Edge's Wrestlemania Streak: 5-0 or 5-1?

[Oasys]

This has long been debated here on the WZ forums. I thought it was about time to make a thread discussing this.

Personally, I believe Edge is still 5-0 at Wrestlemania. The WWE wanted to push Kennedy and still keep Edge's streak in tact, thus pulling him out of the match. Edge is too big to win the Money in the Bank match.. It wouldn't be necessary to boost him to a main event level he has been at for the past two years.

Of course, you could easily argue that he DID in fact lose. True, he was never pinned at 'Mania, but you don't have to be pinned to lose the MITB match.

Your thoughts?

 

[matt_09]

IMO, i think it sould go down like a triple treat match. if you don't win the match then it sould go down as a loss. but i think wwe is gonna ignore this so they can have a streak vs. streak match at wrestlemania(which i think edge would lose)

 

[TheOneBigWill]

This could be held similar to Triple H.'s undefeated streak in W.W.F. - his first "official" loss I believe, was at the hands of Duke "The Dumpster." YET, the first loss I remember him having, was at Survivor Series, in the elimination matches. ('95 he was apart of the team Mabel squad that was destroyed by Taker)

At any rate, W.W.F. is tricky with how it counts wins & losses. So therefore, regarding Edge.. he should remain "UNdefeated" at Wrestlemania, as the Money In The Bank match doesn't award a loss to any of the Superstars who don't win.. because in all actuality, the winner of the MITB match, isn't pinning, or submitting any of them.

If it was a single's ladder match, it would be a different story. Because in those types of issues, you're clearly defeating ONE person, not 5-7.

Finally, my arguement with why Edge should remain UNdefeated, is because he didn't even make it through the whole match. He was "injured" (notice the quotes) & helped to the back, thus meaning he was taken out of the match - against his will.

 

[ACTAFOOL]

yes it should be 5-1, obviously WWE will ignore it or just say ''well he was taken out of the match'' but it still should count as a loss IMO, even though i dont like to admit it cuz edge is awsome, but he loss, theres no way around it

just cuz its MITB doesnt mean that there arent losers, if theres a winner, there are losers also, a ''winner'' cant win without a loser, in other words, every1 who didnt win the MITB, LOSS, doesnt matter if they were injured during the match

for example, candice last night took a nasty bump, but still, she LOST... right?

now he could be like christian and say ''ive never been pinned or submittied at WM'' but say hes still undefeated is in fact a lie, though like i said b4, WWE probably wont count it as a loss and have them face off at WM for one of them to end the streak

man it would've been so much better if they just put edge in another match and made him win.. he didnt need to go in another MITB he already was a main eventer...

 

[Shocky]

Edge started the match, then he finished the match with a loss. Simple as that. If it was a one on one match and he got injured and wouldn't be able to continue, it's a loss, simple as that.

If Edge was too big for Money in the Bank, then he shouldn't have been in it. If Edge was injured going into Money in the Bank, then he shouldn't have been involved. If the WWE wanted to keep his streak alive, he should have won the match, simple as that.

It all comes down to the WWE fucking up Wrestlemania 23 royally. Instead of having 4 good one on one matches, they stick 8 of their best guys in one shit match, and the rest of the card sucks dog turd.

Randy Orton vs. Edge should have been on the card, and then Edge would still be undefeated, but Edge lost this match, so the streak is gone.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

well, in my book, he didnt win, so he lost lol. He couldve WOn the match, and it wouldve counted as a WIN. Kennedy won. so everyone else LOST...I mean what did everyone else do? tie? lol...they LOST...and it soesnt matter if he had to leave becuase of injury, if someone has to forfiet or throw in the towel due to injury, whether its against their will or not, they still lost. He didnt win. so he lost...he CAN say he has never been pinned, or beaten by one man at WM tho....

 

[Y 2 Jake]

He's 5-1. He didn't win the match, the match wasn't a no contest. He lost. Simple. Just like all those times Joe & Umaga lost. It really annoys me when promotions go on about undefeated streaks. Especially when that wrestler has lost so many times. As soon as they get DQ'd then they go on about how they haven't been pinned, get's on my tits.

