Almost 2 Years Later, Should Brock Have Ended The Streak?

[d_henderson1810]

I hated it then, and still hate it now.

But then, I don't like Brock. He is one of the most spoiled, undeserving people in the business. Say what you want about Triple H, Hogan, etc playing politics. At least they wrestled on a regular basis. Brock shows up when he feels like it, and we all pay for the priviledge.

The Streak was something that could have gone on for years. I would have liked to see a story, for example, where the Brothers Of Destruction fight in a tag match at Wrestlemania, and the story is that the opposing tag-team promise to end the Streak- by pinning Kane. So Kane would be accused of being "the weak link" in the Brothers Of Destruction.

The next few weeks, Kane keeps screwing up and losing matches for the BOD, and Taker worries that he could lose his Streak without being the one pinned. Then when the match happens, Kane gets the pin, keeping Taker's Streak intact.

You could have had Taker in a handicap match against two or three guys, and has to pin all of them to win, whereas any of them can pin Taker and end the Streak. There were a lot of creative ways to do it.

Bray Wyatt should have done it at WM31 last year. This could have been a "passing of the torch" and Taker retires, and Bray take over his gimmick of the "face of fear" (Shawn Michaels recently on the SCSA podcast described Bray Wyatt as the "21st Century Undertaker").

Also, you could have had Taker retire with it. This way, if down the track, you needed a special attraction at WM, and needed to put a young guy over, then bring Taker back "for one night only" to see if this young future star can topple the Streak.

It sickens me that Bray did it. It also means that whoever finally topples Brock HAS to be the "man" , since he beat the guy who beat the Streak. So the pressure is on whomever ends up being the guy to end Lesnar, since it means that they can not only beat Lesnar, but they can beat a guy capable of doing what no-one else had. They would have to bring along someone pretty special to do that.

 

[Wald]

Absolutely the Streak should have ended when it did and absolutely it should have been Brock Lesnar. The only other viable candidate for me was John Cena and the only wish I have for The Streak is that Taker would have faced Cena the year before.

I think people forget how boring The Streak had become in its final two years. Not knocking CM Punk, cause I love the guy and he pulled off the best match of the night with Taker at WM29, but no bought he was going to end it. Same with Brock, no-one at all thought Lesnar was going to beat Undertaker at WM30 and that is the main reason why it needed to end. So long as Undertaker was still alive everyone would expect him to come back and win at Wrestlemania and, to be frank, the gimmick had gotten stale.

As for if Brock was the right guy to win it or not? Well it made Brock the hottest wrestler in the company (remember he was only lukewarm after losing to Triple H the year beforehand and losing to Cena in their feud). It gave us a great run that is still going today, where he looks like the absolute most frightening guy to ever step in the ring, and so for that reason it was the right call to make. Brock Lesnar pre-ending the Streak was sinking as a PPV draw, Brock Lesnar post-ending the Streak is PPV gold to the point that it effects the product when he's not around. People now, WWE creative included, just seem to wait for him to show up to make things exciting again.

 

[whoopin' ass]

Let's start with the second point first - no, Wyatt should not have been the one to defeat Taker. I have said it before - everyone is love with the concept of Wyatt but ignore the fact that he is pretty much a main event jobber. How can you expect him to beat Taker at Mania when he can't win a match against anyone else? Had they built Wyatt better and Taker was planning to retire after the loss, then it could have worked. Have Wyatt come in and build him up similar to how Taker was built up his first year in but instead of the big event being the title win it was his defeating Taker and then builds from there to a title win that would have made the win important and make sense. However to have him just beat Taker would have been dumb.

As for Brock, I don't think it was a bad idea but I do think what they did later ruined it. The idea what it was going to be the first step in the rebuilding of Lesnar and it was a good idea as Lesnar is money. But wwe ruined it by doing several things after it. First, Taker didn't retire and then came back. Second, they tried to use Lesnar on the cheap - they didn't want to pay him more so you had a champ who didn't appear on tv for weeks on end. And third, they really didn't use Lesnar to get anyone over. Rollins was in a couple matches with him for the title but in the end, Rollins pinned the third man and not Lesnar for the title - Lesnar was still protected. Then it took them a year and a half to have the rematch which was too long of a wait and really not a match that was needed. So ultimately Lesnar beating Taker really didn't accomplish anything positive. In hindsight, I do think it was a bad decision simply because wwe didn't follow through with it but I don't think it was a bad idea given the circumstances at the time and if they had followed through instead of backtracking.

