Kayfabe wise The Streak actually has a glaring hole in it

[Wald]

I've honestly never thought about this before but I was thinking about Austin and potential Wrestlemania match ups if he returned and Taker crossed my mind as someone he never faced at the big one. Now I don't think that would be a match people would really buy into but it got me thinking about the Streak from a kayfabe perspective and I realised this.

The Streak spanned four generations of WWE, beginning in 1991 at Wrestlemania VII and ending in 2014 at Wrestlemania XXX it took in the twilight of the Hogan Era, New Generation Era, Attitude Era and the Cena Era and saw Taker face off against stars from those eras like Jake Roberts, Kevin Nash, Triple H, Batista and Edge. All very big names to compete against but it made me realise what the glaring whole in the Streak was.

Undertaker never faced the top star of any era at Wrestlemania

He never took on Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania, never battled Bret Hart or squared off against Stone Cold or the Rock and, though he still might, all signs point to the dream match of Taker vs Cena now being dead in the water. One could argue that he faced HBK but I'd counter that HBK was always second fiddle to Bret Hart in the New Generation Era and even if you disagree with that than I'd still counter that he fought HBK about 10 years after that era ended.

I know this is pro wrestling but from a kayfabe stand point I do think that is a pretty large hole in the Streak regardless of Lesnar ending it this year. I'm European so I can only put this in soccer terms but it's like a good team winning the European Cup without having had to face and defeat Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Juventus or Chelsea and calling themselves great. It just wouldn't ring true and there would always be doubts over the achievement

 

[CyberPunk]

I don't think that's necessarily a hole in Taker's career or tarnishes his streak's legacy. The thing about the streak is it took it became a draw in itself. Kayfabe or not, going undefeated through 21 Manias is a huge deal. And to be very honest, Taker's streak was taken notice of much later. I think Orton was offered the opportunity of breaking the streak but he refused (It was 12 or 13-0 but I am feeling lazy to look it up).

Moreover, Taker's streak truly became a phenomenon in last 6 years. His streak is legendary not because he always faced the top guy (which obviously never happened) but because his matches for the streak in the last 5 years were fantastic. Barring this year, last 5 streak matches were MOTY or at least MOTN candidate. That's what makes Taker's streak so legendary. Because you gave a soccer analogy, I'll compare it more to a team which never lost a match at home over the years, whichever team it faced. be it Roma, Atletico Madrid or Liverpool. That makes it special.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I get what you're saying, and it is true that 'Taker never faced the "Face of the WWE at that time" at any Wrestlemania, but there is a few things to consider before questioning how impressive the Streak was.

WWE only started emphasising the importance of the Streak when it got to around 10 if I remember rightly. I recall JR talking about a decade of destruction for 'Taker around the time he faced Triple H at WrestleMania 17- I may have dates slightly wrong though. In the earlier matches of the Streak, it wasn't thought of as a winning streak, just a regular WM match so the level of opponent wasn't as important. As the Streak became more and more respected, there's no way 'Taker would have faced jobbers like Giant Gonzalez, as the Streak became a big selling point of WM.

Secondly, as the Streak grew The Dead Man defeated big star after big star at Wrestlemania. Having a winning streak which included 3 victories over Triple H, 2 over Shawn Michaels and Kane, wins over CM Punk, Randy Orton, Batista, Edge, Pyscho Sid Diesel and Ric Flair is a damn impressive resume. I don't feel cheated that we never saw 'Taker v Rock, Cena, Austin or Hart at WM. He's faced all of them numerous times before.

Finally, the more importance and emphasis WWE placed on the Streak, the more it became a WM selling point on it's own, whether or not Undertaker was wrestling for a World Title or not. I know he won the World Heavyweight Title several times at the big show, but when there were 2 World Titles already on the card (usually containing THE star of the company), the Streak match was another major match, pretty much a main event in it's own right- especially against the likes of HBK and Lesnar. People paid to see the big matches, and they paid to see 'Taker put his streak on the line as much as they paid to see the WWE title be defended.

 

[L@RISANO]

This is something I brought up a while ago on the forums and like you, even though I am a huge Taker mark , I also saw it as somewhat of a "hole" in the Streak.


