What If: The Undertaker lost to Triple H at WrestleMania 17?

[Skillz]

Before the Undertaker beat Triple H at WM17, there was never any mention of an undefeated streak. WM17 was the first time the WWE acknowledged that the Undertaker was undefeated at WrestleMania. At this time Triple H was in the prime of his career, he was white hot, and I was expecting him to win the match. It was a bit of a shock that Taker ended up winning the match. And as we all know, from then on his WrestleMania streak has kept growing, and he is still undefeated with 16 wins and 0 losses.

My question is, if the Undertaker lost that match would he still be considered as great as he is? Would his legacy still be as great as it is?

The undefeated streak at WrestleMania is the backbone of his entire legacy. In 10 or 15 years time when we look back on the Undertaker's career, his biggest achievement will no doubt be the streak. He has never been a great world champion, most of his reigns were either too short or transitional. It's his streak that defines how great of a legend he is.

In my opinion, if Taker lost that match against Triple H, his legacy WOULD NOT be as great as it is today. It would still be a great legacy, but we wouldn't get as many people claiming he's one of the best ever. If he lost that match, he probably would have lost a couple more since then, and the whole undefeated streak would have been a mere afterthought.

 

[Revived]

That's interesting, but I think Vince mentioned it before his main event match at Wrestlemania 13. Not positive, but I remember watching an 'older' WM and the mentioning of the streak surprised me.

edit: it was at WM13. Jim Ross mentioned it, not Vince. They obviously weren't making such a big deal out of it, but it was mentioned. The streak was only 5-0 by then.

Direct quote: "The first time we saw the Undertaker in 1991 at a Wrestlemania, he beat a Hall of Famer Superfly Jimmy Snuka, wearing the exact same type of attire. He has never lost at Wrestlemania as the Undertaker."

 

[Dead Kennedy]

I think, no matter if "The Streak" had been ended, mentioned or no, Undertaker would still be the pillar of the industry he is. It's just a small factor in The Undertaker's career. Eventually it's become more closely related to Undertaker, and his his one accomplishment that can never be bested. But if it had ended back then, when nobody in WWE seemed to "push" his undefeated streak, it wouldn't have made much difference.

 

[Showtime]

It's a real interesting question, whether losing to HHH and ending his streak would hurt the Undertaker's career or not. I do agree with the Hardcore man above me that Taker is big enough in this industry that he could've stood on his own and accomplish all that he has. However, I do hold the possibility that he may be retired or used sparringly like once a year, by this time if he did lose to HHH. Now more than ever the WWE and the Undertaker are leaning heavily on the streak, it is his greatest legacy and he and the WWE are riding it out as long as they can. It really is the only way they can put the title on him it seems. So I don't think his career would've changed much, but it might've ended sooner.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

He's been in as many 'first ever' matches as Shawn Michaels, and has numerous other memorable accolades, such as HIAC being HIS match, along with Casket, Last Ride and Buried Alive. He was well over and beloved by fans well before people started banging on about his streak so no i don't think it would have hurt his legacy that much, maybe to a degree, but he'd undoubtedly still be regarded as legendary.

 

[foundation611]

I think, no matter if "The Streak" had been ended, mentioned or no, Undertaker would still be the pillar of the industry he is. It's just a small factor in The Undertaker's career. Eventually it's become more closely related to Undertaker, and his his one accomplishment that can never be bested. But if it had ended back then, when nobody in WWE seemed to "push" his undefeated streak, it wouldn't have made much difference.

I don't agree with this at all. The streak is a major part of why he's such a legend. If not for the streak all he'd have is this gimmick that is always changing and going back to square one and his longevity. He really never has been a good champ and he never needed the belt. He'd still be considered "great" but not respected or held in such high regard. I think even with the streak its a bit overdone his "greatness" or legendary status but it is what it is. I'm not an Undertaker hater like a lot of guys here but that's just how i see it. The streak is a MAJOR reason not something small.

 

[DeadmanInc.]

Taker's undefeated streak isn't the only part of his legacy. He has been a constant upper midcarder/main eventer since his debut. He beat Hulk Hogan in his first year in the company. Not a lot of people can say that.

Plus he has innovated or been part of many original gimmick matches, such as Hell in a Cell, Buried Alive, and the Casket Match. Also, he has been the center of many memorable angles moments in the WWE. The first time he "died and resurrected" was simply amazing because it was never done before. His feud with Kane is still one of the greatest feuds of all time and the Ministry of Darkness faction was one of the most controversial.

Yes, Taker's streak is a huge part of his legacy, but that doesn't mean he's nothing without it. His streak sets him apart from the other WWE legends. Take a look at Shawn Michaels. Championship wise, he has only had 1 long reign as WWF champion. He also doesn't have any streak like Undertaker does, yet everyone considers him to be one of the best ever. Why? He puts on memorable matches and is part of some of the best feuds and angles.

 

[Dragonslayer]

I tend to disagree with the "streak" being the essence of Taker's career/legacy. I think it is - if that - the icing on the cake that is The Undertaker.

