Could the Undertaker's streak have existed in WCW

[BizzarroNavarro]

So instead of the Wrestlemania streak it was the Starcade Streak. Do you think with their management and just with the way they ran things there, would it have been possible for the Undertaker to exist there and have built up a prestigious streak like that there?

Now I know how goldbergs streak ended up, so I guess its possible it wouldve ended up the same way, and if so who do you think wouldve been the guy to end takers streak?

edit: oops I forgot to put my own opinion,well short answer no I dont think so, I was never a wcw guy but I did watch it on occasion and for all the things that they did do wrong I gotta admit there were times where they did do something really good or appealing thatd get me into their program. And as far as who I think wouldve been the guy to end it, im guessing it wouldve been hogan, and a heel hogan too who wouldve probably tried to somehow end up making himself the face in fued too.

 

[mlp420]

Taker's streak didn't get much attention until like 2004 anyway. So I don't know if the success of the streak was intentional or just coincidental (like Edge's 7-0 streak) and then they just ran with it once it started to matter to people.

Could it have existed in WCW? Sure. They had some other streak before there didn't they? Having a guy win at an event once a year isn't exactly a brilliant idea that requires a stroke of genius is it?

 

[Adalam]

I don't think it would have, mainly due to the fact that well... I don't trust WCW's booking to have done the same with the Deadman as WWE's booking has pulled off. I don't really know who thought up the Deadman gimmick, but it really works for Mark while he was merely Mean Mark Callous in WCW, and that didn't seem to last him long. Now if they had done a streak of their own with one of their guys, like Sting, Jericho, Goldberg, Guerrero (Eddie), Malenko, etc... Then maybe it would be relevant in some way. I do not think it would have worked if they used Mark.

 

[trashboy]

I don't think it would have, mainly due to the fact that well... I don't trust WCW's booking to have done the same with the Deadman as WWE's booking has pulled off. I don't really know who thought up the Deadman gimmick, but it really works for Mark while he was merely Mean Mark Callous in WCW, and that didn't seem to last him long. Now if they had done a streak of their own with one of their guys, like Sting, Jericho, Goldberg, Guerrero (Eddie), Malenko, etc... Then maybe it would be relevant in some way. I do not think it would have worked if they used Mark.

But they did have a streak of their own. It was done by a man named Goldberg. Unless you're just talking about a big ppv streak like Undertaker has, then my mistake.

 

[Rampage Bentley]

Not to the extent that it does now.

Do I think they'd have him go undefeated at Starrcade without screwing it up? Let's give WCW the benefit of the doubt and say yes. Even then, I don't think it would mean as much. While WCW treated Starrcade as an equal to WrestleMania, it never really was. I never got the big event feel from a Starrcade that I got from Mania... it would mean as much as going undefeated at SummerSlam or Survivor Series.

 

[GameOver]

Could it have? yes
Would it have? no

Goldberg's streak was the best thing to happen to WCW money wise and they flushed that down the toilet and that was only 3 yrs.

Plus they seemed to have no F'n clue what to do with the people with actual talent and got rid of most of em to keep the stagnant big names, history repeating itself.

I could certainly have seen Mad Mark, Mark Callous or if they tagged the Undertaker gimmick going on a Goldberg type streak though, but it would be as a heel i'd say. anyway its a moot point WWF coined the Taker name and gimmick not Mark not WCW.

Mark supplied the ring style that worked for that cold heartless gimmick

 

[Matth3w]

They probably could've. Key word: Could have

Although they probably would've ended it at at 12 or 14 or something - most likely in a screwy finish (judging from WCW's past major angle/match bookings). As, you know, apparently 'controversy creates cash'. then the guy would've been 19-1, not 20-0.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

No. They had something much better. Goldberg's streak.

Bill Goldberg's WCW Undefeated streak of 173-0 is much more impressive than Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak. Goldberg defeated greats like Hulk Hogan, Sting, The Giant, Scott Hall, Diamond Dallas Page, Curt Henning etc. Goldberg defeated 173 guys in a row... Undertaker defeated 20 once a year.

Goldberg's streak > Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak.