However, the most logical response I got to that "concern" was that when the Streak gained prominence(mostly during the Legend Killer run of Orton) it became a selling point of Mania. Whilst the Faces of the company were always involved in other feuds which allowed for mutliple selling points rather than putting all of them together.


That said; I still believe that any of those Main Guys mentioned should have had a shot at the tail end of their in-ring careers(call it a last hurrah; like HBK attempted basically). So maybe we did indeed miss out to an extent after all.

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

Even though he never faced the top guy, he has had many Mania matches against main eventers from that time.

Mania 12 vs Diesel: Diesel was coming off of his year long title reign that ended at the Survivor Series before this Mania. Even though he was on his way out he was at this point the 2nd biggest star in the company behind Bret.

Mania 13 vs Sid: Sid was the champ going in and was the guy to end Shawn's big title reign of 96. He followed that up by beating Bret at the December IYH and again on the night after the IYH Final Four. With Shawn on the shelf at the time Sid was the 3rd biggest guy in the company at that time behind Bret and Taker with Austin shooting up the ranks.

Mania 14 vs Kane: While Mania 14 is remembered for Austin winning the title. The best match of the night and probably the best build for any Mania match in history goes to Taker vs Kane. Kane debuted in October of the previous year and was on fire (pun intended). After Austin, Michaels and Taker he was the next big thing in only a few months and really one match worth of work (vs Mankind at Survivor Series).

Mania 17 vs Triple H: The forgotten match against Triple H. Triple H had spent the previous two years (99 and 2000) transitioning from a mid carder to a main eventer. The build for this match was Trips bragging about beating Austin and Rock (true statements) and having no challengers. Of course this prompted the match with Taker who by this time was beneath Trips in the pecking order.

Mania 23 vs Batista: While Cena had already eclipsed Batista in terms of being the company's number one guy, Batista was clearly number two and a major face for the company. Batista was definitely ahead of Taker in the pecking order and I remember thinking that this would be the end of the streak.

To me those are the matches where Taker took on someone at or above his level all of whom were established main eventers at that time. He had other big matches against Orton and everything from Edge to Brock, but the matches I listed are clear examples of Taker taking on top stars from that time.

 

[Navi]

Finally, the more importance and emphasis WWE placed on the Streak, the more it became a WM selling point on it's own, whether or not Undertaker was wrestling for a World Title or not. I know he won the World Heavyweight Title several times at the big show, but when there were 2 World Titles already on the card (usually containing THE star of the company), the Streak match was another major match, pretty much a main event in it's own right- especially against the likes of HBK and Lesnar. People paid to see the big matches, and they paid to see 'Taker put his streak on the line as much as they paid to see the WWE title be defended.

Pretty much this. I always viewed two huge matches at Wrestlemania, the title match and the Undertaker's streak. More often than not those two weren't the same, and I think as time wore on it didn't matter who he faced as long as he won.

You can't have the number one contender facing the Undertaker and then facing off for the title later on. We had a similar scenario last year with Danial Bryan facing HHH and then Orton and Batista, but that to my knowledge is the only time it's ever happened.

Personally I didn't care who he faced. He always put on a good match and the most important fact is that he won them all, well except for last year. I would have been happier if he had won last year and then retired taking the streak with him instead of getting beat. The only person who should have broken the streak was someone they needed to put over in a huge way, and Lesnar wasn't the guy to that needed it.

But it's done and the next time I see Undertaker it should be when he goes into the Hall of Fame. He's entertained us for years and it's time for him to sit back, relax and have a normal life.

 

[rge2010]

You make some good points actually - I have often wondered if the Streak would ever have become what it was today had Taker ever had to face Hogan, Rock, Austin or Hart at Wrestlemania.

I am pretty sure Taker and Bret nearly faced off at Wrestlemania 12. Instead they faced off at The Royal Rumble and Taker won by a DQ.

