10 biggest booking mistakes of The Undertaker's streak

[LODemolition]

It goes without saying The Undertaker's 21-0 undefeated streak, spanning from WrestleMania VII - XXX, is at the very least one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of WM and professional wrestling in general. However, with hindsight (and sometimes foresight in this case) always being 20/20, it's plain to see that there were many booking mistakes and some very big opportunities missed to create extraordinary WrestleMania moments.

Some of you may have read my "Rewriting the Streak" thread series last year. In this thread, I will dissect what I feel were the 10 worst decisions regarding Taker's opponents and who should have squared off against the dead man for a more memorable

 

[ShinChan]

I couldnot understand whether you are asking us our opinion about the mistakes in the streak or you will tell your view first about them?

I am too confused...

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

I'll change a few of Undertaker's matches.

9 - vs. Lex Luger - Google pictures of Giant Gonzalez. *Shudders*

15 - vs. Ken Shamrock - HIAC - He would've been a much better option than the Big Boss Man, who was just a mid-carder.

19 - vs. Chris Benoit - Anything would be better than that ridiculous handicap match.

20 - vs. Brock Lesnar - Lesnar announces he's leaving because he's done it all. Taker claims Lesnar hasn't ended the streak.

22 - vs. Kurt Angle - World Title - They had a great match at No Way Out.

27 - vs. Wade Barrett - Perhaps this is too much too soon for Barrett, but he could have gotten a rub and HHH didn't need 3 streak matches.

29 - vs. CM Punk - WWE Title - This is Punk's title record vs. Taker's streak.

30 - vs. John Cena - Taker finally faces the face of the company. His streak also stays intact.

32 - vs. Sting - This needs to happen.

 

[Grizzly0u812]

not sure the 10 biggest booking mistakes but I do know Undertaker for what I can remember never faced certain wrestlers at WrestleMania, like Stone Cold, Hulk Hogan, I think Bret Heart, not sure if he faced big show either, wondering how the streak would be putting up those names at their prime, Stone Cold would of been a good fight, Big Show also, Hogan I know many will say politics would play out but either way there are names he never faced either because they did not want to take a loose at WrestleMania or something

 

[ShinChan]

Okay.... Understood....
In my point of view,
Brock Lesnar shouldnot have broken the streak
Shouldnot have had 3 matches with Triple H

 

[The Brain]

I hate this topic so much. It always ends up with stuff like Taker should have defeated Hulk Hogan at WM7 and Ultimate Warrior at WM8. It was not a mistake to put Taker against guys like Snuka, Roberts, and Bundy early in his career. Some people seem to think that it was planned ever since Taker walked in the door in 1990 that he was going to go 21-0 at WrestleMania so WWE should have put him in the ring with the biggest names from day one. Taker's streak was not planned. It was just a very fortunate coincidence that WWE stumbled into. Around 2005 they realized what they had and turned it into a selling point every year. It's amazing that the Undertaker gimmick even lasted more than a couple years. To set him up for 20 years of success just a few months after his debut is unrealistic. If Taker went against Hogan or Warrior at WM7 his mania record would have started at 0-1. Taker's opponents have been fine for the most part. Sure there have been some clunkers, 15, 19, and to a lesser extent 22, but overall the list of victims is fine. The only real mistake is not having Taker face Cena, win or lose, sometime over the past five years.

 

[Woodstuff]

I hate this topic so much. It always ends up with stuff like Taker should have defeated Hulk Hogan at WM7 and Ultimate Warrior at WM8. It was not a mistake to put Taker against guys like Snuka, Roberts, and Bundy early in his career. Some people seem to think that it was planned ever since Taker walked in the door in 1990 that he was going to go 21-0 at WrestleMania so WWE should have put him in the ring with the biggest names from day one. Taker's streak was not planned. It was just a very fortunate coincidence that WWE stumbled into. Around 2005 they realized what they had and turned it into a selling point every year. It's amazing that the Undertaker gimmick even lasted more than a couple years. To set him up for 20 years of success just a few months after his debut is unrealistic. If Taker went against Hogan or Warrior at WM7 his mania record would have started at 0-1.

This.

Defeating Undertaker at Wrestlemania wasn't considered a legendary achievement before HBK tried in 2009. It was referenced more and more as it grew, but breaking "The Streak" is still a fairly modern concept. Guys like Randy Orton and Edge pointed out that 'taker had never lost at WM, but it didn't matter. The Streak became what it did because it happened naturally. So the only way there were "huge booking opportunities missed" would be if Undertaker was constantly featured in the main event. In which case, the streak probably would've been ended years ago by a younger main eventer like Edge or Batista.

