If THE STREAK Was Ended a Year Earlier?

[OYDK]

After Brock Lesnar broke The Streak and I got over my shock, the first question that came to mind was, why couldn't CM Punk end The Streak at Mania 29? I know WWE probably didn't have Lesnar scheduled to break it until about mid-year and Vince wanted to keep The Streak going for as long as humanly possible but, don't you think CM Punk would have been the perfect guy to end The Streak? First of all, the story was amazing with CM Punk stealing "Paul Bearer's ashes" and than literally dumping them on Taker after attacking him. THIS was the angle that should have led to The Streak ending because it was a once in a lifetime angle for Taker (Paul Bearer being the "only one that Taker ever cared about") and CM Punk was easily the best heel in the company. This also may have kept Punk content because he would have finally been given the "respect he deserves" and people would have been much more happy with this outcome I believe.

Sure Punk is no Lesnar stature-wise but if you can believe Shawn Michaels can brake The Streak, than you can believe CM Punk could do it too.

On the other hand this could have ended in disaster as well, as Punk may have left the company anyway taking The Streak with him.

Question: Would you have rather The Streak ended last year or are you happy with Brock Lesnar being the 1 in 21?

 

[Eddie Menuek]

If there's one reason that I think you absolutely cannot put forward as an argument for The Streak ending at Wrestlemania 29, it's the storyline. Sometimes, the good guy just has to win. That was one of those times. You can't have the biggest prick in the company mock the death of one of the most legendary managers in the business, and not have that guy receive just deserts. And I'm talking as somebody who thought that the storyline was great - it pushed the boundaries without going past them. But that storyline has to end with the feel good moment.

 

[OYDK]

If there's one reason that I think you absolutely cannot put forward as an argument for The Streak ending at Wrestlemania 29, it's the storyline. Sometimes, the good guy just has to win. That was one of those times. You can't have the biggest prick in the company mock the death of one of the most legendary managers in the business, and not have that guy receive just deserts. And I'm talking as somebody who thought that the storyline was great - it pushed the boundaries without going past them. But that storyline has to end with the feel good moment.

This was going through my head the whole time as well, but I always thought WWE could do something to have Taker come out on top in the end. I could see Punk taunting over Taker for about 5 minutes after he wins, Taker sits up, crowd goes nuts, Tombstone to Punk, picks up the urn and does his salute, lights go out, when they come back on Taker's gone. Do you think this could work?

 

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

Why would WWE do that? Why?

Who in the blue hell is CM Punk?

You wanted him to hold the WWE title for 434 days then end the streak?

How about they bring back Austin, Michaels, Bret, Flair and Hogan and let them job to him in a gauntlet match?

SMH.


Punk is probably the most overrated wrestler ever.

They booked him like a Austin/Hogan when they should've booked him like a Jericho (who btw is 20x better than punk ever was)

 

[Eddie Menuek]

This was going through my head the whole time as well, but I always thought WWE could do something to have Taker come out on top in the end. I could see Punk taunting over Taker for about 5 minutes after he wins, Taker sits up, crowd goes nuts, Tombstone to Punk, picks up the urn and does his salute, lights go out, when they come back on Taker's gone. Do you think this could work?

Probably not. It all seems like a bit of a cluster. If you consider the crowd's actual reaction to The Streak ending seven days ago, I'm not sure they'd have been able to digest so much. While I wasn't a fan of the idea of The Streak being broken, at all, in terms of the actual execution of it last Sunday I don't think it could have been executed much better than it was (unless you're considering how bad the actual match itself was). It wasn't supposed to be a feel good moment for the fans and the fans weren't given anything to feel good about. It was a sombre moment for us to digest what we'd just seen and we were given every opportunity to do so.

 

[kadroan]

I would have wanted Punk to end it last year. I wasn't a fan how they threw him to the side for Rock/Cena 2.

Ending the streak would have been a good followup and make him a serious contender in the title hunt

 

[lil steroid meat]

What would that have done for Punk? Already was champion for 400 + days and up until that point, he was not booked as unbeatable or anything like that.

Although it would have been interesting if he still had the title around WM, and cheated to retain the WWE Title and end the streak. That would have put him in a new category of heel.