As far as Hogan goes, Hogan vs Taker really would have added to the Wrestlemania X card as both missed the event. The only other chance I can think of was Wrestlemania 9 when Hogan was in a crappy tag match and Taker had to face Giant Gonzalez.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

With the exception of Bruno Sammartino, Hulk Hogan and John Cena, I don't believe that there's ever been a single FACE of WWE in its history. In the early 90s, when Hogan's time in WWE as the top dog was starting to slide a bit, the top two candidates to be Hogan's heir would probably have been The Ultimate Warrior and Bret Hart. Warrior was almost inhumanly difficult, allegedly, to work with at times, had conflicts with just about everyone and Bret Hart, while a fantastic in-ring wrestler and was decent on the mic, didn't have the over the top charisma and larger than life personality that Hogan did. Moving on through the 90s and into the early 2000s, other wrestlers emerged as top singles stars like Shawn Michaels, Diesel, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Mankind/Mick Foley, Taker himself, The Rock and Kurt Angle but none of them was ever THE single, definitive, 100% true face of the company. Rock & Austin were obviously the two strongest and likeliest candidates for that and it's debated to this day which of them was the bigger star.

Sammartino was before Taker's time, he faced & defeated Hogan outside of WrestleMania and he defeated John Cena before Cena's rise to being THE undisputed face of WWE for the past decade. If Taker didn't own victories over Stone Cold, The Rock, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Mick Foley, etc., then I believe there'd be a stronger argument for a blemish in Taker's streak. Besides, it's not as if WWE intentionally set out to make Taker's undefeated streak happen or for it to take on the level of interest and popularity it attained because there are just some things you can't plan for. It really wasn't until Taker was about 9 or 10-0 at WrestleMania that the company really started pouring all this prestige into it and it really wasn't until around his feud with Randy Orton and Orton's Legend Killer persona that the streak really became this huge focal point. After all, just take a look at some of Taker's opponents as a sign that it may not have started out as a major deal. Taker's first WM was against Jimmy Snuka, he'd only been in the company about 5 or 6 months himself and Snuka's prime years were well behind him. His second bout was against Jake The Snake Roberts who, while an intriguing character and great on the mic, never rose above the lower mid-card in WWE and his peak years were also behind him. Third up was Giant Gonzalez, which was the worst WM bout of Taker's career, and Gonzalez was a novelty gimmick with a short lifespan. Fourth was King Kong Bundy and his peak years as a top challenger for Hogan's WWF Championship were almost a decade behind him.

So, all things considered, I don't really see anything to it, kayfabe or otherwise.

 

[justtxyank]

Even though he never faced the top guy, he has had many Mania matches against main eventers from that time.

Mania 12 vs Diesel: Diesel was coming off of his year long title reign that ended at the Survivor Series before this Mania. Even though he was on his way out he was at this point the 2nd biggest star in the company behind Bret.

This is the one that is always the most interesting to me. People underrate where Diesel was at this point.

The original plan was for Diesel to BEAT The Undertaker to send him into his feud with Shawn Michaels in the summer with real momentum. However, Nash signed the deal to leave for WCW (despite going back to Vince and giving him a chance to match the offer) so the booking plans were changed for Taker to go over. Nash still did the feud with HBK on the way out, but it wasn't anything like it would have been had Nash just beat The Undertaker and taken his new nasty attitude into an HBK feud.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

I can kind of see the argument, but that means facing the absolute hottest star in the promotion when such a star was the undisputed "face" of the WWE. That's a short list that includes: Sammartino, Hogan, Austin, Rock and Cena. Even if Undertaker were to face Cena right now...Cena's no longer at the TOP of his game. He's still the face of the company, but he's on the downside of his career and people expect him to give up some losses. Same thing with Lesnar. If Undertaker managed to beat Lesnar, would that have been considered beating the top star of the era? Who exactly is the "top star of the era" right now?

I think the point is that the "top star of the era" is kind of a slippery phrase that is defined in hindsight most of the time, and in some cases, doesn't exist for periods of time within the WWE. Look at Batista for instance: Batista was at the peak of his career at when the two faced off at WM23. In retrospect, Batista's star fell afterwards while Cena's kept rising but I don't believe that was necessarily the plan. The WWE was hoping for another Rock/Austin situation with Cena and Batista (and Orton, for that matter), but only Cena turned out to be the true lightning rod for the fans. Not really the Undertaker's fault...kayfabe-wise, he faced the World Heavyweight Champion at WrestleMania twice and won the belt both times.