As far as matches I'd change, the only one that comes to mind is the handicap match. IMO, it should have been a 1-on-1 match against A-Train (given his monster heel push during 2003). Big Show and Nathan Jones should have stayed away from the match completely. Other than that, no complaints.

 

[Aquaman6686]

#1: It shouldn't have been ended by Brock Lesnar.

The end.

 

[Navi]

It goes without saying The Undertaker's 21-0 undefeated streak, spanning from WrestleMania VII - XXX, is at the very least one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of WM and professional wrestling in general. However, with hindsight (and sometimes foresight in this case) always being 20/20, it's plain to see that there were many booking mistakes and some very big opportunities missed to create extraordinary WrestleMania moments.

Some of you may have read my "Rewriting the Streak" thread series last year. In this thread, I will dissect what I feel were the 10 worst decisions regarding Taker's opponents and who should have squared off against the dead man for a more memorable

I'm sorry but I'm a bit confused here myself. Are you asking us what we think is the top 10 booking errors so you can dissect them or are you making a new thread with the most popular?

But I will answer it as I've read it. Brain in right, there were no real booking errors. The way the streak was booked ended up with it being the way it turned out 21-1. If they had even one year put someone else in against Taker, the streak might have ended earlier.

To be honest I can't remember all of the matches. I can remember that the streak was one thing the WWE used to sell Wrestlemania. Who would the Undertaker face that year and would the streak continue? I fondly remember that being a question that was asked each year, and we all tuned in to find out the answer.

While each and every match might not have been a stellar 5 star match, they did provide a Wrestlemania moment, as it kept the streak alive for another year. When you talk about an event that happened once a year over 22 years, it's not each and every individual match that counts, it's the streak as a whole. Once you start breaking it down to the sum of it's parts, it might not look that fantastic, as there was probably better wrestler's available for Taker which would have made for a better match.

I prefer to look at it as a whole, which is what the WWE wants us to do. They made a big deal out of it, and by all rights should. It will never be equaled, this is one record that in my opinion will never be broken.

 

[therockiswwf]

29 - vs. CM Punk - WWE Title - This is Punk's title record vs. Taker's streak.

This one wouldn't work. You can't have Taker win the title with the schedule he has. Punk also took time off after this so he couldn't win here either (nor should he have).

The only thing I would have changed is his last match being The Streak ending. While Undertaker is still fun to watch, his Mania match with Wyatt didn't have the feeling that old Taker mania matches did (lackluster feud aside). The Streak made his matches special. It has a different, less exciting feeling.

With that being said, Lesnar was the perfect guy to do it. The storyline after it has been near perfect. I would have held off Taker vs Lesnar 3 until Mania but I didn't mind the way they did it.

 

[World Class Mark]

To me, the ultimate biggest mistake of UT's streak is very simple:
He never put anyone over.

I'm not talking about him laying down for someone, we can debate that over and over again, but in the final years of that "beloved" streak I grew so tired of reading about what an "honor" it was to get in the ring and lay down to him at WM. He never put ONE PERSON over, not one. I can't think of anyone who ever got a "rub," or who got elevated to a main event level by getting in the ring with him.

The big stars who wrestled against him were already big and they didn't need a rub. The lower-on-the-card guys who wrestled him certainly never got elevated as a result of doing such an "honor" of laying down to him.

I was a big UT fan back in the day, and I've also been very vocal about disliking his part time crap in recent years, but fair is fair -- a veteran is used to elevate people -- this guy never did that. Ever. In the 80s people whined about Hogan not doing it, now people whine about Cena not doing it. But Taker is much the same. I'm sure that will ruffle UT fans, but truth is truth. It doesn't take away from whatever "legacy" Vince has created for him, but it doesn't change the fact that he has never done what someone like, for example, HBK did time and time again in his later years -- he put people over.

 

[Alex]

To me, the ultimate biggest mistake of UT's streak is very simple:
He never put anyone over.

I'm not talking about him laying down for someone, we can debate that over and over again, but in the final years of that "beloved" streak I grew so tired of reading about what an "honor" it was to get in the ring and lay down to him at WM. He never put ONE PERSON over, not one. I can't think of anyone who ever got a "rub," or who got elevated to a main event level by getting in the ring with him.

