If It Weren't For the Streak...

[jsm]

I know there are alot of threads about Undertaker and his undefeated streak, but I coundn't find one on this topic- at least not recently.
Here's what I'm thinking... when Undertaker debuted in the WWF, he was this monsterous guy who never lost, and went undefeated for a whole year, picking up his first WrestleMania win. Obviously, his WrestleMania undefeated streak wasn't originally planned, and I don't know when they decided to have him go undefeated on the Grandest Stage of them All. I do know that at WM XI, as Undertaker was making his entrance, (entering as 3-0) Vince McMahon commented that he was "the man who has never lost at WrestleMania", but it probabaly wasn't a plan for him to go undefeated at that point.
So let's say that if Undertaker had lost one of his early WrestleMania matches, and didn't HAVE to win every year, how would the other matches have ended? Also, some of the storylines might not have taken place, because some of the storylines involved "X tries to end Undertaker's WrestleMania undefeated streak."
Here are my predictions:
WM 7- He would have beaten Jimmy Snuka- he was still undefeated in WWF at this time.
WM 8- He would have beaten Jake Roberts- 'Taker was still dominant, and had recently turned face.
WM 9- He would have beaten Giant Gonzales- I think the DQ win continued their rivalry.
WM 11- He would have beaten Bundy- that match wasn't really close.
WM 12- He probabaly still would have beaten Diesel, but that match was close.
WM 13- He would have beaten Sid- "Taker winning the title at WM 13 was symbolic.
WM 14- His first WM loss would have been to Kane. Kane was destroying people left and right. Plus it took THREE tombstones for him to pin Kane.
WM 15- He would have beaten Big Bossman- the match was never even close.
WM 17- This is a tough choice. Triple H had momentum, but I think Undertaker would have won, because it was in his hometown.
WM 18- He would have beaten Ric Flair- Undertaker was a heel, and this showed how ruthless he could be- plus there is no way Flair could have kicked out of that tombstone.
WM 19- He would have lost to Big Show and A-Train- 2-on-1 odds.
WM 20 - He would have beaten Kane- it was the return of the Deadman
WM 21- He would have lost to Randy Orton. Orton's gimmick was the legend killer- after all.
WM 22- He would have beaten Mark Henry.
WM 23- He would have lost to Batista, they rarely have the title change from a face to another face- if it weren't for the streak Batista would have won.
WM 24- He would have lost to Edge- Edge was in control for most of the match
WM 25- He would have beaten Shawn Michaels- He had never beaten Michaels, and they wanted to have Undertaker win, since it's probabaly the last time they will go one on one.

So in the end, his WrestleMania record would still be 12-5, which is still very impressive.
So what do you think he would have lost to over the past years if he didn'y HAVE TO win every year? What would his record be now, if it weren't 17-0?

 

[ABMorales787]

If I remember correctly, it was around WM 17 where J.R. pointed out the streak and made it sound like such a big deal, apparently it was mere coincidence for the first few years and after a while they decided to roll with it. But I think it wouldn't matter how his Wrestlemania record would look like right now, it wouldn't stop making him as dominant as he is, if anything he'd probably play a role similar to Shawn Michaels each year.

 

[healyz84]

I still think that taker would have beated A-Train and Show in that 2 on 1 match regardless of the odds. Taker was just so dominant at that time, and his going over was needed. Everything else seems to fit the mould, but a lot of those later matches would never have happened with Taker losing that first match to Kane. Taker vs Orton may not have happened at WM, Orton was trying to kill the legend of the undefeated streak. Taker and HBK may also not have happened, because of the same reasons.

 

[DiscipleofWrestling]

I think that while you are right in respect that he could have lost at some of those events and still maintained a great record, I think that whether it was intended or not, the streak has become a vital part of the aura of The Undertaker's character. WrestleManias have been built as a result from that streak, especially in the last few years. Everybody's after the streak, for better or for worse. Without the streak, I think Undertaker's character suffers a little bit. And to be honest, I don't know if it would help anyone if they beat him. There'd be the euphoria of "Wow, that's the guy who beat Undertaker at WM....." for about a half a year. Then, it would die and Undertaker at WrestleMania would be just another guy. I think the streak has gone so far now that they really can't kill it because there's nothing to do with whomever were to end the streak. I don't think it would even help Superman Cena if Vince booked him to beat Undertaker at a future WrestleMania. The streak is better intact.