 

[Headman]

The reason Taker's streak is impressive is because it's Wrestlemania. If Taker were undefeated at Summer Slam no one would care. WCW just didn't have a stage large enough for a streak of this kind to matter. Not even Starrcade.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

The reason Taker's streak is impressive is because it's Wrestlemania. If Taker were undefeated at Summer Slam no one would care. WCW just didn't have a stage large enough for a streak of this kind to matter. Not even Starrcade.

No. The reason its "impressive" is because WWE hypes it that way. If Undertaker was undefeated at SummerSlam and WWE hyped it like they do at Wrestlemania it would be as big. Most people (like you) buy into the hype.

Starrcade was as big as Wrestlemania and it came way before Wrestlemania. If WCW still existed Starrcade would be as big as Wrestlemania.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

No way. WCW even messed up Goldbergs streak. They gave away Goldberg V Hogan on free TV. IDIOTS!

 

[SD619]

Goldberg's streak > Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak.

Goldberg's streak consisted of beating mostly jobbers in squashes. Also, WCW used to change the number of his wins at random. Undertaker's wins come at a grand stage and the list of his opponents is almost a who's who of wrestling. Also, the fact that Undertaker has other accomplishments to his name excluding the streak. The same can't be said for Goldberg.

Undertaker's streak > Goldberg's streak.

As for the question asked by the OP, I doubt that the Streak could have existed in WCW. Firstly, because Undertaker mean't nothing in the WCW. He was just a big guy. Secondly, WCW's weird booking choices. Throughout their history, WCW have made some really surprising booking choices. I doubt that they would have the patience and long-term planning to book such a feat.

 

[Rampage Bentley]

Goldberg's streak consisted of beating mostly jobbers in squashes. Also, WCW used to change the number of his wins at random. Undertaker's wins come at a grand stage and the list of his opponents is almost a who's who of wrestling. Also, the fact that Undertaker has other accomplishments to his name excluding the streak. The same can't be said for Goldberg.

Undertaker's streak > Goldberg's streak.

As for the question asked by the OP, I doubt that the Streak could have existed in WCW. Firstly, because Undertaker mean't nothing in the WCW. He was just a big guy. Secondly, WCW's weird booking choices. Throughout their history, WCW have made some really surprising booking choices. I doubt that they would have the patience and long-term planning to book such a feat.

Not Quite.

Yes, in the past couple of years wrestling Undertaker at Mania has become a big deal, on par (or greater than) with a championship match. This was not always case. Before WrestleMania 20, with a few notable exceptions, Undertaker's opponents were all has-beens, flavors of the month, or stars way past their prime.

 

[Ovaltine]

No one ever realizes this, but Sting was actually undefeated at Starrcade. Had WCW stayed in business they would be hyping the hell out of Sting having an undefeated streak (Stings streak may have ended up longer than the Undertaker's streak due to Sting being in WCW longer than Taker has been in WWF/E). However, due to WCW constantly dropping the ball (I love WCW, but it is sadly the truth) with great ideas who knows if they would have even realized what they had. So, in my opinon the possibility of two stars being undefeated at WCW biggest event are slim to none.

 

[Adalam]

But they did have a streak of their own. It was done by a man named Goldberg. Unless you're just talking about a big ppv streak like Undertaker has, then my mistake.

I was merely talking big ppv streaks. Goldberg's was done well till Nash said "Fuck it, I want the title."

 

[RKO920]

Don't think it would have been as big or big at all because while Starcade was supposed to be WCW's Wrestlemania it never seemed like it was billed as such. Just seemed as if it was another PPV to WCW while WWE makes Wrestlemania such a huge event, thus Taker's streak at Wrestlemania seems much more important. WCW just wouldn't know how to run with it and make it seem as great, plus it would have died as soon as Hogan had to face him at Starcade because he wouldn't let Taker go over.

 

[thebarber]

NO, they murdered Goldbergs undefeated streak just so Kevin Nash could strut his power as head booker, Taker left WCW in 1990 because he knew then what an unorganised, second class wrestling company it was then, the Undertaker gimmick would not have lasted in WCW, he would have died off long ago like the Ding Dongs and Big Josh and Blacktop Bully and the nedless shit gimmicks WCW had.