The big stars who wrestled against him were already big and they didn't need a rub. The lower-on-the-card guys who wrestled him certainly never got elevated as a result of doing such an "honor" of laying down to him.

I was a big UT fan back in the day, and I've also been very vocal about disliking his part time crap in recent years, but fair is fair -- a veteran is used to elevate people -- this guy never did that. Ever. In the 80s people whined about Hogan not doing it, now people whine about Cena not doing it. But Taker is much the same. I'm sure that will ruffle UT fans, but truth is truth. It doesn't take away from whatever "legacy" Vince has created for him, but it doesn't change the fact that he has never done what someone like, for example, HBK did time and time again in his later years -- he put people over.

This actually makes a lot of sense. For the past ten Wrestlemanias Undertaker has pretty much faced established talent minus Wyatt and Orton (back at WM 21) Minus those two guys all of Undertaker's opponents were already established names. He'd fought Shawn Michaels and Triple H twice apiece so technically in the past ten years he's faced nine opponents.

Yes there's always the risk of putting over a talent that doesn't last but at the same time it can be just the push to give a talent that edge. Orton's feud with Undertaker helped him become the main eventer he is today and hopefully the feud with Undertaker will give Wyatt that edge also.

Personally I feel they should've given CM Punk more with the streak. Not necessarily have him beat it but use it as a jumping off point for a slight gimmick change perhaps (maybe a tweak on the SES gimmick) and have Punk claim to be the closest to ever beating the streak and anyone who tries to face Undertaker has to beat him etc. It certainly would have given him something more substantial to do and who knows what would have happened.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

The streak really didn't matter until half way in when it was becoming a side focus at Wrestlemania events. Even though he didn't need it , I'd rather have Randy Orton beat The Undertaker with his Legend Killer's act. Brock Lesnar didn't need it. Or I'd have a Bray Wyatt or somebody who could use a big boost defeat the streak. Imagine Wade Barrett's career now if he toppled The Undertaker at Wrestlemania.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

The fact that WWE never did Undertaker vs. Jericho is down right criminal. I mean Triple H vs. Undertaker happened one times too many and I would have preferred if Jericho faced Taker at WM27 or WM28.

Hmmm my comments on each

I'll change a few of Undertaker's matches.

9 - vs. Lex Luger - Google pictures of Giant Gonzalez. *Shudders*

If it was was Luger I wouldn't be surprised if he went over Undertaker.

I'll change a few of Undertaker's matches.
15 - vs. Ken Shamrock - HIAC - He would've been a much better option than the Big Boss Man, who was just a mid-carder.

Shamrock was also at the mid-card level at that point (somewhat of a drop off compared to a year ago), that said yes Shamrock vs. Undertaker would have been better on paper.

Though they did have a match the next month and it seemed a lot people didn't like their match as well.

19 - vs. Chris Benoit - Anything would be better than that ridiculous handicap match.

WM22 would have been the better time to have Undertaker vs. Benoit. At WM19 the card was stacked so I doubt Benoit vs. Taker would have gotten anything longer than 8 mins.

20 - vs. Brock Lesnar - Lesnar announces he's leaving because he's done it all. Taker claims Lesnar hasn't ended the streak.

Lesnar said he was leaving only 2 weeks before WM. So Lesnar leaving the WWE wasn't a factor in their overall booking at WMXX.

22 - vs. Kurt Angle - World Title - They had a great match at No Way Out.

Yeah I could go for this. Though Mysterio winning the World Title was the right movie, it was his booking right after that went completely wrong.

27 - vs. Wade Barrett - Perhaps this is too much too soon for Barrett, but he could have gotten a rub and HHH didn't need 3 streak matches.

WWE ruined the Nexus angle and Barrett by the WM27 rolled over but those were at the plans at the time. I also remember Drew McIntyre was also considered to have a match wit Undertaker (yikes).

I would have prefered to have Sheamus vs. Triple H honestly since they did have an angle. But I Understood why they went to Undertaker vs. Triple H since w/o this match WM27 would have been a bigger disaster than it turned out at the end.

29 - vs. CM Punk - WWE Title - This is Punk's title record vs. Taker's streak.

Once Rock beat Cena at WM28 I knew Rock vs. Cena was going to be for the World Title at WM29 Next year. I doubt WWE and Vince ever considered changing this direction.

30 - vs. John Cena - Taker finally faces the face of the company. His streak also stays intact.