As to the question though, I was as sure as hell that Taker would lose to Triple H at WM X-Seven. Triple H was really on fire at that time, and I thought he had enough pull to get the victory. Randy Orton really wasn't in a place where his beating the Undertaker would have made sense at WrestleMania 21. I think it was after Taker beat Batista at 23 that I finally said "That's it. The streak can't end now." I think the closest anyone will ever come is getting a three-count while Taker's foot is on the ropes, leading to the obligatory restart of the match routine.

I don't know if the Deadman has many WrestleManias left, but I think he should end it undefeated. It would be the crowning achievement in one of the greatest pro wrestling careers ever. Triple H can have 20 world title reigns. Let the Deadman have WrestleMania's soul.

 

[xNEWxAMERiKAx]

We don't know when the idea of the streak began as far as creative was concerned. But even without the streak, Undertaker still would have won most, maybe all of his matches. The storyline or other circumstances strongly supported 'Taker going over.

A little off-topic, but I think Undertaker should have an actual storyline at this year's WrestleMania. For the last three years I believe, the storyline has been about ending the streak, or at least it's been some aspect of the story. I'd like to see a change of pace this year.

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

It's no doubt that The Undertaker's greatest commodity is his Wrestlemania streak. As for what match Undertaker would have lost to at Wrestlemania, I'd say the most likely candidates would be Diesel and Randy Orton.

If you watched that Wrestlemania XII bout between Undertaker and Diesel, you'd see that Diesel dominated about 90% of the match. When he hit Undertaker with those two "Jacknife powerbombs", I was certain that Taker would lose... thankfully I was wrong. At Wrestlemania 21, Randy Orton had one of the greatest matches of his career at the time against The Undertaker. When "Cowboy" Bob Orton hit Undertaker with the cast, I said, "Goodbye streak!" Undertaker pulled out the win!

One thing that it certain about Undertaker's streak, had it not existed, is that Undertaker would not have the same amount of World Titles. He'd either have more reigns or less. He's won three of his six championships at Wrestlemania. So had it not been for the streak, he could have won more titles at other ppvs over the course of a year or less because he would lose those title matches at Wrestlemania. Plus, had it not been for the streak, Undertaker might have not been in nearly as many Wrestlemanias. He's only missed two since his debut.

So, if Undertaker did not have his Wrestlemania streak... a lot, and I mean a lot would be different. This includes The Undertaker's accomplishments, his legacy, championships, and even his opponents.

 

[The Brain]

First of all I don’t think the streak was really part of any story until WrestleMania 21 against Randy Orton. He is the one who had the best chance of beating Taker, although Triple H had a good chance too. Had Triple H beaten Taker it would have been more of a fun fact than a big deal that he ended the streak. Even though the streak was an impressive 8-0 at that time it wasn’t really a big deal as far as storyline yet. I don’t see losing to Diesel being realistic. I could be mistaken, but I believe it was already known that Diesel would be headed to WCW at that time. Streak or not, there was no way he was going over Taker at Mania when he was on his way out. I could see why some think Kane may have won at Mania XIV, but I really don’t think the streak was the reason for that outcome. I really don’t see Taker losing to Big Show and A Train despite it being a handicapped match.

As I said before, I think Orton was the one who had the best chance of ending the streak. He was the first to make it part of the storyline. He was the Legend Killer. He was originally planned to main event WrestleMania 21 so the company obviously had big plans for him. Since Orton didn’t do it I don’t see anyone ending the streak. I don’t know how much time Taker has left, but I think it would be appropriate for him to go 20-0 and then retire. I would love to see Taker vs. Cena as the main event for Mania 26. I could just picture all the Cena haters being terrified that he would be the one to end the streak since he’s been booked as superman. I think it would be a great crowd reaction

 

[lenguy]

What happend to my post!well thats weird.well you didnt look very hard. I made a thread topic very similar to this with the big WM list and the whole who would of beaten him,little over a week ago. All you did was tweek it up a bit. Shame on you! haha.

but orton.he had the right gimmick(legend killer) and had good momentum going into his match. plus he was in line for a big future.what better way to jump start that future than by ending the deadmans streak at wrestlemania. He would of got mass heat and maybe would of elevated orton into a whole new character. who knows

 

[avi01]

I doubt that pre-wrestlemania x7, the steak had much important. So it doesn`t really apply to Kane in 1998 and before imo.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

In most of these instances, from WM9 up until about WM 15, Taker had been getting the crap kicked out of him for the months leading up to WM, with 13 being the exception.

Also take into account that he needed Bret Hart to hit Sid with a chair to win at 13, because Sid controlled the majority of that contest.

Also, he'd definitely have still won against Show and A-Train because Nathan Jones interfered on Taker's behalf. Taker didn't win either of those matches on his own so his victories were guaranteed from that point of view.