Taker has been around more consistently than any other superstar on the roster, and has always been considered a top tier player at any stage of his career, and his gimmick has ultimately survived all transitions from "Hulkamania-WWF" over the "Attitude" era over the "Invasion" time to today. The argument about his title reigns being short or transitional has little substance to me - I mean, WWE Hall of Famers Roddy Piper and Curt Hennig never even WERE world champs, and they are still considered huge legends (esp. Piper); so that alone can't define his career. Plus, and that is the most important fact to me - Undertaker's gimmick just doesn't need any title whatsoever. And that is the simple reason why he managed to stick to the main event scene throughout his career, even if there were no titles involved. In fact, I do believe the Undertaker is best WHEN there is no title involved. For a character like "The Undertaker", who is portrayed as having supernatural powers, someone who is obsessed with the "dark sides" of man's soul, someone who has even "cheated death" on numerous occasions, the pursuit of something as secular and almost "trivial" as a World Title just does not even fit in (which was what I didn't like about his feud with Batista, as the title was the sole reason those two were at each other's throat).
As a heel, The Undertaker can just be wicked (see Ministry of Darkness), with a desire to dish out pain. As a face (as far as a guy named "The Undertaker" can be a face in the classic meaning), he is there to "punish those (and punish severely at that!) who have done wrong". He is the metaphorical conscience of the WWE when he is this face, he is the dark side of it when he is heel.

And even if his gimmick might seem cheesy in this day and age (when it already was quite cheesy back when he started), but I always say - you don't have to take everything Taker is and does literally -his character can be a great metaphor for various elementary experiences/emotions that otherwise are a lot more difficult to express.

And the Undertaker will not be remembered for his "Wrestlemania Streak" - which indeed has been on everyone's lips only for a couple of years now, and which to me is not really important - but he will be remembered for being involved in many many great feuds over the years - he defeated none other than Hulk Hogan to win his first WWE title, he created one of the biggest Wrestling moments ever in the HIAC together with Mick Foley; he even at this stage of career puts on stellar matches (look no further than his three bouts with Edge this year), he even "created" many himself including the HIAC, Buried Alive, Casket, and also the Inferno match (although that was more Kane's gimmick, but he was also involved in that); he always had tremendous storylines (as someone already mentioned - the "Ministry" being another prime example of what WWE's "Attitude" was all about) and he has been in feuds and matches with the greatest superstars of all time - Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Bret Hart, Mankind, Shawn Michaels (in another HIAC classic which marked Kane's debut and sparked another great feud), Stone Cold, Triple H, Kurt Angle and many more, and won many of those matches, too - which is not something many other superstars of any generation Taker was part of can claim.

The streak that came along with portraying such a dominant character over such a long period, as said, is just a bonus. But even had Undertaker lost once or twice at 'Mania, he would still have had all those great rivalries, all those great matches, all those great moments. J.R. would simply say... "Undertaker has ONLY ONCE been defeated at a Wrestlemania, and by none other than WWE (future) Hall of Famer Hulk Hogan/Bret Hart/Rock/Steve Austin/HBK/(insert random legend Taker has faced)"

He is the definite next WWE Hall of Famer to still be active today (next to HBK), and no one is more deserving of that status than the Taker, hands down. 16 Wrestlemanias as of today - has any other wrestler actually ever simply been in so many, regardless of winning all the matches?! And there are still one or two more to come for him. When he chooses to hang up the boots and "rest in peace", he will have well earned it - a great and illustrious career behind him, one that wasn't cut short by dire circumstance as has happened to so many legends, and a highly earned seat among the great legends of the business of all time. In fact, Taker could retire today and it would not matter. Everything he does at this time of his career is a bonus, is the icing on the cake for him - be it his "streak", or be it another World/WWE Title reign. He has well done all he had to and more to be regarded as one of the greatest superstars of all time.

 

[Father:_Polley]

I don't think the Streak defines the Undertaker. Sure, it's a great thing to be able to say, but the fact is that before WM17, the Undertaker was still a legend in the making with the feuds, the matches and the angles he'd been involved in. In fact, I would go so far to say that the streak has hampered Undertaker somewhat in that he ends up involved in the 'I'm going to end the streak' storyline that's gone on the last few years. It seems as though the Streak has become his defining feature, as opposed to his feuds with Hogan, Ministry of Darkness and his feuds with Kane and Mankind. Those are outstanding feuds, but instead, people have become more concerned that he beat Giant Gonzalez and King Kong Bundy one Wrestlemania.

As I said, it's a nice thing to be able to claim, but I'd rather his feuds up to Mania came from a vicious feud or a title hunt, rather than someone trying to break the streak. It's similar to that of Goldberg in WCW, it stopped becoming about the feud and more about the streak

 

[simplejt1985]

I tend to disagree with the "streak" being the essence of Taker's career/legacy. I think it is - if that - the icing on the cake that is The Undertaker.