BTW Goldberg did not really win 173-0, he had many of them padded on to make it bigger, and in fact he lost his secind ever match to Glacier, but WCW had marks forget that pretty quick.

 

[ilapierre]

Undertaker's streak could have existed in WCW if WCW had a stage as big as Wrestlemania. Starrcade was the big show for WCW but it was never as big as Wrestlemania. Undertaker could have had a streak in WCW but it wouldn't be as big a deal unless WCW put WWE out of business or if WCW had of maintained their product of the late 90s. Goldberg had a streak that was a big draw for months in 1998. Sting 'somewhat' had a Starrcade streak. I guess a way to look at it is to ask another question. Could Goldberg's streak have existed in WWE? Or could Tatanka's winning streak have existed in WCW? ha

 

[xavyer]

People are mentioning that like the Undertaker, Sting was undefeated at starcade, the difference is that Sting had one draw, and The Undertaker only has wins at Wrestlemania, with that being said, due to the "wonderfull" bookings the WCW use to have, i'm gonna have to say no, even if Mean Mark would have turn into The Undertaker, they would have make him loose to Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan, or probably to someone less important, like Buff Bagwell, or even Norman Smiley, that's how WCW's bookings were, if they had Davis Arquette as the WCW world chamion, how good were their bookings?? Not much.......

 

[Wolf Pac]

Sting is not undefeated at Starrcade, he lost to Lex Luger at 89 and Ric Flair at 95 but I think if there were gonna be an undefeated streak at Starrcade, it should've gone to none other than 'the man called Sting'. And yes it could've been just as big as Taker's if WCW hyped it up. They could've hyped it up at or a year before Starrcade 98 and had Sting's undefeated Starrcade streak against Goldberg's undefeated streak for the World Title at Starrcade 98, that would've been just as big, if not bigger than Hogan vs. Sting at Starrcade 97.

 

[justtxyank]

NO, they murdered Goldbergs undefeated streak just so Kevin Nash could strut his power as head booker, Taker left WCW in 1990 because he knew then what an unorganised, second class wrestling company it was then, the Undertaker gimmick would not have lasted in WCW, he would have died off long ago like the Ding Dongs and Big Josh and Blacktop Bully and the nedless shit gimmicks WCW had.

Yeah it's a good thing he left that company. Otherwise he would have been in the same company as the Red Rooster, The Good, Abe Knuckeball, Adam Bomb, The Gobbledygooker, The Repo Man, Pappa Shongo, Phantasio, Duke The Dumpster, Isaac Yankem, Xanta Clause, Bastion Booger, Mantaur, Max Moon, Battlekat, Techno Team 2000, wrestling convict Nailz, wrestling policeman, etc. etc.

BTW Goldberg did not really win 173-0, he had many of them padded on to make it bigger, and in fact he lost his secind ever match to Glacier, but WCW had marks forget that pretty quick.

Never heard that an don't believe it to be true. The streak wasn't an 'accident.' WCW intentionally pushed Goldberg, even having him defeat Hugh Morrus in his opening match, which while note a superstar was still an established worker.

I think you might be the mark.

No way. WCW even messed up Goldbergs streak. They gave away Goldberg V Hogan on free TV. IDIOTS!

I'm about to blow your mind:

WCW was owned by a television company!

The line about the free tv for Hogan/Goldberg always gets thrown around like some revelation, but it misses the HUGE distinction between WCW and WWF. The WWF was owned by Vince McMahon. His company took a cut of ppv revenue, but if his ratings went up on television that benefited USA much more significantly than it did the WWF. WCW was different. It was owned by the network it broadcast on. Selling advertising space was more important to them than it was to the WWF. Additionally, TBS/TNT relied heavily on wrestling to make their network. Turner bought JCP/WCW specifically to strengthen his network brand.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

Could it, sure but most likely wouldn't have happened. He wouldn't be the Undertaker. He was friends with Scott Hall and Kevin Nash. Plus he did a movie with Hogan so who knows.