Kane had been beating Taker for like 3 months straight before they got to 'Mania, not to mention everyone else, so they'd established the guy well enough. They put on a decent match where Kane was made to look like the better of the two throughout the match. After 3 tombstones, the 3rd being followed up with a lateral press instead of just folding his arms over, Kane only just failed to kick out.

Flair was never going to beat Taker. He barely beat McMahon at the Royal Rumble so how was he going to beat Taker? Even with a run in Taker managed to crush the Nature boy and leave him a bloody mess.

Orton and Batista probably had the best chances of ending the streak. I feel that it was a good decision to have Orton's 'Legend Killer' theme end with Taker rather than later when he lost to Hogan the following year. By losing to an active legend rather than an inactive one, it didin't kill his momentum quite as much, and by getting the win over Taker later on, he managed to regain it, whereas if Hogan had been the first legend he didn't beat, he wouldn't have been able to beat him later and re-establish himself.

As for Batista he just wins everything, plus he'd never been beaten for the title and had only just regained the bloody thing after his last return from the injured list, but you have to remember that Taker won the Rumble that year, and how often do the Rumble winners lose at Mania? Like 3 times out of the total 25? But, as someone said before, once Batista fell, i said 'yeah, Taker'll never lose'.

I never had any faith in Edge winning to be honest. He'd never even beaten Taker in a proper match, just stupid MITB run in and a triple threat where Batista was pinned so i knew Edge would lose, plus Orton retained, which meant Edge HAD to lose. There's never been a Mania where both Champs retained has there?

What i like is that Taker has beaten EVERY member of Evolution in a one-on-one match at WM, starting with the most experienced and succesful members, and beating the young, hungry up-and-comers second.

 

[gd]

I'm not going to look at each and every match in Taker's WM career, but I think it's safe to say that he would've lost a fair share of them. Win/Loss record doesn't really matter for, except for when it's part of a storyline, which it is in Undertaker's case.

I also think that his opponents and feuds going into Wrestlemania would've been much different. A lot of them were only about ending the streak and not much else. If the streak wasn't there, there would be completely different storylines and possibly completely different opponents.

Take this year for example, there wasn't much build up to the match other than HBK vowing to end the streak. If Taker has a few Wrestlemania loses, there would have to have been a whole new storyline thought up that would have likely taken awhile to develop.

What the streak does is give WWE creative an simple and effective storyline they can count on each year without much buildup. I don't think it should end, until Taker's last Mania of course.

 

[CKDaimen]