Vince would never do it. He would not want Cena losing to Taker and fans would have ripped Cena forever if he was the one to break Taker's streak.

I have no problems if this was the match though.

32 - vs. Sting - This needs to happen.

Agreed though I am hoping this will be a double retirement match.

 

[ShinChan]

#1: It shouldn't have been ended by Brock Lesnar.

The end.

I completely agree.... Brock shouldnot have broken it....
So Who according to you should have broken it? Why & When?

 

[Aquaman6686]

I completely agree.... Brock shouldnot have broken it....
So Who according to you should have broken it? Why & When?

If Undertaker absolutely REFUSED to retire with The Streak intact, then it should have been Edge at WrestleMania 24. Edge breaking The Streak would have cemented him as the top heel in WWE. And unlike Brock Lesnar, Edge was a FULL TIME star. Edge was there night in and night out, so him ending The Streak would have actually meant something. Instead of being used to turn a star into a megastar, The Streak was thrown away to stroke Brock Lesnar's ego.

 

[Kris Benwa]

I hate this topic so much. It always ends up with stuff like Taker should have defeated Hulk Hogan at WM7 and Ultimate Warrior at WM8. It was not a mistake to put Taker against guys like Snuka, Roberts, and Bundy early in his career. Some people seem to think that it was planned ever since Taker walked in the door in 1990 that he was going to go 21-0 at WrestleMania so WWE should have put him in the ring with the biggest names from day one. Taker's streak was not planned. It was just a very fortunate coincidence that WWE stumbled into. Around 2005 they realized what they had and turned it into a selling point every year. It's amazing that the Undertaker gimmick even lasted more than a couple years. To set him up for 20 years of success just a few months after his debut is unrealistic. If Taker went against Hogan or Warrior at WM7 his mania record would have started at 0-1. Taker's opponents have been fine for the most part. Sure there have been some clunkers, 15, 19, and to a lesser extent 22, but overall the list of victims is fine. The only real mistake is not having Taker face Cena, win or lose, sometime over the past five years.

I agree. The one thing I would have done differently is just have John Cena end the undefeated streak but as a vehicle for his heel turn. I'd do 15 time world champion Cena vs current World champion Taker where Cena is trying to break the streak AND tie Flair's record all in the same Match. They both give each other the match of their lives but neither can put the other guy away until John Cena uses the ropes for leverage on a pin for the 3 count. From there I'd slowly turn Cena over the next year perhaps leading to a rematch between the two?

That's honestly the only thing I'd change and that's if the streak had to end at all. I might just have had Taker win out. I dont think I'd change anything before WM 21 though because it didn't really matter until that point.

 

[relentless1]

ugh, this stance on the Streak being one of the "greatest achievements" in the history of wrestling is so dumb. So the guy didn't lose a match at WM 21 times? so what??? he didn't retain a title, it wasn't a consecutive win streak that was consistently happening like Goldbergs (a much more impressive streak btw). All the Streaks perceived importance boils down to the WWE propaganda machine hyped into overdrive, same as the idea that HBK is the greatest wrestler of all time. Don't buy into it kids, its all WWE make believe, the Undertakers Streak aint shit.

 

[ShinChan]

If Undertaker absolutely REFUSED to retire with The Streak intact, then it should have been Edge at WrestleMania 24. Edge breaking The Streak would have cemented him as the top heel in WWE. And unlike Brock Lesnar, Edge was a FULL TIME star. Edge was there night in and night out, so him ending The Streak would have actually meant something. Instead of being used to turn a star into a megastar, The Streak was thrown away to stroke Brock Lesnar's ego.

I wouldnot agree with Edge being the one to break the streak....... I would have kept it unbroken till Wrestlemania 32 or 33..... And retired after making someone break the streak for WWE World Heavyweight Championship......

 

[aaronmb]

From what Ive read, Kane, Orton, Triple H, and HBK all refused to end the streak. However, I am surprised that Triple H didnt end it. That wouldve pissed more people off than Lesnar did.