 

[OYDK]

I really don't see this as a "glaring" hole considering this has never really occurred to me before, but you do bring up a good argument and now that I think about it, it really is kind of strange. What are the odds that throughout 22 years, one of the greatest of all times never faced THE greatest of their era? It's possible that Vince never wanted his star, whether it be Hogan, Austin, or Cena to lose cleanly on the grandest stage of them all, and if any of them went up against The Undertaker, that's probably what would have happened.

I'm going to go ahead and throw Hogan out of the equation simply because it didn't make sense for Hogan to face Taker at Mania other than possibly Mania 9. In Taker's first Mania, he was nowhere near Hogan on the food chain and Hogan was in the midst of his emotional feud with Sgt Slaughter. It could have happened at Mania 8 but again, it made no sense. Both guys were babyfaces at the time and Taker was still being built as unstoppable while Hogan was Superman, a loss to Hogan would have severely diminished Takers star power at the time and there's no way Hogan was going to do the job. Mania 9 may have made the most sense, but Hogan was getting his title that night and soon after left for WCW. Thus WWE misses the boat on Taker-Hogan.

When it comes to John Cena, the Streak was already a gigantic deal at the time Cena was making his rise to the top. Let's look at Cena's Wrestlemania numbers. John Cena is currently 8-3 at Wrestlemania with his 3 losses coming from Orton (in a triple threat match where he didn't take the pin), The Miz (after being screwed by The Rock) and The Rock (setting up the rematch). As you can see, John Cena does not lose cleanly at Wrestlemania unless it's to set up a monumental moment such as a rematch with The Rock for the WWE title. It could have happened, but I think Vince knew Taker had to win cleanly every year at Mania and didn't want Cena to be "just another one" on Takers list.

Now Austin at Mania is 5-2 with both his losses being huge ones. The loss to Bret Hart which basically made Austin a megastar, and his loss to The Rock which effectively ended his career. With the few Wrestlemanias that both Rock and Austin competed in during their heyday (1997-2003) (7 Manias each), and with Austin and Rock's stars practically rising together, it only made sense to match these two guys up together at Wrestlemania. So with Rock-Austin headlining 3 different Wrestlemanias and both guys' first Mania match being rather insignificant, there were 3 possible years where Taker could have legitimately matched up with Austin and 2 where he could have hooked up with The Rock ; 1997, 1998, or 2002 for Austin, 1998 or 2002 for Rock. Again, as you can see 2002 saw The Rock face Hogan and 1997 saw Austin face Hart basically meaning Taker had very little chance of facing either men during these years either.

Honestly, it may seem crazy that Taker never went against the face of a certain era at Wrestlemania, but if you break it down, was there really THAT much opportunity?

 

[THTRobtaylor]

It's not strange at all... Taker was never booked as the top man himself, he was an attraction. From Superfly to Lesnar, his matches were about the spectacle rather than cementing his place as top man... even when he won the titles, he was clearly a placeholder champion rather than ever being the top man.

The streak is really no different to Andre never being "pinned" till Hogan. Those kind of matches and talents are are there to bolster the main match with the top guys, not be the top match with the top guys. On odd occasions it works but look at the reality of the guys who were "the guy" in those eras.

Hogan v Taker blew... they did it twice in 91 for the title and Hogan's ego was so rampant he had to have clusterfucks rather than take a loss clean to Taker... Austin had the damaged neck, so Taker couldn't "win" by giving a Tombstone, making any match or win he picked up over Austin lesser. Taker wouldn't have been able to carry the mic side of a feud with The Rock, he and Bearer would have been shown up. Cena... no one was beating Cena... and by that stage Taker was so old there was no benefit for him doing so.

