now I know a lot of you won't share this opinion, but I much rather have a perfect Streak to remember Taker by than giving a new guy a boost when I can think of so many other ways to push that guy.

 

[L@RISANO]

I generally agree with you. If the streak doesn't end, it's not like it makes any difference to me. But when you say "as long as it seems there is a chance of the Steak being broken, people will definitely be interested in it" that's the part I'm also alluding to. They haven't been doing that.

There has been less and less a legitimate chance that the streak might end, at least in my opinion. You're right, they should do more to try and legitimize this... like put him against Cena or Sting... or put him in the WWE Championship match even. But, since they're not... I'm caring less and less about Undertaker's match. Just retire then. He's done everything and the streak is already legendary. It's not like anyone is going to think any less of him without the "padded stats" of a few more wins added to the streak.

Same here,by and large.

My interest in it stems mainly from being a diehard Undertaker fan from Day One. So I am generally interested in everything he does, whether he faces a HOF, Future HOF or a Flavour of the Month.

However, with regards to the fact that the opponents put forward last year(Face it, as over as CM Punk got, he didn't have a chance of breaking it), and this year(Neither does Brock have a legit chance either) have been underwhelming in terms of having Streak opponents who a fan would feel is a legit threat to the Streak, I agree wholeheartedly.

As I said in an earlier post, there are very few wrestlers who can pose a believable threat to breaking the streak, personally, I'd say John Cena and the Rock out of the current guys. Sting would just be a nostalgic opponent who many fans would be interesting in seeing, however, I don't think he has any better a chance than Lesnar or Punk to end the Streak either.

If I had to book it for WM onwards and assume that the Undertaker can make it to WM33(2017) in good enough health(it is unlikely):

I'd sign Sting with a view to having him debut on Post-Mania 30 RAW in some role to work a One Year In-Ring contract, and at some point, have him change into the crow gimmick, and appear "lurking in the rafters" when Taker is present on the Road to Mania 31.

For WM32; I'd try to get the Rock to agree to a Career vs Streak match,and train specifically for that. I am sure it would be a blockbuster match and would make millions. It might not be an overall Classic match, but on the original assumption I made, I think it could be a 4-star match, with a 5-star story.

For WM33; With John Cena going onto 40, by that time. I'd have him be Taker's opponent,and hopefully, the likes of D-Bry,Reigns, Bray will all be well established by that point. Have Taker go 25-0, and go off into the sunset( I am sure the character can be written off somehow). John Cena can also be put in a different direction character-wise after the Streak match.


However, Taker has said in interviews, that as long as the Fans respond favourably to him, he will return, and he also has alluded to his allegiance to Vince and not wanting to let the Boss down.
Thus, as long as those two factors remain, and Taker thinks he has enough in the tank to give us a classic match, he will keep returning even though he doesn't really have to.

 

[L@RISANO]

What money is there, exactly, in breaking the Streak?
The only value I see is that you could increase the drawing power of someone, but as I outlined above, there isn’t (and probably won’t be) anyone who will actually need or be able to properly utilize the rub.

Remember 2008, when the IWC was abuzz when this 35 year old Canadian, in his in-ring and in-character prime, had his own Streak at Wrestlemania? 5 wins, 1 loss (in Money in the Bank, mind you, and he still managed to cash in the briefcase despite not winning the match). Some people legitimately believed the Streak to be in jeopardy, and why wouldn’t they? Edge was eight years younger than The Undertaker, so he’d presumably be with the company for eight years longer than him too.

Fast forward three years. Edge retires, shocking everyone, and The Undertaker churns out a MOTY contender for the fourth year in a row. Then he does it again in 2012, and again in 2013. Edge, the younger guy who just needed a little more to be included in the pantheon of the all-time greats? He’s an actor now.

Imagine, then, if Edge had gotten the rub against The Undertaker. Imagine how red the company’s faces would be, imagine how much money would be lost when those matches against Shawn and Hunter and Punk would never happen. Remember, all five of those matches were predicated on one thing: a top star wanting to prove that they’re the greatest of all time by doing the impossible and beating The Undertaker at Mania.