 

[SSJPhenom]

The Brain has already said it but, I HATE this topic. There are not "10 Booking Mistakes" with the Streak. The Streak was something that happened organically and was stubbled upon, IMO, around WM 18. I believe that was the first time that 'Taker and the announcers started acknowledging the fact that he was unbeaten. If you remember, at the end of his match with Flair at WM 18, 'Taker held up 10 fingers symbolizing that he was 10-0 at WM. Even after that, however, they didn't start using the Streak as a selling point until WM 21 against Orton. So, honestly, there aren't any mistakes for the Streak's booking. Especially during the early years. 'Taker faced who ever he happened to be in a feud with at the time each year; which made perfect sense. Even after the Streak became a selling point, there are few mistakes. The only one that I can truly say was a mistake was WM 22. 'Taker should have faced Angle at WM 22 for the WHC. The match they had at No Way Out should've been at WM 22 and 'Taker should've faced Mark Henry at No Way Out instead. That's really my only gripe with the Streak.

Also, I wish you people who are bitching about Lesnar ending the Streak would just get over it. When you stop and think about it, who else was going to end the Streak and it be believable? I know everybody out there is like, "Well some young guy should've ended it". What if they did have a young guy end it and they didn't get over or they left the company or got injured or something? So it had to be somebody that was a legit threat to the Streak and I'm sorry but Wyatt wasn't, Punk wasn't, Barrett wasn't, Reigns wasn't, and so on. Besides, the run that Lesnar had after ending the Streak was legendary. After him defeating 'Taker at WM and then defeating Cena the way he did at SS, it made Lesnar that unbeatable monster. Then, when someone finally did beat him or at least even put up a decent fight against him, it put that person over(#Rollins and Reigns to a lesser extent). I think they did the right thing with the Streak.

 

[FlairFan2003]

This.

Defeating Undertaker at Wrestlemania wasn't considered a legendary achievement before HBK tried in 2009. It was referenced more and more as it grew, but breaking "The Streak" is still a fairly modern concept. Guys like Randy Orton and Edge pointed out that 'taker had never lost at WM, but it didn't matter. The Streak became what it did because it happened naturally. So the only way there were "huge booking opportunities missed" would be if Undertaker was constantly featured in the main event. In which case, the streak probably would've been ended years ago by a younger main eventer like Edge or Batista.

Not True. Taker's Streak was the major focal point of his feud with Edge, basically that while Taker had never lost at Mania he never beat Edge one on one. Taker's streak was a major focal point of the Randy Orton match as well, Orton's Legend Killer going for its biggest win, Taker and His Streak.

Initially The Streak wasn't a selling point, it wasn't until after back to back wins over HHH & Ric Flair that The Streak itself started being used as a promotional tool in his Mania matches. After that back to back though The Streak was used as a selling point in his Mania Bouts and was a major promotional focus for bouts with Edge & Orton.

In fact, WWE copied the Edge storyline in part with HBK, as a big part of the pre match promotion was that while Taker was undefeated at Mania HBK had never lost to Taker on PPV.

 

[FlairFan2003]

The Brain has already said it but, I HATE this topic. There are not "10 Booking Mistakes" with the Streak. The Streak was something that happened organically and was stubbled upon, IMO, around WM 18. I believe that was the first time that 'Taker and the announcers started acknowledging the fact that he was unbeaten. If you remember, at the end of his match with Flair at WM 18, 'Taker held up 10 fingers symbolizing that he was 10-0 at WM. Even after that, however, they didn't start using the Streak as a selling point until WM 21 against Orton. So, honestly, there aren't any mistakes for the Streak's booking. Especially during the early years. 'Taker faced who ever he happened to be in a feud with at the time each year; which made perfect sense. Even after the Streak became a selling point, there are few mistakes. The only one that I can truly say was a mistake was WM 22. 'Taker should have faced Angle at WM 22 for the WHC. The match they had at No Way Out should've been at WM 22 and 'Taker should've faced Mark Henry at No Way Out instead. That's really my only gripe with the Streak.

Also, I wish you people who are bitching about Lesnar ending the Streak would just get over it. When you stop and think about it, who else was going to end the Streak and it be believable? I know everybody out there is like, "Well some young guy should've ended it". What if they did have a young guy end it and they didn't get over or they left the company or got injured or something? So it had to be somebody that was a legit threat to the Streak and I'm sorry but Wyatt wasn't, Punk wasn't, Barrett wasn't, Reigns wasn't, and so on. Besides, the run that Lesnar had after ending the Streak was legendary. After him defeating 'Taker at WM and then defeating Cena the way he did at SS, it made Lesnar that unbeatable monster. Then, when someone finally did beat him or at least even put up a decent fight against him, it put that person over(#Rollins and Reigns to a lesser extent). I think they did the right thing with the Streak.