The biggest issue with the Streak is that the early part of it is so meaningless... Snuka and Jake were on their way out, Gonzales is largely airbrushed out and at WMX Taker was out and it was Bundy the following year. It was only at 12 vs Diesel that he started facing "proper opponents", they only changed tack with him cos Mabel nearly killed him... had he not crushed his face, then they would have continued to feed Taker dross or even Taker could have been the one leaving for WCW...

 

[GameOver]

I really don't see this as a "glaring" hole considering this has never really occurred to me before, but you do bring up a good argument and now that I think about it, it really is kind of strange. What are the odds that throughout 22 years, one of the greatest of all times never faced THE greatest of their era? It's possible that Vince never wanted his star, whether it be Hogan, Austin, or Cena to lose cleanly on the grandest stage of them all, and if any of them went up against The Undertaker, that's probably what would have happened.

I'm going to go ahead and throw Hogan out of the equation simply because it didn't make sense for Hogan to face Taker at Mania other than possibly Mania 9. In Taker's first Mania, he was nowhere near Hogan on the food chain and Hogan was in the midst of his emotional feud with Sgt Slaughter. It could have happened at Mania 8 but again, it made no sense. Both guys were babyfaces at the time and Taker was still being built as unstoppable while Hogan was Superman, a loss to Hogan would have severely diminished Takers star power at the time and there's no way Hogan was going to do the job. Mania 9 may have made the most sense, but Hogan was getting his title that night and soon after left for WCW. Thus WWE misses the boat on Taker-Hogan.

When it comes to John Cena, the Streak was already a gigantic deal at the time Cena was making his rise to the top. Let's look at Cena's Wrestlemania numbers. John Cena is currently 8-3 at Wrestlemania with his 3 losses coming from Orton (in a triple threat match where he didn't take the pin), The Miz (after being screwed by The Rock) and The Rock (setting up the rematch). As you can see, John Cena does not lose cleanly at Wrestlemania unless it's to set up a monumental moment such as a rematch with The Rock for the WWE title. It could have happened, but I think Vince knew Taker had to win cleanly every year at Mania and didn't want Cena to be "just another one" on Takers list.

Now Austin at Mania is 5-2 with both his losses being huge ones. The loss to Bret Hart which basically made Austin a megastar, and his loss to The Rock which effectively ended his career. With the few Wrestlemanias that both Rock and Austin competed in during their heyday (1997-2003) (7 Manias each), and with Austin and Rock's stars practically rising together, it only made sense to match these two guys up together at Wrestlemania. So with Rock-Austin headlining 3 different Wrestlemanias and both guys' first Mania match being rather insignificant, there were 3 possible years where Taker could have legitimately matched up with Austin and 2 where he could have hooked up with The Rock ; 1997, 1998, or 2002 for Austin, 1998 or 2002 for Rock. Again, as you can see 2002 saw The Rock face Hogan and 1997 saw Austin face Hart basically meaning Taker had very little chance of facing either men during these years either.

Honestly, it may seem crazy that Taker never went against the face of a certain era at Wrestlemania, but if you break it down, was there really THAT much opportunity?

Taker would've lost not won, the streak wasn't a thing til after all of those names were gone. If he had faced Austin there would be no streak, if he had faced Hogan there would be no streak, if he had faced The Rock there would be no streak because they were the face of the company Taker is the soul.

Taker is beatable any other night except WrestleMania but he never faced the face of the company as such for that very reason, Taker can win and move on he isn't the face of the company nor was he ever there was no need for him to win against them, any other night when it's not a huge global event then yeah he could win

 

[The Grizz]

Maybe some of you don't hold Edge in as high a regard as champ at Wrestlemania XXIV, however the Taker and a Edge headlined the event and won the WHC, which to headline a WM means you were the best at the time. Edge was one of the "faces" of that era, and definitely deserves some recognition in this discussion....

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

Taker would've lost not won, the streak wasn't a thing til after all of those names were gone. If he had faced Austin there would be no streak, if he had faced Hogan there would be no streak, if he had faced The Rock there would be no streak because they were the face of the company Taker is the soul.