I actually think that they'll use last years match as the angle leading up to Mania. It's bullshit but WWE will make up something along the lines of Edge wasn't pinned and would have left the match if he hadn't been injured.

 

[mabuza]

The problem was that Edge was already injured prior to WM23.He had a jaw injury.Perhaps this is why he wasnt put in a logical singles match up against Orton.Technically speaking,he did lose MITB.Its kinda how when a guy wins the Royal Rumble,they put him over by saying he beat 29 other men.Similarly,they have always stated that the winner off MITB beat the other 5/7 superstars involved.
He's never been pinned or made to submit& he was taken out of the match against his will,so I can see them winging it in that direction.Besides,Taker's record is equally dodgy as he never actually beat Gonzales at WM9.It was a ridiculous DQ made to save Taker's face because they was no logical way he could have won that match.

 

[THe WHoLe FuCKiN SHoW]

im with jake on this one. he should be 5-1 but im sure that the wwe will twist it so that edge claims he never actually got pinned at wm, which should then lead up to an eventual match against taker in which he would then be pinned for the first time at wm.

 

[Agrex]

Edge never lost, but he never won either. In my opinion, there were eight wrestlers in the match and one winner, which also means there were seven losers, and Edge is one of them. Edge is 5-1, but WWE will play it out that Edge never really lost, that he was pulled out of the match. It doesn't really matter because Edge will end up losing at WM 24 and go 5-2. Like someone said above it really annoys me when promotian's start undefeated streaks, but the wrestler get's DQ'd, counted out and all that other shit.

 

[Papa Shango]

Edge is undefeated at WM. He has never been beaten. Edge was taken out of the match less than halfway through. Kennedy beat 6 other guys, NOT 7.
And even though he didn't technically win, who cares? The fact that he was even IN the damn match is because he had a broken jaw and couldn't go through a one-on-one match with Randy Orton. So they both were put in the MITB Ladder Match. PLUS he ended up with the contract eventually anyways. Is it controversial? Yes. Would Edge's no. 1 fan prefer to have Edge's WM streak be a little cleaner? Yes. But the fact remains that Edge has never been beaten at WM. He's been TAKEN OUT of WM, but not beaten.
HHH didn't win the six-man HIAC, but he was still able to say that he was undefeated in HIAC matches.
Umaga was DQ'd at Survivor Series, but could still say that he was undefeated.
And doesn't the sound of "Streak vs. Streak match sound so alluring?"
The way I see it, if Taker beats Edge at WM, even it it's by DQ or Count Out (like that'll happen at Mania lol) then yes, his streak ends. But if Edge ends Taker's WM streak, then Edge is still undefeated at wrestlemania. The controversy compliments Edge's character anyway, so what's the big deal?

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Edge is 5-0. Period. End of discussion.

The fact is, if he were 5-1, that would be to say he had been beaten in a match. He wasn't. And even if he'd stayed in that match and still not gotten the case, he'd still be 5-0.

Let me describe even further. In a triple threat match, Wrestler A pins Wrester B while Wrestler C is on the outside. Wrestler "A" wins. Wrestler "B" loses. Wrestler "C" does niether. Wrestler "C" did not defeat anybody, nor was he defeated.

So, yes, when The Undertaker takes his 15-0 record into Wrestlemania against Edge, it will be a battle of the Wrestlemania unbeatens and undefeateds.

Like back when the NHL had ties, he's not on a 5-game "winning" streak, he's on a 6-game "unbeaten streak."

 

[Papa Shango]

Edge is 5-0. Period. End of discussion.

The fact is, if he were 5-1, that would be to say he had been beaten in a match. He wasn't. And even if he'd stayed in that match and still not gotten the case, he'd still be 5-0.

Let me describe even further. In a triple threat match, Wrestler A pins Wrester B while Wrestler C is on the outside. Wrestler "A" wins. Wrestler "B" loses. Wrestler "C" does niether. Wrestler "C" did not defeat anybody, nor was he defeated.

So, yes, when The Undertaker takes his 15-0 record into Wrestlemania against Edge, it will be a battle of the Wrestlemania unbeatens and undefeateds.

