A Game of What If? - Undertaker's Streak Edition

[RKO920]

I was sitting and thinking about how the Undertaker if this is his final Mania and if he wins would be 22-1. He missed two WrestleMania's in his career, 10 and WrestleMania 2000 (which would be 16). If he doesn't miss those two, then 20-0 would have came against Shawn Michaels at 26 and not against Triple H at 28.

So, what if The Undertaker never missed those two WrestleManias? Would Brock Lesnar still have been the one to have broken the streak because by then it would have been 23-0 and have had more mystique because of how long the streak was? Or someone else have been picked after the first Triple H match at 27 to break the streak at 28. Or could it have been Punk at 29?

I would love to hear any thoughts on this or who you guys think could have broken the streak if it wasn't Lesnar?

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

There's a good chance that his streak could have ended at WrestleMania 2000 had he been healthy. Before going down with injury in the fall of 99, he was teaming up with Show in a teacher/pupil type role. The way I heard it, Show would have turned face and left Taker to start a singles feud with him which could have lead to a match at Mania 2000 where Show could have won and ended the streak. going into Mania 2000 the streak really wasn't a thing so its not far fetched to see the young Show getting the win.

 

[RKO920]

True, if that had happened then there would be no streak and then we wouldn't have had all of this going on with Lesnar being the one in 21 and 1.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Honestly, I can't even remember when WWE started to inform us that Undertaker had a "streak" going at all. Can you? Was it by WM5, WM10 or WM20?

We got interested as the years went on, and I truly believed the streak would never end. So, whenever anyone says there are no shocks or surprises in WWE, you need only point to Brock's win last year.

Still, while it was obvious that victory meant the company was sending Brock on a monster push, I think he could have achieved it with that first victory over John Cena. After all, Brock had already lost to Cena and Triple H in his couple of years as a WWE mercenary....I personally believe 'Taker's streak need not have been sacrificed to put Brock over, although I can certainly understand anyone whose opinion differs because there will always be debate as to how important the streak was in the first place.

My feeling is that WWE made such a big deal out of the streak through the years that, for historical purposes, Undertaker should never have lost at Wrestlemania.....and would be remembered as such in years to come.

So, the OP asks who should have broken the streak?....My answer is: no one.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

From what i recall, the streak as first mentioned when he took on Kane when he was 6-0. I do not believe anyone but Lesnar would have ended it. I believe Taker chose Lesnar as they are both real life friends. When Taker showed up to UFC 121 - it was setting the scene then. If it was not Lesnar - then i dont know who would have. It is such a shame the WWE booking since WM30 has been utterly disgustingly bad. Shame that Punk left before WM30 and DB injuring himself but the WWE is now about to see what happens when they neglect to build stars. Sure - they create mid-carders who could be stars in Bray Wyatt and Roman Reigns (and the other to ex-shield guys too). But they let them rot - they get run over by Cena. Reigns has not been built strongly enough for long enough to warrant a WM headline match yet. He has been in WWE for 2 years admittedly - and The Rock headlined a WM 2 and a half years after his debut - but there is only ONE Rock. And it was a different era. Nothing about WWE excites me anymore. Where is the future? Great - they have a bunch of great talent on NXT but unless they have real stars that can help them get over... how is it going to be a long term benefit?

 

[Dave]

The thing you're missing, is that the streak was broken at the right time. If it was ever going to be broken then it needed to be last year and it needed to be with someone who could make it work. All of the pieces feel into place rather nicely for the WWE in that regard, I suppose. They needed a way to make Brock Leanar look like the Beast Incarnate. And they needed it to happen on the biggest stage of them all. What better way to do that than by defeating the "unbeatable" streak of the Undertaker? Like I said, it happened because it was the right time.

Playing what if OS fun but pointless here. I don't think it would have made a difference if he was 23-0 or any other number. Brock was the man to break the streak and more importantly, was the correct man to do it. Even if he found himself at 23-0, the time was right to have someone conquer it. That's the only way it meant something. So I'm personally glad that the WWE and the Undertaker had the sense and the courage to do it.

 

[RKO920]

Yes I agree the time was right, timing is everything in this industry. Brock was the right guy at the right time to do it. It helped build his character to go in and dominate Cena (twice) and then prove just how beast like he is at the Royal Rumble.

I just think the goal for when the streak was first becoming a storyline was to get to 20-0. After that all bets would be off. Had he not missed the 2 WM's his 20th would have been against Shawn at 26. 27 would have been a wash because that was Triple H's match from the time the ref's hand hit 3 at WM 26. Taker had to beat Triple H to prove he was the one from their era to be on the top of the mountain. Which would mean it could have ended at 28 or 29. My point with this whole post was just to see if you could go back and rewrite history would you have someone else besides Brock beat the streak prior to WM 30?

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

If Undertaker was around for those WrestleMania's the logical opponents I think would have been:

WMX: Undertaker vs Bam Bam Bigelow or IRS - either way Undertaker wins.

WM2000: Undertaker vs The Big Show - as someone pointed out above, it's possible Big Show actually wins since he was being pushed well in late 1999 / early 2000. However, I think it's also possible that if they turned Big Show face he would have flopped, and Undertaker is the one who ends up babyface and gets the win over Show.

I bet he'd carry the streak right up until WMXXX. The timing was right. Something major needed to happen at the 30th WM. And Brock was not at all a bad choice.

A more interesting question is what happens if The Undertaker faced Hulk Hogan at WrestleMania 8? Or Bret Hart at WrestleMania 11? Or Austin at WrestleMania 15? If any of those matches occurred there most likely would have never been a legendary streak.