WM 7- He would have beaten Jimmy Snuka- he was still undefeated in WWF at this time.
Agreed
WM 8- He would have beaten Jake Roberts- 'Taker was still dominant, and had recently turned face.
Agreed
WM 9- He would have beaten Giant Gonzales- I think the DQ win continued their rivalry.
Agreed....Gonzales was too sloppy to get a win over Taker at mania but was also too monstrous for anybody to pin him
WM 11- He would have beaten Bundy- that match wasn't really close.
Agreed
WM 12- He probabaly still would have beaten Diesel, but that match was close.
I don't remember if it was known Diesel would leave here or if it was revealed shortly after in Mania. Although I can see Taker winning, this was the first Mania where when I watched it I was like, "Huh...that's funny...I felt the other guy winning that."
WM 13- He would have beaten Sid- "Taker winning the title at WM 13 was symbolic.
Agreed
WM 14- His first WM loss would have been to Kane. Kane was destroying people left and right. Plus it took THREE tombstones for him to pin Kane.
This is when I really said, "Something is up" I really felt Kane winning this. I didn't think about the streak but I knew something was up. But I guess Kane was gonna lose eventually, but if it weren't for the streak, though I'm not convinced, I think there is a REALLY, REALLY good chance that Taker would have passed the "unbeatable monster" torch to Kane here. I know some may say the streak wasn't mentioned so it wasn't relevent here, but if you go six straight manias undefeated, trust me, Vince and the writing staff noticed. They might not have planned to make the streak as big as it is today, but they knew the relevence of having Taker lose at Mania.
WM 15- He would have beaten Big Bossman- the match was never even close.
Agreed
WM 17- This is a tough choice. Triple H had momentum, but I think Undertaker would have won, because it was in his hometown.
This is when I KNEW FOR A FACT something was up. HHH had SO MUCH MOMENTUM coming into this. He had just beaten STONE COLD IN A 2 OUT OF 3 MATCH AT NO WAY OUT, AND AUSTIN WAS MAIN EVENTING MANIA!!! Although I knew something was up, in hindsight, I can see Taker winning because Taker matches up well with HHH and it was in his hometown. But momentum wise, at the time, I suspected major politics for Taker to win.
WM 18- He would have beaten Ric Flair- Undertaker was a heel, and this showed how ruthless he could be- plus there is no way Flair could have kicked out of that tombstone.
Agreed
WM 19- He would have lost to Big Show and A-Train- 2-on-1 odds.
No way. Like someone pointed out, Nathan Jones would have helped anyway.
WM 20 - He would have beaten Kane- it was the return of the Deadman
Agreed but this is closer than most might think, especially if Taker had still beat Kane at WM 14, this would have meant Taker beating Kane twice at Mania, and without a streak, this would have been hard because Kane also had a lot of momentum as he had just lost the mask and had a lot of reborn momentum and was on a winning streak if I remember correctly.
WM 21- He would have lost to Randy Orton. Orton's gimmick was the legend killer- after all.
I still think Taker would have won this. Just because Orton was the legend killer doesn't mean he would have won all his matches against legends. He wasn't ready to beat Taker at this point...if he couldn't beat HHH at this point he also wasn't ready to go over Taker.
WM 22- He would have beaten Mark Henry.
Agreed
WM 23- He would have lost to Batista, they rarely have the title change from a face to another face- if it weren't for the streak Batista would have won.
Yeah like someone said, this is when I said, 'ok, the streak won't ever end' If not for the streak, though still very close and I can still see Taker winning, I don't know if Batista would have been booked to lose. Put it to you like this.....let's say Batista had the streak and Taker didn't...Batista would have won. That's all I'll say.
WM 24- He would have lost to Edge- Edge was in control for most of the match
No way, he would have beat Edge....having control of the match doesn't mean anything, as it is scripted and faces often make big comebacks. How many matches did Hogan win were he was domianted for most of the match?
WM 25- He would have beaten Shawn Michaels- He had never beaten Michaels, and they wanted to have Undertaker win, since it's probabaly the last time they will go one on one.
Agreed, Shawn has been losing pretty much all EPIC ppv matches since 2003

Overall, I think Kane, HHH and Batista were the most controversial, but in Taker's defense, I don't think there is any one match where it's like, "If not for the streak he DEFINITELY would have lost."

 

[dimice76]

In reguards to Wrestlemania XII, if Nash was not going to WCW, I believe the original plans would of called for Nash to beat 'Taker. Think about it, from Survivor Series '95 on Nash was turning from face to tweener, to heel. Nash was going to be on a collision course with HBK who was winning the title from Hart. Nash vs HBK 2 was going to be the WWF(e)'s big summer of 96 program with HBK FINALLY beating Nash. In order for Nash to have monster heel momentum in this feud, he would of had to beat 'Taker at WM. Instead as we all know, Nash going to WCW got out shortly after In Your House in feb, so there became no way 'Taker was going to lose to a guy headed to WCW.

Wrestlemania X-7 was the most surprising to me, because HHH had beaten Austin 2 straight falls at NWO in Feb. The backlash poster I believe had an image of HHH with the sledgehammer. The feeling was before Austin turned heel, was that Austin would beat Rock, HHH would beat 'Taker and then HHH would challenge Austin at Backlash for the title. HHH beating Austin at NWO and 'Taker at WM would of given HHH huge momentum going into Backlash had Austin not turned heel.

These are the 2 in the streak that seem most likely to have gone the other way IMO.

 

[samboisdead]

While I am sure the streak want planned honestly Undertaker doesnt lose many matches period. Honestly the man only gets beaten like every 100th match or so. I think by the end of year one they new they had a huge star on their hands. Everything just alogned for this guy. Really as corny and cheesy as the gimmick started out this is a charachter who should have went the way of Damien Demento in just a short time. Anyway I think if you rewind time 100 times Undertaker goes undefeated at Wrestlemania everytime. For one he has never wrestled anyone at Mania that could legit beat him. Even Micheals as good as he is I wouldnt belive he could drop Taker. The streak is cool but Taker doesnt really need it. hinestly i think they should have him lose at a Mania just to build some young star. Takers streak is the length of time he has been on top in one company. You take all the top stars ever...Hogan, Flair, Brett Hart, SCSA, The Rock, HHH, Sting, Dusty Rhodes, Andre none of these guys have been able to stay in one comapany their whole career and dominate and in dominate i mean be able to be the main event of every show like the Undertaker has. No matter how lame of a match...see his Mania match against the Giant Gonzalez, his match is always pretty much the most anticipated match of the night. Also I am not an Undertaker mark. I have honestly never really been a big fan of his. I always see him as Mark Callous the lame replacement of Sid in the Skyscrapers when Sid left for WWE. Despite this I have been to several live events in my life, I have witnessed Hogan, Flair, Andre, Sting, Hart, Flair, Sting, Goldberg, HHH, Cena, The Rock, Angle, Dusty, and Taker live. I can honest to say I have never had a chill creep up my spine or been more excited by seeing any of these guys more than Taker. If you have ever witnessed his entrance live you no what I am talking about. Something just takes over the building when he comes out and you cant help but get goosebumps. Also for anyone who claims Hogan never helped create stars i give you The Undertaker.