And this is why the time will never be right, and the right guy will never come around. Because The Undertaker is unique, through and through. Nobody has been with the company longer; Triple H is four years behind him (not to mentioned semi-retired and finished with challenging The Streak) and Cena, who is in third, is eleven years back. There’s no money to be made in breaking The Streak- only enormous risk for at best a minor pay-out.

The above is a comment made by someone on another site. Thought I would share it.

 

[Kitten Cutter]

Sabutage said:

Really I dont appreciate you calling me a dick for having an opinion you dont like, just by saying its scripted or fake Im not insulting anyones intelligence or the product, Im a wrestling fan myself.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate it, but it's true. You saying it's "scripted" and "it's fake" is spitting in the face of every wrestling fan. And as a wrestling fan you should be used to idiots saying "Wrestling is fake. Your stupid." The last thing we want to hear is what we already know. So, yes, said person who says that is being a dick. Your opinion is your opinion, and I respect it. I don't respect your argument being, "it's all fake anyway it doesnt count"

And speaking of which,

The point I'm trying to make is, it obviously does not mean as much as any real sports record, neither do title wins or any other statistic. So imo, theres no need to have a emotional attachment to the Streak. Imo it doesnt define him at all, his matches and everything else you mentioned define him to me. The memories thst hes given everyone not a number on a wall. Its a fabricated statistic that when the Undertaker retires will be useless to everyone else but his own ego, but before then it can be used for some good for the future of another wrestler.

Well, maybe I am. Maybe I'm a mark for The Undertaker who called Shawn Michaels a son of a bitch when he superkicked Taker into HHH's Pedigree, and was overjoyed when he kicked out. Yeah, I'm PROUD to say it because that was an awesome match, and maybe you don't get emotional about the Streak, but I get emotional about the match. Do you get emotional watching a match? Do you get drawn in when two wrestlers put on an amazing show? (Not meant to be demeaning; it's a serious question) I do, and that's why I watch WWE: for those moments that are awesome to behold. The Streak is a huge deal, and even if it a "fabricated statistic," I choose to be enraptured in it, rather than watch it coldly and unemotional because "title wins or any other statistic" don't count.

One more thing:

Also, the argument that if a wrestler cant get over without the streak he doesnt deserve it doesnt make sense to me. I'm not advocating giving it to Curtis Axel or someone from NXT, but to the right person I truly believe it could take them to the next level if done correctly.

Who would you put to beat the Streak? Bray Wyatt? I think taking on John Cena in his FIRST Wrestlemania is a big deal. Roman Reigns? Seems like he's already on the way up. Who do you think will reach the next level beating The Streak? (Again, not meant to be demeaning; seriously want to know who you'd put there.)

 

[Dagger Dias]

I mostly agree with HBK. It depends on who the opponent is. If HBK, Trips, CM Punk, Edge, and Batista all couldn't end it (kayfabe) in recent years, then who would be not only believable in such a position but also deserve it? Lesnar sure doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of both guys so I'll be looking forward to the match, but Undertaker MUST win and there are other wrestlers who I would have preferred to see challenge the streak. Cena, Jericho, and Sheamus come to mind off the top of my head, and there are plenty more. Lesnar should not be the one to end the streak and neither should anyone else currently on the active roster.

If the streak ever does end, it needs to be ended by someone who will be able to endure the tidal wave of hatred that it will create when he does in fact end the 20+ year streak. If this wrestler cannot handle being a hated heel for the rest of his career, a career that would need to last for a VERY long time, then the time invested into the streak will have been undone for nothing. I'm sure that the WWE is quite aware of this and for that reason the streak might never end. Out of respect for the Undertaker, it really shouldn't. The only reason it should is if they KNOW that they 100% for sure have found the right wrestler to endure such a colossal heel turn. It could rival Hogan's turn in terms of fan outrage.

 

[Mustang Sally]

HBK is right, it can't be called the Streak with a loss included.