Taker has been around more consistently than any other superstar on the roster, and has always been considered a top tier player at any stage of his career, and his gimmick has ultimately survived all transitions from "Hulkamania-WWF" over the "Attitude" era over the "Invasion" time to today. The argument about his title reigns being short or transitional has little substance to me - I mean, WWE Hall of Famers Roddy Piper and Curt Hennig never even WERE world champs, and they are still considered huge legends (esp. Piper); so that alone can't define his career. Plus, and that is the most important fact to me - Undertaker's gimmick just doesn't need any title whatsoever. And that is the simple reason why he managed to stick to the main event scene throughout his career, even if there were no titles involved. In fact, I do believe the Undertaker is best WHEN there is no title involved. For a character like "The Undertaker", who is portrayed as having supernatural powers, someone who is obsessed with the "dark sides" of man's soul, someone who has even "cheated death" on numerous occasions, the pursuit of something as secular and almost "trivial" as a World Title just does not even fit in (which was what I didn't like about his feud with Batista, as the title was the sole reason those two were at each other's throat).
As a heel, The Undertaker can just be wicked (see Ministry of Darkness), with a desire to dish out pain. As a face (as far as a guy named "The Undertaker" can be a face in the classic meaning), he is there to "punish those (and punish severely at that!) who have done wrong". He is the metaphorical conscience of the WWE when he is this face, he is the dark side of it when he is heel.

And even if his gimmick might seem cheesy in this day and age (when it already was quite cheesy back when he started), but I always say - you don't have to take everything Taker is and does literally -his character can be a great metaphor for various elementary experiences/emotions that otherwise are a lot more difficult to express.

And the Undertaker will not be remembered for his "Wrestlemania Streak" - which indeed has been on everyone's lips only for a couple of years now, and which to me is not really important - but he will be remembered for being involved in many many great feuds over the years - he defeated none other than Hulk Hogan to win his first WWE title, he created one of the biggest Wrestling moments ever in the HIAC together with Mick Foley; he even at this stage of career puts on stellar matches (look no further than his three bouts with Edge this year), he even "created" many himself including the HIAC, Buried Alive, Casket, and also the Inferno match (although that was more Kane's gimmick, but he was also involved in that); he always had tremendous storylines (as someone already mentioned - the "Ministry" being another prime example of what WWE's "Attitude" was all about) and he has been in feuds and matches with the greatest superstars of all time - Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Bret Hart, Mankind, Shawn Michaels (in another HIAC classic which marked Kane's debut and sparked another great feud), Stone Cold, Triple H, Kurt Angle and many more, and won many of those matches, too - which is not something many other superstars of any generation Taker was part of can claim.

The streak that came along with portraying such a dominant character over such a long period, as said, is just a bonus. But even had Undertaker lost once or twice at 'Mania, he would still have had all those great rivalries, all those great matches, all those great moments. J.R. would simply say... "Undertaker has ONLY ONCE been defeated at a Wrestlemania, and by none other than WWE (future) Hall of Famer Hulk Hogan/Bret Hart/Rock/Steve Austin/HBK/(insert random legend Taker has faced)"

He is the definite next WWE Hall of Famer to still be active today (next to HBK), and no one is more deserving of that status than the Taker, hands down. 16 Wrestlemanias as of today - has any other wrestler actually ever simply been in so many, regardless of winning all the matches?! And there are still one or two more to come for him. When he chooses to hang up the boots and "rest in peace", he will have well earned it - a great and illustrious career behind him, one that wasn't cut short by dire circumstance as has happened to so many legends, and a highly earned seat among the great legends of the business of all time. In fact, Taker could retire today and it would not matter. Everything he does at this time of his career is a bonus, is the icing on the cake for him - be it his "streak", or be it another World/WWE Title reign. He has well done all he had to and more to be regarded as one of the greatest superstars of all time.

Yo man that couldn't have been said any better. This is exactly how I've felt about The Undertaker. He deserves more respect than any other wrestler in the HISTORY of professional wrestling. He's been with WWE through the ups and downs and he has always been loyal to Vince McMahoh. People say that Taker has backstage power. Honestly, he deserves it. He earned his status the old school way and that is kicking ass. There will NEVER be another wrestler like the Undertaker. This could be probably my favorite comment written on these forums. Right on the money

 

[foundation611]

I wouldn't say he deserves more respect than anyone in wrestling history. Not even close. He's not Hogan. He's not even Flair. He didn't carry this company at any point in his existence like Hogan did for all those years. He was never THE man. He's a legend and Hall of Famer no doubt but I don't think he's as great as you guys make it seem. He has been around for a long time but he's also been an injury waiting for happen for most of his career and been out for extended periods of time more times than I can remember. His off time has probably added up to like 5 more years of his career whether its through injury or whatever. He's really not at that level like Hogan or Flair. I don't care who says it. He's played his role great and been a part of the company's success for a long time but he never was the one carrying the company on his back. At no point in his career has be really been the man. Just one of many.

 

[wwefan49]

I think the Undertakers streak is just that a streak. It's impressive yes but to me the streak kind of devalues one of our Wrestlemania main event matches every year. Because its practically a give in that the Undertaker will come out on top. It will be a nice accolade for the man that ends it if anyone ultimately ends it. But if Triple H had done it it would just be another notch in his belt. People would say Triple H politiced his way into that one didnt he. Must be nice to be sleeping with a McMahon. I think it will be better suited if a young star does it and establishes himself. But if Triple H had done it it would mean nothing. As far as the streak I don't think its important but thats just me.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Hm I also wouldn't put him on an "impact-level" that Hogan or Flair had - most likely also Steve Austin or The Rock had more impact as the "faces" of an entire generation/era. But the Undertaker was also always there - and he definitely helped each and every one of the "faces", be it Hogan, be it Flair, be it Austin, be it HBK, at some point in their career in being someone they could feud with, and also being someone a feud with whom could elevate them to new heights, could add more credibility to them, and establish them as even greater stars - simply because he already had great name-value then.
But I agree - he was never the stand out guy who "carried the business" (which his gimmick simply inhibited - it just wouldn't have worked to have such an over-the-top gimmick as THE representative of the organisation). Hogan has been there, Hart has been there (for a short time), HBK has been there, Austin and Rock have, and now John Cena is made to be that man. But what is so remarkable about Taker is that he has always been around for ALL of those "main men" as a "close second", as someone who would always be a legit threat to their position, as someone who was always a credible contender. Of course his injuries also cost him a lot of time - but the times he was able to spend in the picture, he made up for that with his great storylines and angles.