 

[attitude_hero]

I think it was around wrestlemania 18 that the streak really took significance. I remember on Draft day (2002), when undertaker got drafted by Ric flair, a graphic showed up pointing out he was 10-0.

 

[The Gribbler]

It's an interesting question, i think all but the Triple H, Randy Orton and Edge wins would still be wins. If not for the streak I think Triple H would have politicked his win, I think Randy may have gone over (really a 50/50 call) and I think Edge would have gone over just to solidify his heel character.

So I think he would still be 14-3 at worst 17-0 is still possible even without the storyline of the streak. All three of those I mentioned really were 50-50.

Just My Opinion

 

[Dagger Dias]

I think he would have lost to Kane at 14. Then he would have won against everyone else except probably Orton, Edge or HBK would all be more likely to beat him. So he would be 13-4, which is still a great win/loss record. I think that Taker would still be a legend without the streak, but not as legendary.
_

 

[Sean Valjean]

I can really only imagine two times that Taker would've lost at Wrestlemania.

WM 14: Kane would've won. He was, pardon the pun, on fire at the time and as we know it took 3 tombstones to beat him.

WM 21: I think Orton would've beaten him too. He had a lot of momentum going in to that match and had his Legend Killer gimmick working for him as well. Orton was also among the closest to ending the streak.


Honorable mentions:

WM X-7: His fued with Trips was pretty even and this is Triple H we're talking about.

WM 19: Though Taker winning a handicap match, even against the likes of A-Train and Big Show, woudn't be unbeliavble, if they didn't feel obligated to continue the streak, I could see them having Taker lose to set up a fued between Taker and Nathan Jones since he'd be pissed that Jones didn't show.

WM 23: As someone said, world titles don't often change in face vs face matches, especially at Wrestlemania. Also, this was the first ever meeting of the two and Batista would've benefitted from the win much more than Taker. If it weren't for the streak, I could see Batista winning, though by the thinnest of margins.

 

[Canadian-BadAss]

thats a REALLY tough call.. i think if 'taker lost at an early WM, then i dont think we would be having this convo.. as i dont think his gimmic would have gone on as long as it has

 

[Validus]

Agreed, Shawn has been losing pretty much all EPIC ppv matches since 2003

Of course . He doesn't complain about loosing anymore . But he still owns Wrestlemania , even if he looses .

I don't think it would have mattered (< is that a real word ?) if 'Taker lost a couple of matches . Yeah , his streak would have been really impressive but I don't think it would have the same momentum .
One of my friends is a big Undertaker fan , I actually got him to watch wrestling cause of 'Taker . I told him that 'Taker had a huge Wrestlemania streak . 15 - 0 . (At that time it was Wrestlemani 24 .) He had a pretty good reaction to that . If I told him he had a 12-5 streak , my friend wouldn't have had the same reaction just because 'Taker lost .

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

The only matches I would have seen him lose would have to be:

WrestleMania XIV against Kane, Kane was just not giving up being the monster he was!! But I think for the sake of the feud that had lasted a long time, Taker had to win it, but hey Kane got the last laugh attacking Taker didn't he??

WrestleMania X-Seven against Triple H, NOW THIS IS WERE I BELIEVE THE WHOLE STREAK FIRST CAME IN!! Triple H mentioned he ahd defeated everyone in the business there is..then Taker came in, then HHH mentioned he had not lost at WM and he mentioned 8-0...With all the momentum HHH had going into this, I have to say it was a great match as well, HHH could have gotten the win!!

WrestleMania 21 against Randy Orton, Only because Orton was the legend killer and had killed a lot of legends before this, but i like how the feud continued after Mania..

WrestleMania 22 against Mark Henry Casket Match, I only say this because according to WWE sources, Mark Henry was actually supposed to win this match!!! Imagine if he did??

There you go...his streak would be 14-4...