That's why the time to end it (if it is to end) would be Undertaker's very last match before retirement. After he's gone, the only time the Streak will be mentioned "live" on WWE productions is when an announcer has occasion to refer to it. At that time, he'll say something like: "Remember the Undertaker's streak at Wrestlemania?" and the recollection will be a nod to an event of the past, which is perfectly acceptable.

The Streak exists.....the Streak ends. That's the beauty of athletic events: there are winners and losers, and in order for someone to win, someone else has to lose. If an achievement that existed comes to an end, it doesn't negate the former existence of the achievement. The only way that happens is if someone starts another Wrestlemania winning streak that eventually exceeds that of the Undertaker.

My preferred scenario would be to see the Streak end at the hands of the #1 performer in the company, John Cena......the implication being that only the top person in the organization would be capable of ending the longest running record.

Problem is, this is something that should be cheered (for the victor) as well as mourned (for the Undertaker). Somehow, WWE is going to have to find the way to turn the Cena-haters around so they'll be able to appreciate his achievement.....and that's gonna be a trick.

 

[King_of_Swing1520]

the undertakers undefeated streak began at wrestlemania 7 in 1991. since then taker has only missed 2 wrestlemanias, 10 and 16. now my question is when did the streak begin to be meaningful for you? when did it reach the point where it wasn't just another match at mania? when did challenging the streak become a big deal? obviously during his first few mania matches the streak wasn't important, or even noticed. but at some point it became "the streak" and now its a huge part of mania and every year it becomes the focal point of the feud taker is involved in heading into mania.

so when did the streak become THE STREAK?

WrestleMania Streak

WM Opponent Record
VII Jimmy Snuka 1–0
VIII Jake Roberts 2–0
IX Giant González 3–0
XI King Kong Bundy 4–0
XII Diesel 5–0
13 Sycho Sid 6–0
XIV Kane 7–0
XV Big Boss Man 8–0
X-Seven Triple H 9–0
X8 Ric Flair 10–0
XIX The Big Show & A-Train 11–0
XX Kane 12–0
21 Randy Orton 13–0
22 Mark Henry 14–0
23 Batista 15–0
XXIV Edge 16–0
XXV Shawn Michaels 17–0
XXVI Shawn Michaels 18–0
XXVII Triple H 19–0
XXVIII Triple H 20–0
29 CM Punk 21–0
XXX Brock Lesnar

 

[Eddie Menuek]

The undefeated record had been mentioned in passing ahead of some of his previous Wrestlemania matches, but the match with Randy Orton at Wrestlemania 21 was the first time that the buildup was centered around one man aiming to 'defeat The Streak'.

 

[Rasslin_fan]

The undefeated record had been mentioned in passing ahead of some of his previous Wrestlemania matches, but the match with Randy Orton at Wrestlemania 21 was the first time that the buildup was centered around one man aiming to 'defeat The Streak'.

Basically this ^^^

So many Superstars talk about wanting to face Taker nowadays with guys like HBK & HHH forcing themselves onto Taker for multiple matches with the Legendary Undertaker recently.

 

[MoRtAnDaD]

Randy's match def was the first time that the streak was addressed as such and gained a live of his own.

And was a good move because it has secured a marquee match for every wrestlemania since then.

 

[RicSpade]

If we want to be realistic about the streak Taker started to make mention of it after beating Flair pointing out he was 10-0, I guess in terms of relevance it could be made that it was all about the streak with Orton where as the matches before hand were about a vendetta...

 

[Septumus]

Orton I believe was the first to say he is going to end the streak and if I am remembering correctly, first mention of the streak was at X-Seven against HHH. If not that year it was against Flair the next year.

 

[James Greiga]

The streak had been mentioned pretty much every year since about 1999. It didn't really become a major attraction until Edge vs. Undertaker when they made such a huge deal about it. Then HBK only magnified how important it was and ever since the epic match/feud with HBK the streak became THE STREAK. My only misgivings about that is that younger fans will only remember Undertaker for the streak which is something that only recently became a thing

 

[Bernkastel]

WWE didn't start really hyping the Streak until Taker was already 9-0. I do not recall WWE caring that much at all about the streak until Taker fought Flair. Even though Taker versus Sid was for the WWE championship, the match was a flop draw wise.