So I would also not necessarily say he deserves "more respect" than anyone else. But he deserves all the respect he gets today. There might have been bigger stars, bigger "Icons". But The Undertaker has become a legend in his own way, and his own right, and can definitely rank up there with the greats of all time - and this I indeed would say.

(On a less serious sidenote - he has "been the man" at WM18, if you catch my drift lol)

 

[notorious102]

The Undertaker would be just fine with out the streak. He's basically your modern-day Andre the Giant. They're both the measuring sticks for wrestlers. & Yes The Undertaker does deserve more respect than Hogan & Flair. He doesn't have a history of politicking like those two. He never jumped ship for more $$$ either.

The Undertaker is the only guy in history to pin Hogan 2x for the WWE Championship. No one has done that.

The Undertaker is the only man to win the WWE Championship from Stone Cold Steve Austin & Hogan in the 90's 2 huge superstars. The Rock has pinned them both but not in the 90's & not for the WWE Championship.

He has the greatest gimmick/character of all time.

From December 1991 -September 1993, The Undertaker was undefeated. the longest undefeated streak in the 90's !!!!!

The Undertaker was the 'Main Event' in the very 1st episode of Monday Night Raw.

Very few people have pinfalls over him.

The Undertaker is the longest running wrestler signed to the WWE with 18 years. (HBK has 14yrs)

The Undertaker fought in the first-ever Casket Match, Boiler Room Brawl, Buried Alive Match, Hell in a Cell Match, Inferno Match, Biker Chain Match, Last Ride Match and Punjabi Prison Match.

Undertaker and John Cena are the only people to ever win the Royal Rumble in the #30 position.

The Undertaker is the only man to defeat all members of Evolution at WrestleMania.

Undertaker has been in more Hell in a Cell matches than any other wrestler, totalling eight.

As part of Raw's 15th anniversary, the Undertaker was voted the greatest superstar in Raw history& won by a landslide:
The Undertaker- 29%
John Cena- 15%
The Rock- 11%
Steve Austin- 10%

Hell in a Cell w/Mankind will go down in history being the mnost replayed thing in professional wrestling history replacing Hogan/Andre match.

The Undertaker --> Greatest 'big man' of all Time what other big man can walk the top ropes, & move around the ring like they're 155lbs ??? What other big man can do a suicide dive over the top rope onto the floor ?? Better yet, what othe man big or small have you seen do that ?????

Has been wrestling since 1984 totalling 24 years !!!! One of the last few to be a territorial wrestler. Not many wrestlers can claim that today.

He has been in more WWE ppv than any other superstar ever.

He's been main eventing since nearly his debut since he pinned Hogan in 1991 & the fans cheered him the heel when he won !!!!

Extremely over with the crowd...

He never jumped ship to WCW when everyone else did & even HBK was trying to go to the WCW... So he's the only man that's been true to WWE.

Taker's legacy in the WWE will be every much as significant as Andre the Giant's when all is said and done. -Jim Ross

Jim Ross has also stated that Taker has reached 'Andre Status' & might supercede Andre when he hangs up his boots.


Now looking back at all of these, the streak is just something that's 'ANOTHER NOTCH UNDER HIS BELT'

He'll go down as one of the greatest with or without that streak !!!!

What other superstars can have such claims like I just stated in their careers ???????

 

[Lee]

He doesn't have a history of politicking like those two.

Yup and neither does HHH or HBK...

The Undertaker is the only guy in history to pin Hogan 2x for the WWE Championship. No one has done that.

For the WWE belt, no you're right, Taker's the only guy who's done it twice even if the second run of those was just to give Hogan a heads up. In WCW Hogan was beaten by Sting twice for the championship.

The Undertaker is the only man to win the WWE Championship from Stone Cold Steve Austin & Hogan in the 90's 2 huge superstars. The Rock has pinned them both but not in the 90's & not for the WWE Championship.

What is so special about the 90's really? These two matches were 8 years apart as well.

He has the greatest gimmick/character of all time.

This is NOT a fact and I could not disagree with you anymore.

From December 1991 -September 1993, The Undertaker was undefeated. the longest undefeated streak in the 90's !!!!!

Now I'm sure that the wrestler who was undefeated from Decenmber 1991 to September 1993 was NOT the Undertaker but Tatanka.

The Undertaker was the 'Main Event' in the very 1st episode of Monday Night Raw.

That means nothing, so was Damien Demento...and he was only in WWE for a year!

Very few people have pinfalls over him.

I'll give you that...such classic wrestlers as Kane count I guess.

The Undertaker is the longest running wrestler signed to the WWE with 18 years. (HBK has 14yrs)

WRONG
HBK joined in 1988
Taker joined in 1990
(you could also class Jim Duggan at a push!)