Exactly, it wasn't until his back to back wins over HHH & Flair, in feuds that had nothing to do and very little mention of The Streak (HHH one did have some mention of it, the Flair feud was drawn out over several months and had no mention at all) that The Streak was even noticed. After that back to back which puts you all the way the Mania 18 The Streak itself started getting promotional air play on TV, the Flair win putting him at 10-0, plus with a lot of lower tier and forgettable undercard matches having filled up much of the early Streak, beating HHH & Flair back to back actually gave it some credence, kind of like an undefeated team that plays nobodies, then suddenly takes out two of best teams in the country back to back. Still, WWE wasn't booking "The Streak" until AT LEAST after Mania 18.

As for mistakes.....there were several times Taker could have believably lost and The Streak could have ended. Certainly Batista, Edge, & Orton all would have been believable losses, especially with the likelihood mega heels like Edge & Orton would cheat to win. Losing to either HHH or Flair would have been believable and wouldn't have caused a stir, although if that happened The Streak itself never would have been a big deal. By the time The Streak itself became big Taker was too popular and too much of a legend to lose at Mania, fans wanted to see a defining win, and it was an easy way for WWE to send fans home happy with the ending of a match that by Mania 20 was usually one of the top two or three on the card every year.

It also would have been perfectly acceptable to let CM Punk end it or have HHH beat him in their third match of the trilogy, but WWE was probably best served just letting the The Streak continue with crowd pleasing wins.

As for Lesnar, I'm off the opinion The Streak should never have been ended. It was something fans really became invested in. Lesnar could have easily lost in a squeaker match (like Edge for instance) and then gone on a tear through WWE trying to re affirm his dominance, including his title win at S-Slam. In the end, fans were so upset and divided over The Streak's end it didn't generate the kind of heat WWE hoped it would for S-Slam vs Cena although on paper Cena, the biggest star of the current generation with a truckload of key wins in his back pocket as Champ against the monster who ended The Streak does sound like promotional gold.

If Lesnar was a full time wrestler it would have mattered more. Plus, after winning the title Lesnar was no longer booked as the unbeatable "Goldberg-like" character, he was booked as a cowardly heel in the classic HHH or more recently Seth Rollins role. Lesnar's lack of matches and appearances certainly hurt his credibility but when he did appear post title win he was booked to look vulnerable and over rated, Cena clearly got the best of him in their re match and Lesnar was booked to escape the match through interference and be saved by his manager, then while he was allowed to put on a great show ala classic heel HHH or Flair champion runs in his Rumble match with Rollins & Cena he wasn't allowed to dominate much at all, he spend a tremendous time selling for the other two and trying to come from behind in the match. The bout itself was very entertaining, but it certainly didn't burnish the image of this unbeatable bad a$#, if anything it burnished the image that Lesnar is over rated and can be beat. That's not a bad thing to do with a heel champion, it makes the audience more interested in theory because the likelihood of their chosen hero winning increases, but if Mania & S-Slam were to create this un stoppable force character the post S-Slam booking killed it, especially with Lesnar's very limited appearance schedule.

If Lesnar was working full time his choice as Streak ender might have worked better, if he had been booked in more dominant fashion in his matches post Mania other than S-Slam it would have helped. If WWE wanted to push the talented but cowardly heel role then they should have had Lesnar cheat to win over Taker instead of a clean pin, then his post Mania booking at least would have made more sense.

Hindsight is always 20/20.....I'm sure WWE didn't think Ultimate Warrior would fail so bad after letting him go over Hogan years ago.

 

[Aquaman6686]

ugh, this stance on the Streak being one of the "greatest achievements" in the history of wrestling is so dumb. So the guy didn't lose a match at WM 21 times? so what??? he didn't retain a title, it wasn't a consecutive win streak that was consistently happening like Goldbergs (a much more impressive streak btw). All the Streaks perceived importance boils down to the WWE propaganda machine hyped into overdrive, same as the idea that HBK is the greatest wrestler of all time. Don't buy into it kids, its all WWE make believe, the Undertakers Streak aint shit.

Goldberg's streak was imaginary. WCW kept making up random numbers to make it sound more impressive.

 

[relentless1]

Goldberg's streak was imaginary. WCW kept making up random numbers to make it sound more impressive.

of course they padded Golbergs streak, this is WCW we are talking about here. My point still remains true though, why so much hype for a guy who just happened to not have lost at the same event every year? Its not really that impressive a stat, especially considering they just kind of fell into it by accident. WWE hype train cannot be derailed it seems.