Like back when the NHL had ties, he's not on a 5-game "winning" streak, he's on a 6-game "unbeaten streak."

IC25, I think you're right on the 5-0 part. I just don't understand the need to call it an "unbeaten streak". He HAS NOT BEEN DEFEATED AT WM.
Let's just say you're absolutely correct. (You're not quite 100% but you're close) Even if it's an unbeaten streak vs. an undefeated streak, (I still don't see much of a difference) then couldn't the WWE still promote the match as a "Streak vs. Streak" Match?
Now matter which way you slice it, Edge still has a legitimate streak going for him at WM. Whether ppl consider it undefeated or unbeaten is a mere technicality that is brought up by ppl who feel the need to overanalize things.

 

[pockets]

ive found its not a loss if it was during a tag team match, but if it was a singles match then its officially a loss. (i think brock lesnars first loss was in a tag match or was it goldberg or something, but wwe kept their streak alive) mitb counts as a singles match, so i think it would count as a loss. but id be okay with them having edge go undefeated if it meant a streak vs streak match at wm with the undertaker.

 

[Rated K for Kennedy... Kennedy!]

.Besides,Taker's record is equally dodgy as he never actually beat Gonzales at WM9.It was a ridiculous DQ made to save Taker's face because they was no logical way he could have won that match.

Funny how they never mention that when they say 15-0 (or 16-0 or whatever, Taker at Mania bores me), I think if they're serious about Edge being a top guy for years then an undefeated Mania Streak is the way to go, but as Taker has proved, doesnt give you many chances at the Bigtime (Title shot at WM) does it? I'd rather just see Edge continue to be great as he is than bastardized and castrated so he can be undefeated at Mania!

I'm not Jim Cornette, but that's my opinion

 

[Bogair]

The dictionary defines "WIN" as: to gain the victory; overcome an adversary. Now in the MITB match, he didn't gain the victory, he didn't even do alot of damage, he was OWNED by Jeff's leg drop, so I believe the record should not stay intact.

 

[lonely_god]

The dictionary defines "WIN" as: to gain the victory; overcome an adversary. Now in the MITB match, he didn't gain the victory, he didn't even do alot of damage, he was OWNED by Jeff's leg drop, so I believe the record should not stay intact.

I completely agree. He didn't win the match, so by definition he lost.

As for Mania 9, a victory by DQ is still a victory, so I don't view that as being a dodgy moment in Takers streak. The only thing dodgy about that was Gonzales ring attire!

 

[HBKRocks01]

Technically, yes, he did lose. He didn't win the match. But he has never been pinned or made to submit, which normally means that the WWE will carry on his undefeated streak.

 

[BrooklynBuc]

Matter of fact, read this:
Wrestlemania 23
Interpromotional Money in the Bank Ladder Match: Ken Kennedy (SmackDown!) defeated CM Punk (ECW), King Booker T. (SmackDown!), Fit Finlay (SmackDown!), Edge (RAW), Randy Orton (RAW), Matt Hardy (SmackDown!), and Jeff hardy (RAW) (19:10) in an "Interpromotional Money in the Bank Ladder" match...

We need to agree to disagree on this one, because right now we're going on opinion and not fact. The question to be asked: if you don't win a match with multiple contenders, does it count as a loss, or a no contest because you weren't the winner? According to the official wrestling records, Edge was defeated by Ken Kennedy.

However, let's explore this logic. Let's take a look at the TLC matches at Wrestlemania: Do the Hardys and Dudleys both have two losses at Wrestlemania because of it? They weren't one-on-one or two-on-two contests. What about a triple threat match? By some logic, that means Kurt Angle didn't lose TWICE when he lost the Intercontinental title when Benoit pinned Jericho then the European title when Jericho pinned Benoit at Wrestlemania 16. The official record says this:

Wrestlemania 16
Intercontinental Title and European Heavyweight Title Match (Three Way Match, Best Two out of Three Falls): Chris Benoit defeated Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho to win the Intercontinental Title when Benoit pinned Jericho in the first fall (8:13). Chris Jericho defeated Kurt Angle and Chris Benoit to win the European Title when Jericho pinned Benoit (13:52)

http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfwm.htm

Now, some people are right. Edge has never been pinned, has never submitted, never been DQed, and never been counted out. Ladder matches, though, don't give you those options, same as Casket matches, Cage matches, and table matches. You are simply defeated because you do not fulfill the required action to win. Same with triple threat matches. Even if you weren't pinned or gave up, you can lose the title, meaning that you were defeated in some way. Not winning means you are not undefeated.