Personally, I would have preferred Cena to end it, turn heel, and have him "retire" the next night being a Flair type of figure in a heel stable for the next year until the build for WM31 where he would face Reigns so Reigns could get the Streak rub without the Streak heat.

But . . . . Brock is not a bad choice because now they have a final boss/bad guy/modern day Andre The Giant type of character that the next person to beat Brock gets a huge rub. Not to mention, Brock beating the streak is the best choice in kayfabe because it took a legit UFC Heavyweight Champion to end it (although in the actual match, I wish they brawled a little bit more and showed the MMA background of both of the competitors).

 

[Dagger Dias]

CM Punk was never going to end the streak. Would I have preferred him ending the streak instead of Brock Lesnar? Yes, actually. Brock is going to be an evil hated monster heel no matter what he does. He did not NEED to end the streak in order to get such a reaction from the fans. Ending the streak could have been used to truly benefit a good number of other wrestlers. Punk claimed to be the best in the world. Well, adding that to his list of bragging rights certainly would have helped. The only problem is that if it had ended last year, it likely still would have been Lesnar, meaning Punk would either have faced Triple H last year or been put into a triple threat with Cena and The Rock for the WWE Championship. Taker had to have hand picked the one to defeat him. If Taker would have been ok with it, Punk would have been the one.

 

[Softcore Holly]

He wouldn't be looked at as such a monster if he was beaten by a 49 year old man at the end of his career and about to retire.

Not really, people don't think any less of HHH, Punk or anyone else Taker has beaten even in Taker's later years. Besides there's a thousand other ways they can make Brock look like a total monster, losing at WM to Taker wouldn't have changed that. If anything if we look at it as beating a "49 year old man at the end of his career and about to retire" then it's really not that big of a accomplish to build a monster on.

More on topic whether it's a good idea.....it would be huge challenge for creative to make it work but there are some possibilities there. Certainly would've been better than what happened last week. The streak would've ended in a great match with amazing build up compared to a crappy match with very little build up. And it would go to a full timer(at the time anyway) instead of a guy we're hoping to work more than 3 matches from now until next WM.

I personally wanted Taker to retire with the streak intact, but if I had a choice between WM29 and 30, 29 all the way.

 

[Kidpolean]

Why not Punk??? Really?

where is Punk right now?

maybe the WWE see's how unstable this guy is so they refuse to give him such an honor. He has threatened to leave the company twice in 3 years so of course he wouldn't end the streak. Also Paul Bearer had just passed away so it would be an insult to him and his family for Punk to mock Bearer and win. Punk was, at the time, the second most popular guy on the roster so why would you do something that would force him into being a career heel???

honestly, I can't think of one logical reason why Punk should have won at WM29...it just doesn't makes sense.

 

[chicagokmc]

It didn't play out this way, but if Punk had stayed around, (assuming WWE was letting Taker pick the streak ender) I would have tried talking Taker into losing it to Punk this year in the rematch to WM29. Two things would have been different this year, one - time passed, enough time for many to forget the Paul Bearer bad taste comments (I forgot them until I read this post), two - no longer being associated with Paul Heyman. Before WM 29, he was the Paul Heyman guy getting face pop, this year he would have been an actual face. I think the fans this year would be more accepting of that than they would have been 1 year ago.

But that was not to be.

 

[OYDK]

Why not Punk??? Really?

where is Punk right now?

maybe the WWE see's how unstable this guy is so they refuse to give him such an honor. He has threatened to leave the company twice in 3 years so of course he wouldn't end the streak. Also Paul Bearer had just passed away so it would be an insult to him and his family for Punk to mock Bearer and win. Punk was, at the time, the second most popular guy on the roster so why would you do something that would force him into being a career heel???

honestly, I can't think of one logical reason why Punk should have won at WM29...it just doesn't makes sense.

You have to think about how the win would have affected everything for CM Punk. I said that it is a risk because he still may have left, but do you see Punk walking out after ending The Streak? If he did that, than he should just stay home period.
Also the Bearer fact has been pointed out and I agree that it would have been tough to book, but not impossible. As I said in an earlier post, you can still have Taker come out on top after the match, have him do his schpeel, turn the lights out, and when they come back he's gone so nobody knows if he is coming back... I can see Taker going out in worse ways such as flat on his back with a concussion.