Never heard that an don't believe it to be true. The streak wasn't an 'accident.' WCW intentionally pushed Goldberg, even having him defeat Hugh Morrus in his opening match, which while note a superstar was still an established worker.

I think you might be the mark.

Uh no, what he said was true. The dirt sheets even picked up on it as one week he wrestled 4 times including house shows but his total somehow went up 10. it became a joke after a while but the problem is that everyone was in on it.

Goldberg did lose to Mongo and was then taken off TV a while. He also lost a dark match to one of the Guerrero's. His undefeated streak was a legit as Tatanka's. But in wrestling that doesn't really matter.

I'm about to blow your mind:

WCW was owned by a television company!

The line about the free tv for Hogan/Goldberg always gets thrown around like some revelation, but it misses the HUGE distinction between WCW and WWF. The WWF was owned by Vince McMahon. His company took a cut of ppv revenue, but if his ratings went up on television that benefited USA much more significantly than it did the WWF. WCW was different. It was owned by the network it broadcast on. Selling advertising space was more important to them than it was to the WWF. Additionally, TBS/TNT relied heavily on wrestling to make their network. Turner bought JCP/WCW specifically to strengthen his network brand.

If ratings went up for WWE they got more sponsors which means more advertising $$$ for both USA and WWE. High ratings were equally beneficial to both. People paid big money to advertise during Raw and Smackdown.

What you said right there was a huge problem that WCW had. They gave away stuff for free that should have helped sell PPV's. But all Bischoff cared about(and he openly admits this) was beating Vince. He had tunnel vision. PPV buyrates > one week spike in ratings.

 

[whoopin' ass]

sure it could have. remember the streak was never planned out. vince never sat down and said taker is never going to lose at mania. it just evolved. but there would have never been an Undertaker in wcw -the climate and creative just weren't right for it. i mean, even after he came out in wwf, there was no one even close to his character in wcw. they would have done a kane type character and he could have been their version but they didn't. so the streak could have happened but not for that character.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

sure it could have. remember the streak was never planned out. vince never sat down and said taker is never going to lose at mania. it just evolved.

Exactly, I wouldn't be surprised if the WWE was considering Undertaker to lose to The Giant Gonzales at WMIX, the DQ Chloroform ending suggest they wanted to give Gonzales a monster push I am sure it was either a DQ ending or Gonzales going over Taker. You might think the latter is out of the question but, remember, this was WMIX.

What am I getting at? If there was a point where Taker's streak would never have existed in the WWE. I am pretty sure whatever streak WCW, it would have been broken eventually.

 

[justtxyank]

Uh no, what he said was true. The dirt sheets even picked up on it as one week he wrestled 4 times including house shows but his total somehow went up 10. it became a joke after a while but the problem is that everyone was in on it.

The part about the streak number not being accurate, yeah of course that's true. The real number was somewhere around like 143 or 150 or something like that.

Goldberg did lose to Mongo and was then taken off TV a while. He also lost a dark match to one of the Guerrero's. His undefeated streak was a legit as Tatanka's. But in wrestling that doesn't really matter.

Goldberg didn't lose to Mongo. I believe you are talking about the match at WW3. Goldberg never made it to the match because Mongo knocked him out outside the ring. He ended up facing Alex Wright instead.

If ratings went up for WWE they got more sponsors which means more advertising $$$ for both USA and WWE. High ratings were equally beneficial to both. People paid big money to advertise during Raw and Smackdown.

You are missing my point. If ratings go up on Raw, yes it benefits WWE because they get a cut of the merchandise revenue. However, if ratings going on WWE make other USA shows go up it doesn't benefit the E in anyway. This wasn't true with WCW. WCW spiking ratings on TNT helped their other programming which in turn let the network make more money off advertising for all of their shows. I agree it was a flawed financial model long term for the wrestling company, but as long as the network was benefitting they were fine with it.

What you said right there was a huge problem that WCW had. They gave away stuff for free that should have helped sell PPV's. But all Bischoff cared about(and he openly admits this) was beating Vince. He had tunnel vision. PPV buyrates > one week spike in ratings.

I do agree that Bischoff had tunnel vision and that financially for WCW buyrates are better than ratings spikes. For the network that is not necessarily the case.