BestSportsEntertainer
I Don't Need No User Title
He could probably work all the PPVs until SummerSlam, where he would drop the title.
10 biggest booking mistakes of The Undertaker's streak
- Thread starter LODemolition
- Start date
He could probably work all the PPVs until SummerSlam, where he would drop the title.
therockiswwf
The voice of Michael Cole's headset
I'm not sure who you are referring too.
If Punk:
Punk desperately wanted time off. He wanted time off earlier but they delayed it for the Taker match. He didn't want to work for awhile after Mania. So they couldn't put the belt on him.
If Taker:
I assume the plan was just one match a year for Taker to keep him healthy. I believe it was still in effect at that time. I'm guessing he didn't want to work every PPV.
BestSportsEntertainer
I Don't Need No User Title
I was referring to Undertaker. He probably couldn't work 5 straight PPVs, but I just tried to book something besides "Twice in a Lifetime".
Most of the victims of the undefeated streak should remain as they were, but I did not agree with there being so many rematches. I also did not agree with Brock Lesnar being the one to end the streak. Kane getting a rematch, fine, while I still disagree with it. The story is there with their characters so it's fine. Michaels, also fine, due to Michaels' retirement story and trying to outdo their phenominal match from the year before. That's it though. Where were the streak opportunities for Sheamus, Chris Jericho, and John Cena? Granted we might still get Cena VS Taker but the streak is no longer there.
1. Brock should NOT have ended the Streak!
Worst possible candidate. Lesnar can be an evil heel monster no matter what he does, so giving one of the biggest heel pushes of a lifetime to someone who didn't need it was one of the most awful decisions the WWE has made in recent years. Out of the other streak victims.... Orton, Edge, and Punk would all have been better choices than Lesnar.
2. No Triple H rematches at 27 or 28.
The 2nd match wasn't needed, even though it did save Wrestlemania 27 from being the worst event in the brand's history. The 3rd match wasn't needed either, despite it being a memorable match due to everyone involved. Had WWE booked Nexus stronger, Barrett could have been the perfect opponent for Taker at 27. Heck, even with the issue of Nexus splitting into New Nexus and The Corre, Barrett could still have faced Taker instead of being in that pointless tag team match against Santino's APPLE stable. At 28 it could have gone to Jericho or Sheamus.
Those are the main two issues I have with the streak. It was mostly fine other than the way it ended and there being a few unnecessary rematches.
1. Brock should NOT have ended the Streak!
Worst possible candidate. Lesnar can be an evil heel monster no matter what he does, so giving one of the biggest heel pushes of a lifetime to someone who didn't need it was one of the most awful decisions the WWE has made in recent years. Out of the other streak victims.... Orton, Edge, and Punk would all have been better choices than Lesnar.
2. No Triple H rematches at 27 or 28.
The 2nd match wasn't needed, even though it did save Wrestlemania 27 from being the worst event in the brand's history. The 3rd match wasn't needed either, despite it being a memorable match due to everyone involved. Had WWE booked Nexus stronger, Barrett could have been the perfect opponent for Taker at 27. Heck, even with the issue of Nexus splitting into New Nexus and The Corre, Barrett could still have faced Taker instead of being in that pointless tag team match against Santino's APPLE stable. At 28 it could have gone to Jericho or Sheamus.
Those are the main two issues I have with the streak. It was mostly fine other than the way it ended and there being a few unnecessary rematches.
Hollywood Naitch
The current reigning and defending
It's not the fact he went 21 matches undefeated that's the big deal...the impressive aspect is the fact that it's a streak built up over 20 years and that he was there for over 2 decades consistently, all the while remaining a top star. To do that in WWE is an amazing achievement.
I am one of the people who thinks the streak should never have been broken, and if it HAD to be, then it should have been to "the next big star" in 'Taker's retirement match. None of Undertaker's WM matches mean as much now the streak is over. They're still likely to be big matches and entertaining but having that unbeaten run was a big selling point for the show.
I think it's a missed opportunity that he never had a match with John Cena or Chris Jericho at Mania, and while I don't have a problem with HHH having his 2nd WM collision with 'Taker, there was no need for a 3rd one (although the match was very good).
I bet in hindsight WWE wishes they hadn't stuck 'Taker with guys like Giant Gonzalez (and they ending of that match should have been changed), Mark Henry or A-Train, as those matches were awful but I prefer to remember 'Taker's showstealing WM matches against the likes of HBK, Batista and Edge instead of the duds.
King Patrick Star
K. O. T. R. 2007 - Team Undisputed
I am on the side of the Streak should never have been broken. The Undertaker should be 23-0 right now. He could have defeated Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania and lose to Brock Lesnar at SummerSlam, and again at Hell In A Cell. It would not have made a difference as far as Brock Lesnars credibility is concerned, had the Beast become 1 in 22-0. Whats done is done and theres no going back in time. I believe that is the only booking mistake of the Undertakers WrestleMania Streak.
Now, if there had to be a loss on the Undertaker WrestleMania record, I think he should have lost it to his doppelganger. If the fake Undertaker defeated the real Undertaker at WrestleMania, would that still be considered as the Undertaker losing?? They could have had someone new, someone younger, take up the character as a passing of the torch. WWE Creative what an oxymoron!!
Now, if there had to be a loss on the Undertaker WrestleMania record, I think he should have lost it to his doppelganger. If the fake Undertaker defeated the real Undertaker at WrestleMania, would that still be considered as the Undertaker losing?? They could have had someone new, someone younger, take up the character as a passing of the torch. WWE Creative what an oxymoron!!