Taker is beatable any other night except WrestleMania but he never faced the face of the company as such for that very reason, Taker can win and move on he isn't the face of the company nor was he ever there was no need for him to win against them, any other night when it's not a huge global event then yeah he could win

Exactly. Let's name the top guys of each of the eras Undertaker has wrestled in. Hulk Hogan. Bret Hart. Steve Austin. The Rock. John Cena.

The only time it would have made sense for Undertaker vs Hulk Hogan is WrestleMania 8, taking Sid's place. Chances are if this is the case, there is no streak. Hogan probably even wins by DQ if they do the same finish as Sid. But let's say somehow Undertaker gets a DQ win over Hogan. OK... The only time it really makes sense for Undertaker to face Bret Hart is probably WrestleMania 11. WWF didn't do many face vs face feuds at the time, but if they somehow went with this match, again.. there is no streak. In 1995, Bret Hart wins that 'Mania match every single time. Austin? Maybe WrestleMania 15 or 2000 if they both aren't injured. Again, Austin in 1999 or 2000 wins every single time.

Undertaker could have faced The Rock at WrestleMania 19 or at any time recently instead of multiple Triple H matches. But at this point the streak is established, and The Rock is already a part-timer. So it'd be for the sole purpose of padding the numbers. Even though it'd be a good edge of your seat match... 'Taker would probably win.

Cena is obviously an interesting case, as a lot of people thought he'd be the one to end the streak if they ever faced off. Vince always wants to protect Cena so he never put himself in a spot where he had to choose. But I don't think Cena would be the right guy to end it, and if Michaels, Triple H and CM Punk can bounce back after a streak loss, of course Cena can too. It'd be a lot like Rock/Cena I, with 'Taker winning.

Maybe some of you don't hold Edge in as high a regard as champ at Wrestlemania XXIV, however the Taker and a Edge headlined the event and won the WHC, which to headline a WM means you were the best at the time. Edge was one of the "faces" of that era, and definitely deserves some recognition in this discussion....

This is a very good point.
Edge is one of the top guys of that era. John Cena, Randy Orton, Edge, Batista. Those were the main eventers or "face" of the company during that era. The same way Triple H is a top guy alongside Austin and The Rock in the attitude era. The same way Diesel was a top guy alongside Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels in the era before that. So let's not kayfabe sell the streak short.

 

[The Boss]

Hogan v Taker blew... they did it twice in 91 for the title and Hogan's ego was so rampant he had to have clusterfucks rather than take a loss clean to Taker...

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA. This had nothing to do with "ego". Quit being a hater. This was to benefit Ric Flair. A clusterfuck finish (for BOTH men need I remind you) was needed so that the title would be declared vacant and put up for grabs in the Royal Rumble which Flair won.

Austin had the damaged neck, so Taker couldn't "win" by giving a Tombstone, making any match or win he picked up over Austin lesser.

Excuses. It was Austin's "EGO".

 

[Jeritron5000]

He faced Punk at Mania 29. Say what you want about the man, other than Cena he was "the guy." Diesel is another good example. People really do underplay his position in the company at the time.

I don't think the guy needs a "Hogan vs Andre" hyped match to give any more credence to the streak as it currently stands.

 

[whoopin' ass]

It is interesting but far from odd. Remember that even at the beginning, there were 3 other ppvs to think of so some of those big matches got moved to there instead. But it is funny to hear them talk about the streak and then look at some of the guys he faced. It does show though that wwe had no plan for this because for the longest time, he really didn't have any high profile matches at Mania. There was the odd one but for the most part you didn't really care too much about the match. It was only been recently that it has become such a big deal and he has actually faced top talent.

 

[No Count Pup]

Undertaker's WM matches have been the de facto double main event for 10 years. If the title match lacked a bit of zip, fans always got suspense with the Streak Match. It wouldn't have made sense to put the Taker in World Title matches or put him against the top star of a generation. Those guys were in the World Title matches. Taker's matches took on a life all their own. If anything, Taker should be credit for putting Superstars in the spotlight and carrying them to epics.

 

[closet_fan]

The first 4 Wrestlemania's weren't great. Snuka, Roberts, Gonzalez and Bundy. After that you had Deisel, then some hit and misses.