The Undertaker fought in the first-ever Casket Match, Boiler Room Brawl, Buried Alive Match, Hell in a Cell Match, Inferno Match, Biker Chain Match, Last Ride Match and Punjabi Prison Match.

I'll give you that, Taker has been in the first ever of a lot of gimmick matches. I always hold however, that gimmick matches just mask poor wrestling abilities.

Undertaker and John Cena are the only people to ever win the Royal Rumble in the #30 position.

Just HOW is that impressive? Seriously? Coming in #30 out of 30 people and winning is NOT impressive, coming in #1 or #2 is, not #30.

The Undertaker is the only man to defeat all members of Evolution at WrestleMania.

Not all of these whilst Evolution was going, in fact I think it was only Flair who he wrestled at Wrestlemania whilst still a member of Evolution.

When you're trying to justify that Taker will be remembered for stuff outside of 'the streak' don't list Wrestlemania victories, it's silly.

Undertaker has been in more Hell in a Cell matches than any other wrestler, totalling eight.

He's actually been in 9

As part of Raw's 15th anniversary, the Undertaker was voted the greatest superstar in Raw history& won by a landslide:
The Undertaker- 29%
John Cena- 15%
The Rock- 11%
Steve Austin- 10%

So does that mean that Cena is greater than the Rock or Austin?

Hell in a Cell w/Mankind will go down in history being the mnost replayed thing in professional wrestling history replacing Hogan/Andre match.

Some how I don't think so, this again is an opinion, not a fact.

The Undertaker --> Greatest 'big man' of all Time what other big man can walk the top ropes, & move around the ring like they're 155lbs ??? What other big man can do a suicide dive over the top rope onto the floor ?? Better yet, what other man big or small have you seen do that ?????

As crap as he is, Kane can do that. and the greatest 'big man' of all time will be Andre the giant, no doubt about it.

Has been wrestling since 1984 totalling 24 years !!!! One of the last few to be a territorial wrestler. Not many wrestlers can claim that today.

Wahey, so has HBK,

He has been in more WWE ppv than any other superstar ever.

I've no way of checking this, I think HBK may be up there, but you're probably right. Most of them as his big comeback though!

He's been main eventing since nearly his debut since he pinned Hogan in 1991 & the fans cheered him the heel when he won !!!!

they didn't cheer him when he won.

He never jumped ship to WCW when everyone else did & even HBK was trying to go to the WCW... So he's the only man that's been true to WWE.

That's because WCW didn't re-new his contract

Taker's legacy in the WWE will be every much as significant as Andre the Giant's when all is said and done. -Jim Ross

Jim Ross has also stated that Taker has reached 'Andre Status' & might supercede Andre when he hangs up his boots.

Again opinion that only time will tell.

Now looking back at all of these, the streak is just something that's 'ANOTHER NOTCH UNDER HIS BELT' He'll go down as one of the greatest with or without that streak !!!! What other superstars can have such claims like I just stated in their careers ???????

Quite a few, as I've pointed out. Whilst I feel taker will go down as a legend, and that he is. he will be remembered for his 'streak' without it, well he would have no where near as good a legacy.

 

[Shocky]

Yup and neither does HHH or HBK...

But unlike Hogan, Flair, Triple H, and HBK, the Undertaker has the universal respect of everyone in that locker room. There's a reason the Undertaker has been seen as the leader of the locker room since 1997, and not Hogan, Flair, Triple H or HBK.

For the WWE belt, no you're right, Taker's the only guy who's done it twice even if the second run of those was just to give Hogan a heads up. In WCW Hogan was beaten by Sting twice for the championship.

Regardless, the Undertaker has beaten Hulk Hogan twice for the best crown in the biggest company. The Undertaker was also indirectly responsible for Hogan losing the title after Tuesday In Texas. Plus the Undertaker has beaten Austin for the WWF Title, and was indirectly responsible for ending two more Austin title reigns, one being at King of the Ring 1998 and the other Unforgiven. So the undisputed two greatest WWF wrestlers of all time, and their combined 12 title reigns, the Undertaker is involved in ending 6 of those title reigns.

This is NOT a fact and I could not disagree with you anymore.

No, it is opinion, but I am also of the opinion that it is the greatest gimmick character of all time. It'll be a hard task for anyone to name a character that has had as much success and adulation as the Undertaker. Sting comes to mind, but that's about it. Please someone bring up the Warrior.

Now I'm sure that the wrestler who was undefeated from Decenmber 1991 to September 1993 was NOT the Undertaker but Tatanka.

Not sure, don't feel like looking it up, but do undefeated streaks matter in the world of predetermined finish wrestling? It's nice for a gimmick but overall it's essentially irrelevant. Regardless Taker > Tatanka, Goldberg or any other wrestler booked with undefeated streaks.

That means nothing, so was Damien Demento...and he was only in WWE for a year!

It speaks to the longevity of the Undertaker. It's 16 years later from when Raw debuted, and the man that was in the main event is still a main eventer nearly two decades later.

WRONG
HBK joined in 1988
Taker joined in 1990
(you could also class Jim Duggan at a push!)

HBK and the WWE parted ways in 2000 or 2001, so as far as continual employment with the company, I'm pretty sure the Undertaker is the man at this point.

