Is anybody else sick of how "historic" the Streak apparently is?

[MisterRob]

1. Jimmy Snuka- HOF
Jake the Snake- HOF
Diesel- Future HOFer
Kane- Future HOFer
Triple H- Future Hofer
Ric Flair- HOF
Big Show- Future HOFer
Randy Orton- Future HOFer
Mark Henry- Likely Future HOFer
Batista- Likely Future HOFer
Edge- HOF
Shawn Michaels- HOF
CM Punk- Who knows

I count 5 HOFers, about 7 future HOF, and 1 possible HOF depending on what happens with CM Punk...

Yes, you're right, I had forgotten that Edge was a quick Hall of Fame inductee. While many of those are possible Hall of Famers, they aren't yet and who knows how long until some of those become Hall of Famers. As it is now, out of 22 matches he still only beat Five Hall of Famers.

And I doubt Mark Henry is really Hall of Fame worthy.

2. It's called a rematch, and when your facing Shawn Michaels and Triple H twice, it's not like it is a foregone conclusion... They're both two of the GOAT.

It was a forgone conclusion, though. No one believed the streak would end in ANY of those matches.

3. ONLY 10... yea thats not that much...

No, it's not. Considering Undertaker was involved in and won 22 matches, and his streak was hyped up to be this legendary thing... he was only involved in THREE matches that were THE main event, the very last match on the card. The other 7 were all second and mostly third on the card, which really is the high MID-Card. And TWELVE of his matches were mid-card and lower. Those details really show the importance and the drawing ability of the Undertaker and his Streak, and his career really, when he was there for decades and never consistently given the top billing.

Let's put his streak into perspective, shall we?

John Cena has had 11 matches at Wrestlemania. He's won 8 and he's lost 3. All but ONE of those matches were the main event.

Th Rock has had only 10 matches at Wrestlemania, a far less career then Undertaker. He's won 5 and lost 5, yet he's been in the main event SEVEN times out of 10!

Hulk Hogan, one of if not THE greatest of all time has only had 11 matches at Wrestlemania. He's won 8 and lost 1, with 1 draw. He was in the main event for NINE out of 11!

Even Randy Savage, Edge, Triple H and Randy Orton have all been in the main event of Wrestlemania more times then the Undertaker. So how is a streak that impressive when it's just a mid-card match where everyone knows the outcome before hand, and its done merely to continue itself each year?

4. Who cares if the match wasn't the main event? He still won a match at Mania every year for 21 years! That's incredible no matter how you look at it.

Why is that so incredible? He was pretty much involved in unimportant matches that were low on the card for a good portion of his first Wrestlemania streak, and then when Vince McMahon became more aware of the STREAK it all became about the continuing the STREAK, and had nothing to do with the wrestler, the Undertaker.

5. Lastly Bruno's run was scripted as well so how is Sammartino's streak legit while Taker's is "not that impressive?"

Because Bruno, during his entire "streak" was THE MAN. He was in the main events, the top draw, and no one else was able to replace him in that spot for that entire time. You look through the history of wrestling and look at the stars who became THE MAN, and became World champions and the face of their promotions... there's very few you can name that could be said to have held that spot for that many years. And to hold that spot the entire time, it proves just how much of a draw and a star Bruno was. You certainly can't say the Undertaker or his Streak compare to that, as I've already shown he was only in that spot 3 times in 22 years. And that was one night, on one show, each year.

 

[RedRegan1005]

Bruno was from a completely different era of wrestling, where the business was very different.

Goldberg's streak was inflated with flase numbers, and consisted of alot of jobbers and squash matches. It was also ended by a stun gun. Dumb WCW booking.

The Undertaker went 21-0 on the biggest wrestling event of the year, against big name guys, and put on great matches. It was a great thing, and I was shocked that it ended but can totally understand why it did. My only issue with the streak, is that even with out it the UnderTaker is still one of the greatest of all time, and sometimes I felt the legacy of the streak overshadowed all the other great things he has done.

 

[therockiswwf]

Undertaker was only 3-0 at this point. So marketing gimmick or not, the streak did not happen by accident.

Incredibly wrong. The streak wasn't much of a thing until as previously said before, Wrestlemania 23. Undertaker was supposed to lose/wanted to lose multiple times (most notably vs Roberts, Diesel, Orton, 1st match with Kane) and he ultimately won those matches not because of the streak, but because of other circumstances. If the streak was intentional, he would have won those because of the streak which he did not.

Make no mistake about it, the streak was a total accident. They barely mentioned before Orton (even then it wasn't about the streak just yet) and mostly only mentioned by JR who for some reason had a hard on for telling the record of every single wrestler at every single PPV.

But lets say this was planned at the very beginning. Why didn't they make a huge deal until way later and when Taker was getting older? Think they knew he was going to last this long? Of course not. You can't plan for something like the streak because it would mean that the guy would have to last for an incredible amount of time and not get injured. I mean RVD is 4-0 at mania, think that was planned? Nope, it just happened to be like that. Starting to see why it wasn't planned?


But to answer the OP's question, Taker's streak is more impressive by a mile. The other two were planned and while Taker's was not. What makes it even more impressive is that it lasted way longer than the other streaks which means Taker lasted longer. That what impresses me, Undertaker's longevity.

 

[TDFG]

One the things that annoys me about The Streak is that it seems WWE likes to forget that Undertaker defeated HHH at WM XVII.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

The Undertaker's streak lasted 23 years....TWENTY THREE YEARS...almost a quarter of a century.

It's not the number of matches he won, as Bruno's title reign, Goldberg's streak etc involved a lot more matches, but its the unbelievable achievement of being capable of remaining a top level wrestler in the biggest company in the world for over 23 years, and being able to have great matches year after year on the biggest show of the year.

Most wrestler's careers dont last 23 years. especially not 23 years as a main attraction for WWE. It's astonishing that Undertaker has managed to remain relevant, and perform as well as he has for so long. It will never happen again.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Not in the least because hyping something that's as big as the streak, how fans have embraced it and how it's made so much money for WWE is what you're supposed to do. Why do you think every wrestling company Ric Flair has ever worked for have continuously harped on how many times he's been a World Champion? Why do you think The Four Horsemen, nWo and D-Generation X are frequently mentioned among THE great factions of wrestling history? Why do people still talk about Taker vs. Mankind in HIAC back in '98? Why do they talk about the first TLC matches at WrestleMania? The answer to all these questions is very simple: because all of these things were so damn good, groundbreaking, historic or some combination of all of the above that they merit being talked about.

The streak is one of those things not necessarily because of the streak itself, but because of fan interest in the streak. Is it as historic as Bruno Sammartino's near 8 year run as WWWF Champion? In it's own way but, at the same time, they're completely different. Sammartino was a great champion and it's true that a lot of people grew up when Sammartino was the man. People also grew up during the streak and have fond memories of it. When both Sammartino's reign & Taker's streak ended, fans were absolutely shocked because these were rock solid foundations for the company and they ended without any degree of warning or foresight.

Comparing Goldberg's streak is ludicrous when you consider that the vast majority of Goldberg's wins came in 2 minute squash matches over faceless jobbers. What made Goldberg special was his undefeated streak because it gave him a means of standing out. Goldberg wasn't a particularly good wrestler and his shortcomings were obvious if a match went longer than 5 minutes, nor was he especially charismatic or good on the mic. When his streak ended, so did anything that made Goldberg marketable.