Punk at the time was the #1 heel in the company by far and the win would have gotten him MAJOR heat, which he could have used to build some top babyfaces. If the fans can forgive Austin after siding with Vince, they can forgive Punk for beating Taker clean.

Also Punk was a full time guy who was already guaranteed to never be a flop (which was most peoples concerns with somebody like Reigns or Wyatt ending it) and Lesnar will probably wrestle three more matches and be gone after Mania.. where's the sense in that? Sure Lesnar can be used to put ONE guy over, but anybody Punk feuded with would have been over win or lose had he broke The Streak.

 

[Kidpolean]

You have to think about how the win would have affected everything for CM Punk. I said that it is a risk because he still may have left, but do you see Punk walking out after ending The Streak? If he did that, than he should just stay home period.
Also the Bearer fact has been pointed out and I agree that it would have been tough to book, but not impossible. As I said in an earlier post, you can still have Taker come out on top after the match, have him do his schpeel, turn the lights out, and when they come back he's gone so nobody knows if he is coming back... I can see Taker going out in worse ways such as flat on his back with a concussion.

Punk at the time was the #1 heel in the company by far and the win would have gotten him MAJOR heat, which he could have used to build some top babyfaces. If the fans can forgive Austin after siding with Vince, they can forgive Punk for beating Taker clean.

Also Punk was a full time guy who was already guaranteed to never be a flop (which was most peoples concerns with somebody like Reigns or Wyatt ending it) and Lesnar will probably wrestle three more matches and be gone after Mania.. where's the sense in that? Sure Lesnar can be used to put ONE guy over, but anybody Punk feuded with would have been over win or lose had he broke The Streak.

it seems like you are arguing two different things here...are u asking if cm punk should have ended the streak OR if cm punk was a better option than Brock? Punk ending the streak last year would have been dumb considering his attitude to the WWE. Either punk would have still walked OR DB wouldn't be where he is right now imo.

Should Punk have ended the streak....No
Is Punk a better option than Brock....maybe but probably not

IMO, if we are going to question a match that should have been his last than WM28 is my choice. But HHH shouldn't have ended, so maybe I'm saying that it just shouldnt have ended.

BTW...imo the CM Punk match felt kinda like a streak filler match more than any other match in recent years. And if you consider how bad wm29 was, than I say HELL NO!!!

 

[OYDK]

it seems like you are arguing two different things here...are u asking if cm punk should have ended the streak OR if cm punk was a better option than Brock? Punk ending the streak last year would have been dumb considering his attitude to the WWE. Either punk would have still walked OR DB wouldn't be where he is right now imo.

Should Punk have ended the streak....No
Is Punk a better option than Brock....maybe but probably not

IMO, if we are going to question a match that should have been his last than WM28 is my choice. But HHH shouldn't have ended, so maybe I'm saying that it just shouldnt have ended.

BTW...imo the CM Punk match felt kinda like a streak filler match more than any other match in recent years. And if you consider how bad wm29 was, than I say HELL NO!!!

Sorry, should probably clarify. I'm asking if The Streak was going to end anyway, is CM Punk at Mania 29 a better choice than Lesnar at Mania 30.

 

[steven87gill]

To be brutally honest, I'm not sure even getting to end the streak could've satiated Punk. And I'm speaking as a Punk fan who gets why he walked.

If he'd gone over the streak & still went AWOL, can you imagine how hard WWE would be blackballing him right now?

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

I think CM Punk breaking the Streak was a matter of commitment and where both the WWE and Punk were at contractually and relationship-wise. There are two scenarios:

1) Punk was holding out for more money, a WrestleMania main event, whatever, and was willing to walk. If that was the case, and the WWE was willing to entertain him, they could've offered for him to break the streak. I would've preferred Punk to Lesnar. Punk was coming off his big title reign, and this would've put him back at the forefront of people's minds even without having the title. But if the WWE was growing tired of his lack of commitment, then I obviously see why they wouldn't let him win.

