A wrestler's last match

[LSN80]

I know the action in the wrestling sections have been down because of the WZ Tournament, but I'm hoping to get some decent responses here. It's an interesting topic that I got from listening to Chris Jericho's podcast.

On Jericho's podcast, he mentioned Undertaker and the end of the Streak. Citing what he believes to be Undertaker's last match, Jericho believes that the powers that be did the right thing by ending the Streak. He cited Japanese tradition that a wrestler who is retiring always puts over a future star or a star this is being built up for something big.

I don't know what the plans are for Brock Lesnar, but based on his past year's history, it's very possible he's being groomed for something big. I wrote an extensive blog a week ago justifying why it could be the right move for Lesnar to have ended the Streak. From a kayfabe perspective, there's no way Undertaker should have beaten Lesnar in a traditional wrestling match. Lesnar is 36, in his prime, while Undertaker is a beat-up 49.

Jericho also discussed how Edge's career ended due to an injury, so he won his last match as a result. Jericho was fine with that, of course, not thinking Edge should have contested one final match in order to put someone over.

And there's where I want to make my major point: Whether or not a wrestler wins or loses their final match should be conditional. While I can justify Lesnar beating Undetaker quite easily, I absolutely hate it from a legacy standpoint. Wrestlemania has also been built around a few championship matches, one personal feud, and the Streak. While I believe this was Taker's last match, it spoiled one of the most important things in Wrestlemania history.

There would have been someone else for Brock Lesnar to beat up, but there will never be another Streak. Based on the storyline of Undertaker being invincible at Wrestlemania, he should have gone out with a win, cementing his legacy. There's now a big mark on his WM legacy, one that was completely unnecessary.

And so goes my point. The storyline involved should dictate whether or not a wrestler retires with a win or a loss. HBK and Flair both retired with losses, but their storylines dictated so. But if a wrestler is in a storyline where their pride and legacy is on the line, and it's their last match, I have no problem with them going out with a win.

The storyline should dictate winners and losers in their final match, not necessarily putting someone over.

Your thoughts on this?

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

My big issue with Lesnar being chosen to end the streak is that, in my opinion, he was very much undeserving of such an honor. This is the guy who walked out on the WWF to take a gamble of pro-football despite no experience in that field. When that fell flat on its face he then spat in the face of the WWF by competing in Japan. Then after he made his comeback, he was going to take his ball and leave again because he perceived John Cena disrespected him. So, even if we overlook the fact that he only makes a certain amount of appearances, he isn't even a strong bet to remain loyal. "Hey Brock, we need you to lose to Daniel Bryan at SummerSlam." "Sod that, I'm out of here!"

As to the 'last match' question. I agree. Each storyline should finish on its own merits. Given that Edge had no say in his retirement, it was a nice touch for him to win his final bout. Likewise, Taker should have had his streak respected - in fact they should have played up the fact it was his final bout because that would have raised the possibility of a loss. Without losing his final bout, HBK could always have been a 'one more match' candidate - because he lost to Taker though, he lessens that temptation.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

I think the WWE and possibly The Undertaker too, went one match too long. Everything about the Undertaker in the build up to the match, and the match itself, told me "This guy is either selling the HELL outta Lesnar, or he's physically just done." I think it was sheer luck that Lesnar was the guy who was going up against Taker when we reached this point. It could've been Cena, it could've been Batista, Reigns, whoever: I think Undertaker physically couldn't really do another match, and decided to end the streak. Lesnar is as good as anyone to end it. He's a monster in his own right, and he's now regained some of the edge that he lost from the get-go when Cena beat him at Extreme Rules. Everyone just had some dream scenario for Taker that it was going to be Wyatt or Reigns beating him, and perhaps if Taker had another match or two in him, that's what would've happened...the wheels just came off sooner.

 

[FlairFan2003]

It was common back in the territory days, even through to the mid 90s two company system, that if someone was leaving he "elevated" the guy that was essentially taking his place. If you recall when Hall & Nash left WWE they spent a good month plus jobbing out (mostly to HHH & HBK) to help enhance the characters of the two guys who were staying behind. Other famous examples included Ric Flair losing the "Loser Leaves Town" Match to Curt Henning on RAW in 1993. On the flips side we all know what happened when Brett Hart didn't want to lose the last match he was contracted for in WWE in 1997.