 

[TDFG]

I don't think Brock needed to be 'The One' but at the same time, it's put Brock on another level and people are still talking about today, and they will still talk about it for years to come.

I think the only way it may not be a big thing in years to come is if The Undertaker loses one or two more matches at WrestleMania.

A lot of people are saying Bray Wyatt should have been the one to end the streak, Bray Wyatt hasn't done much of note and his booking over the last two years hasn't been great, it shows that WWE are perhaps still unconvinced that he is over enough to get a big win, Bray Wyatt hasn't held a singles title and I don't think he's even fought for the World Title.

Bray Wyatt now has an 0-2 record at WrestleMania, this is a storyline that perhaps has some legs with Wyatt searching for his first victory at the grandest stage of them all.

If The Undertaker was still undefeated then the only guys on the roster I think WWE would consider breaking the streak would be Brock Lesnar, John Cena or Roman Reigns.

 

[J.J.]

Wyatt's booking and character progression over the last two years has been good, what are you all viewing on TV? He has went agsinst Cena, Bryan, Taker, Reigns, ect. The only issue is he hasn't been booked to win them all. But the build up to the feuds are solid in Wyatt's behalf. Leading up to WM 30 he defeated DBry clean who was the most over guy at the time. He should have been booked against Taker.

He carried the buildup with Taker last year just to put Taker over - I strongly disagreed with that. That could've been the start of building him(Wyatt) up to higher levels.

 

[L@RISANO]

Answering the question in the title; I give a resounding Yes!


Brock Lesnar ending the Streak was shocking(an understatement,lMO), however, since then, he has been elevated to a level as a Superstar that is beyond even how the Undertaker himself was ever portrayed, and I think that in itself shows why it was such a great idea to have him be the one to dethrone the deadman when he did.


As has been mentioned by a couple of others, there were only a couple realistic options going into Mania 30 that could have handled breaking the Legendary WrestleMania Streak of the Undertaker; Brock Lesnar and John Cena.
John Cena vs the Undertaker would have been lMO, the ultimate streak match given how far apart the two guys have been kept since Cena's elevation to Face of the WWE. However, I believe that WWE not having a legit Cena replacement at the time, meant they couldn't do that match, even though I would say that it would have achieved with a Cena Win v Taker the one thing they failed to do with Brock... that is break the Streak and become the Ultimate Heel.


However, even though Brock ended up becoming a guy super over with the fans, the mere fact that he is portrayed as being the best of the best means that whoever faces him and can go toe to toe with him will get a huge rub, and the one who actually takes him down will go to a whole other level.



As for the notion that a "younger guy" should have done it. I used to think that way also, however, in hindsight I feel that, If a young guy was chosen, he would have had a huge burden on his shoulders and there is no telling if that superstar would have been able to command the crowd over a long term period as Brock Lesnar has clearly been doing.
Ntm, Brock's PT deal has also been a huge key in making his conquering of Taker's Streak be a huge success, lMO. Would a 'young' superstar have been allowed to do appearances as Brock does?

 

[New Hot Fed]

They should have waited for Sting who came in THAT VERY SAME SUMMER FOLLOWING THE BROCK-TAKER MATCH.

Have Taker faces Cena instead who he beats clean, shocking everybody.

Then you have Sting coming in that summer and start targeting former WCW guys. Like Goldust and so forth. Sting keeps attacking these guys and have matches with them. He is clearly sending a message.

Then Taker shows up in the Royal Rumble. Sting appears and cost him the match. You build this up and it says Sting is like the spirit of WCW that will face the spirit of the WWF/E. There's tension of who will win. Could Sting beats Taker and the streak? Yes he does but with the help of a newly formed Wolfpac.