As a heel, Edge can fully go with, "I've never been beaten at Wrestlemania" and make it convincing because he can bitch about Money in the Bank not counting the way everyone does. Officially, Edge is 5-1.

 

[hbk&triple h]

He was defeated. End of story. He was in a match. He didn't win.
If you are in a wrestling match it doesn't matter how many other superstars there are, if you don't win you lose.

Therefore Edge didn't win meaning he lost. I didn't see Edge coming down with that briefcase. It doesn't matter if he was injured or not he did not walk out of there that nigth in possession of the briefcase.

"Let me describe even further. In a triple threat match, Wrestler A pins Wrester B while Wrestler C is on the outside. Wrestler "A" wins. Wrestler "B" loses. Wrestler "C" does niether. Wrestler "C" did not defeat anybody, nor was he defeated."

This is wrong. Wrestler C is defeated because he failed to make the pin fall or make his opponent tap. Wrestler A won the match meaning everybody else in the match lost.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

The way I see it, there are three options: you win the match, you lose the match, or you and everybody else is involved in a tie.

You win if you're the one winning the match.
You tie if there's a double count-out, double disqualification, no-contest, etc, but not just if you aren't the one being pinned.

Look at the Royal Rumble. Are we to say that in 07, the Undertaker won the rumble and 29 other guys weren't defeated, they just stalemated? Nope, they lost.

By that definition, since Edge didn't win the Money in the Bank match, AND since somebody else did (instead of all of the participants being taken out of the match, which would've been a tie), he lost. So by that rationale, he has one loss.

 

[Jack bruce]

I can see wwe pulling another Triple H off with the o i never lost listen remember during the whole Batista and Triple H feud Triple H saying he never lost in HIAC when infact the 6 man HIAC Feat.taker,angle,HHH,austin,rikishi and rocky. and angle won i see it being the same way just cause he was never pinned or didnt last the entire match.

 

[Hdog684]

When you're in a match, there are three possible outcomes: a win, a loss, or a draw. When another wrestler wins that match, you lost. Period. There are no "no decisions" in wresting like in baseball. The only reason this is even up for debate is because Edge is so popular on these boards. If John Cena was in the same situation, nobody would dare say it shouldn't count as a loss.

With that said, I do expect Edge to claim he's undefeated and maybe even have Vickie Guerrero "officially" list him as 5-0. I would expect Cole and JBL to argue over whether or not he really is undefeated. It'll be a similiar situation to Chris Masters and his masterlock being "unbroken" even though it was broken a few times(by the soldier in Iraq and Ron Simmons) before Lashley "officially" broke it.

 

[jacksimon1234]

Edge did lose he lost wreslemania 23 in the money in the bank match the person who wins is the person that grabbed the case and edge did not he had a nearly busted back because of jeff hardy when he jumped of that 20 foot high ladder and nearly busted his own back and in that case he lost because they couldn't wrestle anymore so it is 5-1 at wrestlemania.

 

[Gold_Shadow89]

I dont think he ever lost just because of the fact after the Jeff Hardy stunt, Edge was taken out of the match. he lost even if he was taken out of the match? if he were still in the match then he would have lost cause KK ended up winning that match. but then again edge beat KK on Raw and won the briefcase from him. and then use the briefcase on smackdown! and beat the undertaker for the world title. but all in all, no he didn't really lose the match just because he was taken out early and was taken to the back. if edge were still somewhere near the ring during the match, then you could argue something. but the fact that he was no where near the ring because he left the match along with jeff hardy, that means that even if it looks like he lost, literally Edge never lost the match.