Admittedly, as salaries and TV got bigger (and the number of rival promotions got smaller) this practice became less important. Edge's case is rare, a guy getting a win AND a Title (or keeping a title) when he is on the way out but it may have been a surprise he had to quit when he did. Roddy Piper got a win in his Farewell Match when he retired at W-Mainia in 1987 (although her returned and wrestled numerous times after that, even headlining a Starrcade and winning both the IC & US Titles). Same with Hogan in his retirement match in 1992.

I don't have a problem with a legend getting a big win on their way out the door. In fact I think they've earned it by that time. Flair & HBK had specific storylines that dictated retirement at losing and those storylines were a big reason the shows were as successful as they were so I don't have a problem with that either. he storyline where Lesnar ends the Streak bothers me not so much because Taker didn't get a huge farewell (his character wasn't one that would make that seem normal) but because Lesnar is a part timer part timer, not even wrestling as much and doing as much TV (and likely no hose shows) as Flair & HBK did during the 2000s. HHH is wrestling more than Lesnar right now. Ending the Streak is a huge deal and I feel it should have gone to someone who is full time, someone who can take advantage of the obvious rub, either a legend who is still a major contributor (like Cena or maybe Orton) or the guy WWE feels will be "The Next Big Thing" like Roman Reigns. Waisting it on a guy who maybe does three PPV per year, never does house shows, and rarely does TV just seems like an opportunity blown.

 

[JWGunslinger]

My big issue with Lesnar being chosen to end the streak is that, in my opinion, he was very much undeserving of such an honor. This is the guy who walked out on the WWF to take a gamble of pro-football despite no experience in that field. When that fell flat on its face he then spat in the face of the WWF by competing in Japan. Then after he made his comeback, he was going to take his ball and leave again because he perceived John Cena disrespected him. So, even if we overlook the fact that he only makes a certain amount of appearances, he isn't even a strong bet to remain loyal. "Hey Brock, we need you to lose to Daniel Bryan at SummerSlam." "Sod that, I'm out of here!"

I absolutely love this, this is the perfect example of why I am mad about Lesnar ending the streak. The one good thing about it was the shock value, nobody saw it coming because Brock is an established superstar and a part timer; But It isn't even a matter of him being a part timer for me when you get down to it. If Rock or even Batista were to do it I wouldn't be upset, but the fact that it went to a guy who could give two shits about the business and is only sticking around if the money is right.

In regards to the OP I don't think it can be generalized, I think it varies from Wrestler to Wrestler. In the case of the Undertaker I would have had him either go undefeated not only for his legacy but the fact that like LSN said Mania has always been built around some title matches and the streak. My personal hope was that there would always be a streak, have Taker face a young up and comer with no Wrestlemania losses and then when said wrestler would defeat the streak he would then become the new holder of the streak and carry on that match. I realize it's a stretch but if done right I think it could've become a cool tradition, but no streaks would ever come close to Taker's.

In the end it's best for some to go out on a win, others a loss and that's fine too, but the only one I've ever had a problem with was Undertaker. I just wish that if the streak had to end it'd have been used to build up someone else who could use it more.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

In most cases I'd say a wrestler should go out on his back, whether its a guy retiring and putting over a wrestler on his way out, or someone leaving to go to another company and is putting over the talent who will replace them after they have gone. It's just smart business doing it that way.

However, there are always going to be exceptions to the rule and I do think Undertaker could have been one of those. It's all well and good saying someone like an Michaels, an Austin, a Rock, a Flair (major stars) should lose their final match but that's a common thing to happen for most main eventers when their time is up. You lose to put over the next generation of talent. But the Streak had become a huge part of the Undertaker's persona, the fact he was unbeatable at WM and how no-one ever expected it to be ended.

I can see both sides of the argument, one being that the Undertaker's character has been damaged by losing at WM, and other being that if it was to be his last match he should give a MAJOR boost to someone who ended the streak.

I'm on the fence as to whether it should have ended but I don't think a part-timer like Lesnar, who has no respect for the business, doesnt wrestle much at all, appears on TV once a month if we are lucky and is only in it for the money, should have been the one to do it- even though he is arguably the best athlete in wrestling history.

It should have been someone who WWE were looking to get behind to be their next major star, and if there wasnt anyone in mind or suitable by the time 'Taker decided to call it a day, then they shouldn't have ended it.