 

[Judah's Lion]

it's hard for me to argue with Mustang Sally, now or ever. I've long felt personally and stated here publically that Taker should have retired with the Streak 100% in tact and undefeated. maybe like in Texas a few years from now with 25-0. or maybe at Mania 30 at 20-0 with some re-writing of history starting around Mania 17.

as to the question of when the WWE started acknowledging the Streak itself, that's kinda up for interpretation. certainly commentators would mention during Taker's Mania matches that he was undefeated while the match was taking place, but it was never built up as a Streak match like we knew for so many years. the first time I remember the Streak being hyped up PRIOR to the actual Mania match would be at 17 vs. Triple H. it was booked as the undefeated Undertaker going against the only heel to walk out of a Mania main event with the World Title. so it was kinda acknowledged there, but again, not as dramatically as we would later know. then the next year at 18, after Taker beat Flair, he counted to 10 on his fingers before leaving the ring, letting everybody know that he was now 10-0. and then for 21, the entire storyline was Orton, the Legend Killer, going after the Legend of the Streak, beating Taker at Mania. so that's really when the Streak became it's own storyline. or as best as my memory serves. there were matches prior to Orton's that mentioned the Streak, but it was secondary to the match and feud itself. Orton's match actually centered on the Streak and that was the first time I remember that being a thing.

again, to the original question, I think that Taker should have never lost at Mania. it's just my opinion. for me, it could have worked just as well to have Lesnar dominate the Dead Man at Survivor Series, where Taker debuted, and not lost the Streak. you could have Bray Wyatt feud with Taker at SummerSlam if you want Wyatt to go over and not lose the Streak. I think Taker could have wrestled at only the Big 4 (Mania, SummerSlam, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble) for the last 5-10 years and given us tons of dream matches, and when you want that certain individual to really go over Taker, book it anywhere but Mania. again, just my opinion.

really loved what Crucified Raven had to say. and it REALLY got me thinking about Mania matches that didn't happen but so easily could have and ended the Streak before it ever became what it was. Taker/Bret, Taker/Austin, maybe even Taker/Rock. there are several that could have realistically ended it before it began. lots of "what if" scenarios.

 

[RKO920]

There was a post today that said what if Brock and Rock had their match at 30 like it was supposed to be. But with Rock getting hurt and going home right after 29 that match was scrapped and then Brock vs Taker came to light.

If the proposed Brock vs Rock happened then there would have been no Streak ending, it would have continued and left us with 1 of 2 matches for this year. Personally I like the second match I'll propose even though its Bray Wyatt and I'll go in depth as to why. But....

1. Sting vs Undertaker - It's the match everyone has always wanted and we thought we were getting when Sting officially signed but instead we're getting Triple H. But if the Streak were still around I could see this match happening, but with Taker winning. No way Sting needs to rub of being the one to end the Streak. It made sense with Brock but he could have still been this dominate with beating the Rock then going on to SummerSlam and winning the title and we would still be at 31 with the main event being him vs Reigns.

2. Bray Wyatt vs Undertaker- I love this matchup to begin with but would really love it more if the Streak were still intact. Bray claiming to be the "new face of fear" would really be what he would get if he won. Plus he would get the huge rub of being the one to break the Streak. I also will then say this should be a way to continue the character of the Undertaker. Not just give Bray the character and totally change him, but subtle changes. Instead of white pants change to black. Black vest or jacket instead of the brown. Essentially, after winning and ending the Streak or possibly even career of the Undertaker, give Bray the "powers" of the Undertaker while still keeping his character the same with some minor tweaks.

 

[BattleCat]

Honestly, I can't even remember when WWE started to inform us that Undertaker had a "streak" going at all. Can you? Was it by WM5, WM10 or WM20?

So, the OP asks who should have broken the streak?....My answer is: no one.

I guess you were going that far back for effect, but you sound like an idiot. WM5 was two years before Taker's WM debut and, besides not being on the WM10 card, he was 3-0 at that point and mentioning a streak would have been foolish.

And to confirm my suspicions, you misquote the OP. He asked who COULD have ended the streak and you give your (non)answer of who SHOULD have ended the streak.

Anyway...I never understood why you people are so hung up on round numbers. 20-0, 25-0...it must have bugged the hell out of you that the great WrestleMania X7 wasn't WrestleMania XX.

WWE needs a Brock at the helm. He should defeat--actually destroy--Reigns and continue his reign of dominance. Ending the Streak was a brilliant way to start it, destroying Cena several times was a great continuance...as would be total destruction at Mania.

 

[MMA Mark]

The thing you're missing, is that the streak was broken at the right time. If it was ever going to be broken then it needed to be last year and it needed to be with someone who could make it work. All of the pieces feel into place rather nicely for the WWE in that regard, I suppose. They needed a way to make Brock Leanar look like the Beast Incarnate. And they needed it to happen on the biggest stage of them all. What better way to do that than by defeating the "unbeatable" streak of the Undertaker? Like I said, it happened because it was the right time.

Playing what if OS fun but pointless here. I don't think it would have made a difference if he was 23-0 or any other number. Brock was the man to break the streak and more importantly, was the correct man to do it. Even if he found himself at 23-0, the time was right to have someone conquer it. That's the only way it meant something. So I'm personally glad that the WWE and the Undertaker had the sense and the courage to do it.

I personally would have had Bray end the Streak at WM 30 and then face Cena this year. I would have booked Brock vs Rock II at WM 29 and maybe held off on Punk vs Lesnar until WM 30 or done Lesnar vs Orton.

Also I was just thinking that Orton vs Taker should have held off until WM 25 so Orton could build a respectable streak of his own against other legends (20 - Foley, 21 - Hogan, 22-4 - HBK, Flair, HHH, Y2J, etc.) and made it truly epic.