I'll give you that, Taker has been in the first ever of a lot of gimmick matches. I always hold however, that gimmick matches just mask poor wrestling abilities.

The Undertaker is used for new gimmick matches because the Undertaker is a safe bet in those matches. New Gimmick Matches can either bomb or be huge, and a star like the Undertaker is used to give those matches credibility. It's like using a title to give a midcarder credibility, instead they are using a legit name to draw attention to a new concept.

Just HOW is that impressive? Seriously? Coming in #30 out of 30 people and winning is NOT impressive, coming in #1 or #2 is, not #30.

It's not impressive, but he is still the first wrestler to be booked to do so. For some odd reason in the 20 plus years of the Rumble, #30 has never won, the Undertaker broke that streak.

Not all of these whilst Evolution was going, in fact I think it was only Flair who he wrestled at Wrestlemania whilst still a member of Evolution.

When you're trying to justify that Taker will be remembered for stuff outside of 'the streak' don't list Wrestlemania victories, it's silly.

Agreed, you shouldn't use streak matches to justify why the streak isn't important. Regardless, the Undertaker was still booked to win over every member at separate Wrestlemanias of the last successful stable in the company. That's saying something.

He's actually been in 9

An even bigger testament to the career of the Undertaker. The WWE's most dangerous match is the Hell in the Cell, and the one person that is personified with that match more then any other is the Undertaker.

So does that mean that Cena is greater than the Rock or Austin?

In the eyes of today's fans, you bet. I could go into a large rant on why I think the Rock is over rated, and in my personal opinion, John Cena is leagues ahead of what the Rock could ever hope to be as a pro wrestler. But today's fans, Austin is just that old bald guy that comes out and drinks beer, but doesn't wrestler. Today's fans see Cena as better then Austin and the Rock, and today's fans see the Undertaker as greater then John Cena.

Some how I don't think so, this again is an opinion, not a fact.

While it isn't a great match, it is still the most talked about match of the last ten years, if not the most talked about match since Andre and Hulk Hogan. In the modern Era of pro wrestling (1984 to present) you're not going to find many matches that people remember more then they remember Undertaker and Mankind in the Cell.

As crap as he is, Kane can do that. and the greatest 'big man' of all time will be Andre the giant, no doubt about it.

I've never seen Kane take a running leap over the top rope without standing on the top turnbuckle. The Undertaker superman's over that thing. I've seen Kevin Nash attempt it, and get his feet caught on the top ropes. It's incredible Athleticism for a big man like the Undertaker. As far as greatest big man of all time with Andre, I'd say it's arguable on who is better.

I've no way of checking this, I think HBK may be up there, but you're probably right. Most of them as his big comeback though!

Again, another thing that speaks to the legacy of the Undertaker, his longevity with one company. Being the guy that has been on the most pay per views with the WWF/E is no small task, considering the number of great wrestlers that have gone in and out of that company.

That's because WCW didn't re-new his contract

That's not the point. WCW let go, Austin, triple H, Mick Foley, and scores of other wrestlers. WCW didn't know how to make new stars, they simply tried to buy them back after the WWE was able to turn them into stars. The Undertaker didn't jump ship, he stayed loyal to the WWF in its darkest days, and didn't use it as a crutch for negotiations like Shawn Michaels.

Again opinion that only time will tell.

I think it's more then opinion. The Undertaker is the modern Andre, he's a character that is bigger then the championship belts in the company. He's the special attraction match. As Kurt Angle said, there's the championship storyline on every pay per view, and then there's the Undertaker storyline. In Modern Era of professional wrestling, The Undertakers legacy is greater then Andres.

Quite a few, as I've pointed out. Whilst I feel taker will go down as a legend, and that he is. he will be remembered for his 'streak' without it, well he would have no where near as good a legacy.

The Streak has only grown in relevance the last several years. In fact the streak hasn't become a selling point until Randy Orton and Wrestlemania 21. Sure it was mentioned, but it never became the focal point of his Wrestlemania matches. Randy Orton was the first guy to really gun for the ending of the Undertaker's streak, a good 14 plus years into the Undertakers career. The Streak is important to Takers' legacy, but it's not one of the most important parts of it.

 

[AMERICANFIRE]

ok first off there is no reason for me to argue this because alot of fans know how much undertaker means to the wwe. i dont care who has the facts and the opinions. the fact is udertaker is the greatest big man of all time. no its not just his streak its his gimmick, his reighns have been short but memorable. my favorit was batista and taker at backlash in last man standing in a draw. who saw that coming. the match was match of the year worthy in my eyes. taker has some of the best agility at his age the only one better is hbk. thats why want to see them at 25 this year. who is the best this will tell all. taker makes every gimmick match worth seeing and then some. the only one i see maybe beating taker out in big man ability in the future is umaga. but wwe is not pusing him so maybe there wont be. taker has been the most loyal and i hope who ever does ed his streak dam well better be somebody young who can take the ball and run with it. i think it should be umaga or diebasi, maybe afa jr. fact is no one can take taker and his leacy away from this buissness. he has been through the ups, downs, and side to sides. this man will neverlose my respect. any clown who says he has no abilty to wrestle is not a true wwe fan bar none

 

[midgensa]