But a streak is a streak. To put it in perspective, DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak all weren't against the best pitchers every time he stepped up to the plate.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

The streak wasn't really talked about until wrestlemania 13. Where either JR or Vince mention that taker never lost at wrestlemania. Wrestlemania 13 was when the streak was mention.

If taker faced austin, rock, or hogan. Taker would probably lose.

At the time taker couldn't really faced hogan, austin or rock at wrestlemania.

maybe at wrestlemania 2000. he could of faced austin.
or wrestlemania 10 or 12 faced against bret.

 

[thebarber]

You make some good points actually - I have often wondered if the Streak would ever have become what it was today had Taker ever had to face Hogan, Rock, Austin or Hart at Wrestlemania.

I am pretty sure Taker and Bret nearly faced off at Wrestlemania 12. Instead they faced off at The Royal Rumble and Taker won by a DQ.

As far as Hogan goes, Hogan vs Taker really would have added to the Wrestlemania X card as both missed the event. The only other chance I can think of was Wrestlemania 9 when Hogan was in a crappy tag match and Taker had to face Giant Gonzalez.

Hogan was not under contract to WWF in 1994, he left not long after KOTR 1993, after a tour of the United Kingdom. He only returned in 1993 to get Beefcake over which failed and to co-promote his movie at the time. Hogan vs Taker was never going to happen at Mania, if it had Hogan would have gone over back in the Hogan days and we wouldnt be talking streak at all.

 

[Dagger Dias]

It doesn't bother me that much that Undertaker never faced the absolute top guys. If he had, would the streak have lived on? Also, there's this.... None of those guys needed it. Hogan, The Rock, Stone Cold, and John Cena are four of the biggest names in pro wrestling of all time. Would it have been cool to see one or more of those big four get a shot at the undefeated streak? You bet! Here's the thing though.... None of them needed it. I'm mostly fine with the "glaring hole" that the threadstarter has pointed out. It's not that big of a deal. The shots each year at ending the streak were better going toward guys further up the card yet not quite at the very top. It would have been a much bigger deal for someone other than a top star to end the streak. Lesnar didn't need it and was an awful choice, but that's for another topic.... but what if CM Punk had pulled it off? How about Randy Orton? Or Edge?

There are two bigger issues for me.

The first of these being rematches. Kane, Michaels, and Trips all got multiple attempts. Taker should not have had 3 matches with Triple H, we honestly didn't even need the 2nd match. It saved an otherwise garbage Wrestlemania 27 event from being the worst in the brand's history, but the streak opportunity could have gone to someone else. As for Wrestlemania 28 sure it was great match but remember it being billed as "the end of an era"? The end of WHAT era exactly....? Sheamus, Barrett, or Jericho could have gotten a shot at the streak during Wrestlemania 27 or 28. It's extremely difficult for me to argue against the 2nd Michaels match due to the great story behind it and the brilliant match we got out of it, however it was still a rematch. Each wrestler really should only have had one shot against Taker's streak. That's it.

Finally, if you really want to talk about a big problem in the streak.... then let's talk about my second issue, the Giant González match. Taker may have "won" the match, but it was via disqualification. That's always bothered me WAY more than the absence of matches against Hogan/Austin/Rock/Cena.

 

[Wald]

Honestly, hand on heart, I think Cena needed to be the one to end the Streak. Fair enough Hogan, Hart, Rock or Austin didn't need it but they all have moments that Cena, thus far, has failed to capture.

Look at Cena at Wrestlemania and see if you can find a moment like Hogan slamming Andre, Hart being lifted up by the locker, Austin passing out to the Sharpshooter, the Wrestlemania XVII main event or Rock and Hogan standing in the ring together. I genuinely don't think he has one. He has made Triple H and HBK tap out but those matches haven't gone down as legendary and he beat the Rock in a return match. That was probably supposed to be his moment but they bitched the entire angle heading in to the event (Cena's horrible year that actually wasn't that bad) and really he should have won the first match anyway.

 

[cenation17]

Goldberg winning 180 matches is bigger then to win 21 matches that Undertaker did.

Undertakers streak is way to over-glorified.