2) Punk really, really, really was burnt out, and needed to get away from wrestling. In the wake of WrestleMania 30, can anyone honestly say with a straight face that there may be a point where a wrestler decides that he doesn't need to put his body on the line anymore, and can walk away intact, and financially stable? If that was the case, can someone truly fault Punk for that? Further, if the WWE at all suspected that might be the case, then obviously they wouldn't let Punk win.

So basically all signs point to Punk never really having a chance of winning his match against the Undertaker at WrestleMania 29. Also forgotten in the discussion is whether Taker would've gone for it at that point in time. We've yet to hear much about whether Undertaker was willing to end the streak prior to WrestleMania 30.

Would he have been willing to drop it to Punk? Possibly...but according to the WWE they've always left the choice with Taker. (Personally, I think he would've done it -- they may say the choice is with Undertaker, but if the WWE stated a case for Punk, I think when push comes to shove, UT is a company guy and would've gone with whoever they suggested).

 

[Mustang Sally]

.... but if you can believe Shawn Michaels can brake The Streak, than you can believe CM Punk could do it too.

Well, not completely, although I can understand the argument for it. I could believe either Shawn Michaels or Triple H, the guys who had the four shots at Undertaker prior to Punk, could have turned the trick because of their long service and legendary status with WWE.

Punk met neither of those standards. As good a skill set as he has....and as great as he apparently thinks himself to be..... he fell far short of the other two as a possibility to break the Streak, imo. Up to the moment Punk's match at WM29 began, I didn't think of him as a the man to end the Streak, though I believed HBK and Triple H to be capable of it.

CM Punk was playing the role of the unique rebel; the guy with skills so overwhelming that the company should deny him nothing. While I found him to be a talented performer, it still seemed he fell victim to believing in his own advertisement.....and it manifested itself in his quitting because the company wasn't depicting him in the manner he desired.

Ending the Streak is serious business; I didn't think the company would ever allow it to happen. So you might ask: How could Brock Lesnar do it? Did the company regard him as that great?

My answer is that Undertaker might have made the call. I think he went to Vince McMahon and said: "Enough." Brock Lesnar just happened to be the guy in line for the next shot when Mark Calaway made his decision.

Had CM Punk been the scheduled opponent when Calaway decided to end the Streak, perhaps he would have been the one to break it.....but that could also have been regarded as WWE truly catering to Punk, which they might not have wanted to do.

 

[boywithbluehanger]

Why would WWE do that? Why?

Who in the blue hell is CM Punk?

You wanted him to hold the WWE title for 434 days then end the streak?

How about they bring back Austin, Michaels, Bret, Flair and Hogan and let them job to him in a gauntlet match?

SMH.


Punk is probably the most overrated wrestler ever.

They booked him like a Austin/Hogan when they should've booked him like a Jericho (who btw is 20x better than punk ever was)

I can say that (coming from a Rock mark) you are arguably the most annoying Rock mark I have ever seen. But damnit, I agree with you 100%. CM Punk was given soooo much for a guy who didn't become "the next big thing". The writing and the company in general tried so hard to test the waters with him by giving him many opportunities. He just wasn't willing to do what he needed to in order to truly justify all of the "gifts" he received. He never established his gimmick as a babyface. He couldn't find consistent footing as a heel. He was given Heyman because of his inability to draw substantial heat from the crowd (despite his eloquence). They kept toggling between Punk's demand for respect then Punk claiming that he didn't care about what the crowd's thought.

He got to effectively squash Ryback's success and growth, be on the video game cover, beat Jericho at WM, have a 400+ day run with THE title, and beat The Rock at a PPV. If he would've beat Undertaker's streak (whilst not being financially beneficial to the company nor amassing the excitement and entertainment of someone who should be the "next big thing"), I would've certainly been even more upset with his pathetically long and failed push to become a legendary main eventer.

 

[The Man]

I would have loved it if The Streak was ended by Punk at WM 29 last year. The match was a borderline classic and is one of Taker's best matches. However, the match with Lesnar was pretty good, as well with very good storytelling. Also, the list of Superstars to face The Undertaker at Mania was incredibly scarce, so you can say that it was the right time to end it. Also, it was the first time (for me, anyway) that Taker showed his age in the ring.