There have been a ton of solid points in this thread. I agree with the original post. I was SHOCKED when Triple H lost that match. It truly was a great match (I know the 'technical' dweebs might not think so) and really fit the Wrestlemania bill perfectly.
I also remember thinking they might let him lose the Ric Flair match ... but that was a different ... I KNEW Triple H was going to win ... and of course I am glad I did not put a wager on it.
On the streak ... I think it is obviously a HUGE part of Undertaker's legacy ... for anyone to say it is a "minor" part or whatever is just idiotic. It is universally the No. 1 thing mentioned about UT's career. People say Undertaker and it immediately makes you think, "How many is it now? 15, 16, 17 wins in a row at WM?" It clearly is his calling card ... but ... he still would be a legend in the business without it.
It is damn near impossible for anyone in this business to be a World Champion more than once without being great ... and is absolutely impossible to be World Champion more than 5 times without being legendary.
He is a six-time World Champion. That is legendary. He has a ridiculous gimmick that somehow has worked and been completely over for 20 years. That is legendary. He competed in the first ever Hell in a Cell, Buried Alive and Casket matches ... and is synonymous with all three. That is legendary. He has a Match of the Year in one of the most business-changing matches of all-time with Mankind. That is legendary. He has also had a universally recognized 5-star match (the last such match in the WWE) with Shawn Michaels in the first-ever Hell in a Cell. That is legendary. He has been top dog as a heel and as a face. That is legendary.
So what have we learned? Yes, the WM streak helps his legacy and is probably the cornerstone of it at this point. But UT is a legendary performer and would be considered one of the best ever ... WM streak or not.

 

[Vagrant]

I think that it wouldn't have done too much to affect his legacy, but certainly is he lost that match, more would unfold. If The Undertaker lost at WM17 then I think it's fair to say that they would have him lose at more recent WrestleMania's. Not necessarily so, but with the streak in tact they'd be much more hesitant to book a loss for him than they would if he already had a loss or two.

 

[Kliq]

The Undertaker made it big before the streak was universally known and recognized. Now-a-days it might be brought up more often, but in my opinion it is just another fun way of making his Wrestlemania matches that much bigger and important. I'm not sure why so many people feel the need to turn this into an Undertaker fan thread, as I'm fairly certain we all know how big he is.

Bottom line, Undertaker made the streak, the streak didn't make Undertaker.

 

[Godfather]

If Undertaker's undefeated streak were to come to an end it should't be Triple H beating him. I'm a big fan of Triple H but it seems like he backstage polotics i don't know for sure but that's what the word is and Him beating Undertaker would just be a disgrace. If it was me I'd probably have somebody like M.V.P or even Shelton benjamin beat him it needs to be a up and coming star because that will really put him over the top by ending the streak and give that superstar a Main Event push.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Short Answer: It'd be just one more thing in a list of ever-adding issues that people would have, to bitch and moan about why Triple H. is self-controlling the entire wrestling industry.

Logical Answer: It wouldn't of been disappointing to me. Why? Because Triple H. was viewed during that time as a more powerful and higher seated individual. Hell, if I recall correctly that was even the year they truly started pushing Taker being 'undefeated' throughout his Mania matches. So short of them suddenly his streak that year, I doubt it would've mattered or made much difference.

In my personal opinion, however, I think as far as the streak is concerned, Randy Orton was the odds on favorite and most logical choice to have someone end his steak. Why? Because his gimmick would've forever been remembered as being TRUE!

Rumors are running around that if the streak ends, they want it to be some new comer, or some up-n-comer. I think that's the stupidest thing possible. Why? Because the Undertaker has defeated the absolute very best the company has to offer. Year in and year out, the one event the Undertaker is "God-like" in, would be Mania. So you suddenly wanna have him lose to some random unknown? Stupid.

I get that it'd build this so-called unknown into a Super-Star.. but it has just as much chance of fluking out as well. What if all that person is come to be remembered as, is just the guy who got lucky and beat Taker? Then not only will Taker's streak have been all for nothing.. but so will the person who defeated him.

Going back on topic.. I don't think Triple H. defeating the Undertaker would've been AS big a deal as some would make it out to be, just because of what I said before.. (Taker's streak wasn't 'mentioned' until that year, or around then) so all in all, it really could've went either way. And again, it would've served a purpose because Triple H. was arguably the bigger guy in the business at that time.. and Taker was just kinda 'floating'.

 

[notorious102]

Yup and neither does HHH or HBK...

WRONG! Are you serious? They have a horrible history of politicking !!!

What is so special about the 90's really? These two matches were 8 years apart as well.

It's a part of wrestling history, that's what's special about them! IT's Legendary that will go down in history! & * years apart speaks on his longevity.

This is NOT a fact and I could not disagree with you anymore.

Fact or not it's universally heralded as the greatest !!!! Go ask any fan who has the greatest gimmick & they'll tell you "The Undertaker"

Now I'm sure that the wrestler who was undefeated from Decenmber 1991 to September 1993 was NOT the Undertaker but Tatanka.

The Undertaker was undefeated from that time !!!!!!!! Goldberg's streak was a huge part of who he was & The Undertaker has a far more impressive streak that no one even knows about as 'another notch under his belt'

That means nothing, so was Damien Demento...and he was only in WWE for a year!

It also means that HBK, nor HHH, or Hogan or nobody else will be that 1st guy. It will always go down in history as The Undertaker headlining the 1st Monday Night Raw!!!!!