After WM18 I recall WWE hyping up the streak only to remind us all of the fact that Taker even had a streak, but not all that much, because most of those matches were hardly 5 star matches. Randy Orton was the next time I recall the streak getting a fair amount of build up, because Taker's match with Batista the next year was more about "Taker winning the world title" and not "Taker losing the Streak." It wasn't until the last 5 years that the "mythos" of the Streak was at an all time high.

So WWE has seemingly only cared about the Streak for about a third of the amount of time the Streak has been around.

 

[Pedigree1]

The first i remember of it being of any significance was WM X-7.. That year he was heading into WM X-7 at 8-0,against the King of Kings Triple H! I remember JR bringing it up during the match,and got to thinking hes right he is undefeated.. Never gave it much thought up until that night.. But realistically he was supposed to let orton go over at WM21,but Orton nixed the idea..

So the first mention was indeed at WM X-7

 

[SamSaber]

I think Batista/Undertaker set the tone for how a "streak" match should feel. Since WM 23 the "streak" match has been one of the main events of the show. Taker/Orton was built as Orton vs. the streak but it just didn't have that big match feel.

The next year was Taker/Henry which was a snooze fest. Batista/Taker was the first time we felt like this COULD potentially come to an end.

I thought for sure Orton was gonna beat Taker, but nobody believed they were gonna put Henry over.

So in conclusion, I believe The Streak became its own spectacle at WM 23.

Thank you

 

[lordj2010]

the first time i remember WWE making any major mention to the streak was Ortan vrs undertaker. So roughly at 12-0... this is when i remember im sure they probably made mention to it in the past before this but its the first time i remember

 

[JJ15776]

The first time it was mentioned at a WrestleMania was X8 in his match against Ric Flair. I know this because I've watched every Undertaker WrestleMania match on the WWE Network. I always thought it was the X-Seven match against Triple H, but if they mentioned it during the buildup for that match, it didn't come up during the actual match.

However, it didn't become a really big deal until the match against Randy Orton at WrestleMania 21. It had been mentioned in the previous matches(especially the handicapped match), but it wasn't a focus. And then the streak really took on a life of its own with the match against Edge at WrestleMania XXIV. The significance of that match is that, unlike the previous year's match against Batista, The Streak was actually more important than the title in his match against Edge. And, of course, just a year later Undertaker started his one match a year schedule, which really solidified the importance of The Streak.

So I guess it depends on your definition of meaningful. I'd probably go with the Randy Orton match, since that was the first time a wrestler actually challenged him for the expressed purpose of ending the streak.

 

[Rhodes2TheFuture3313]

I say WM 17 against HHH. That to me was the match that said the DEAD MAN will not lose at WM. Even though he was the American Bada$$ at that point in time. WM 18 against Flair was a really good build. I believe it was one of Ric's finer matches in WWE. The build of young Randy Orton vs. The Undertaker's Streak does really stand out because Orton may have lost the battle, but he won the war. That match cemented that Randy Orton would be a bigtime player in WWE. I don't remember the WM 19 match. WM 20 was a big one. Kane had been unmasked and helped Vince bury the Undertaker at Survivor Series and the build from Rumble on was awesome. This may have been Undertaker's best entrance since the outdoor WM w/the Vulture in the cage. I loved the druids w/the torches and the return of Paul Bearer. The streak vs. title match against Batista was probably the closest the streak came to ending. After that we pretty much know Undertaker is going to win unless he himself decides to let that end his career. A match against Cena will scare a lot of hardcore WWE fans and Cena is a legit contender to end it. I think a re-match w/Randy now would be really good. He's another guy I can see Undertaker saying this is the guy. Sheamus would be a good WM opponent for Undertaker. Roman Reigns & Bray Wyatt are also future options to "END the Dead man".

 

[L@RISANO]

It became relevant at WM21, when Randy Orton was the Legend Killer. I'd say that long feud he had with Taker made his career even though he lost at Mania. As for Taker, well since then, the Streak match has been a regular feature of Wrestlemania cards since then.