I'll give you that...such classic wrestlers as Kane count I guess.

WRONG
HBK joined in 1988
Taker joined in 1990
(you could also class Jim Duggan at a push!)

No I'm RIGHT !!! Your WRONG !!! The Undertaker stayed with them alll those years straight!! HBK retired & Duggan disappeared . So yes The Undertaker is the longest running wrestler sigened to Vince & the WWE right now !!!

I'll give you that, Taker has been in the first ever of a lot of gimmick matches. I always hold however, that gimmick matches just mask poor wrestling abilities.

No one cares what you hold. Gimmick matches are either a hit or miss, so meaning they need someone big to make it look good. & who do they get... 'The Undertaker'

Not all of these whilst Evolution was going, in fact I think it was only Flair who he wrestled at Wrestlemania whilst still a member of Evolution.

He still beat all of them at Wrestlemania !!! FACT !!!! That says something about the respect they have for him.

He's actually been in 9

Yeah he's been in 9 !!! Even more impressive!!! When people mention HIAC, they think of The Undertaker.

So does that mean that Cena is greater than the Rock or Austin?

It means the fans voted him greater !!! Just like they voted The Undertaker #1 !!!!!!!!!!! In this day & age yes !!! Show his longevity again.

Some how I don't think so, this again is an opinion, not a fact.

They've stated it on the wrestling shows like RAW & Smackdown when they talk about it !!!!!

As crap as he is, Kane can do that. and the greatest 'big man' of all time will be Andre the giant, no doubt about it.

No I have never seen Kane do that!!! So until I see him do that then no he can't do any of that or else he would if he could. & The Undertaker is the 'greatest big man of all' just go ask around !!!!!!!!!

Wahey, so has HBK,

& I said he's one of the last few !!!! Read correctly !!!

I've no way of checking this, I think HBK may be up there, but you're probably right. Most of them as his big comeback though!

No not really, he wrestled alot of the WWF pay per views in the 90's & is still way ahead of the rest of the roster, Yes HBK might be behind him, w/about 4 years worth of ppv's...

they didn't cheer him when he won.

Yes they did, go watch the video again & open your eyes & ears !!! Taker was spozed to be a heel facing the biggest babyface of all time possibly, & alot of the fans cheered when he won.!!! Like I said go watch the video again & open your eyes & ears !!!!

That's because WCW didn't re-new his contract

But when everyone was jumping ship to WCW like Hogan & Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, & HBK trying to go, THE WCW OFFERED THE UNDERTAKER WAAAAAY MORE THAN WHAT HE WAS MAKING AT THE WWF.... Did The Undertaker jump ship when they all did ..... NO he showed his loyalty & his character !!!! So yes they did want him back !!!!!!

Again opinion that only time will tell.

It's already happening right in front of our eyes ... Just look around you & look at the responses when it's brought up !!!! lol

Quite a few, as I've pointed out. Whilst I feel taker will go down as a legend, and that he is. he will be remembered for his 'streak' without it, well he would have no where near as good a legacy.

He'll still go down as an 'All Time Great' regardless. His resume is far more impressive than your average wrestler with out the streak !!! The streak is just another notch under his belt, something that your favorite wrestler doesn't have !!!!!!!!!!!! LMAO!!!

Even Kurt Angle has called The Undertaker' The Greatest of All Time ... & said that the other wrestlers in the locker room all think that he is.

 

[DC24]

Short Answer: It'd be just one more thing in a list of ever-adding issues that people would have, to bitch and moan about why Triple H. is self-controlling the entire wrestling industry.

Logical Answer: It wouldn't of been disappointing to me. Why? Because Triple H. was viewed during that time as a more powerful and higher seated individual. Hell, if I recall correctly that was even the year they truly started pushing Taker being 'undefeated' throughout his Mania matches. So short of them suddenly his streak that year, I doubt it would've mattered or made much difference.

In my personal opinion, however, I think as far as the streak is concerned, Randy Orton was the odds on favorite and most logical choice to have someone end his steak. Why? Because his gimmick would've forever been remembered as being TRUE!

Rumors are running around that if the streak ends, they want it to be some new comer, or some up-n-comer. I think that's the stupidest thing possible. Why? Because the Undertaker has defeated the absolute very best the company has to offer. Year in and year out, the one event the Undertaker is "God-like" in, would be Mania. So you suddenly wanna have him lose to some random unknown? Stupid.

I get that it'd build this so-called unknown into a Super-Star.. but it has just as much chance of fluking out as well. What if all that person is come to be remembered as, is just the guy who got lucky and beat Taker? Then not only will Taker's streak have been all for nothing.. but so will the person who defeated him.

Going back on topic.. I don't think Triple H. defeating the Undertaker would've been AS big a deal as some would make it out to be, just because of what I said before.. (Taker's streak wasn't 'mentioned' until that year, or around then) so all in all, it really could've went either way. And again, it would've served a purpose because Triple H. was arguably the bigger guy in the business at that time.. and Taker was just kinda 'floating'.

Yep while its not confirmed I heard they want it to be Dibase Jr.; while I like Dibase Jr. I don't think the near future he will have the staus to end the streak and I do think he will be a world champ his partner Cody is a bum. But really I don't see a guy on any of the rostera who should end his treak personally.