*MERGED* [OFFICIAL] Undertaker's Wrestlemania Streak Discussion

[Agent_of_Anarchy]

MODERATOR'S COMMENTS:

Since there have been about 3-million threads created for this subject, this is the [OFFICIAL] and *MERGED* thread for discussion of the Undertaker's Wrestlemania Streak. For every aspect of this discussion (i.e. possible future opponents, streak length, Undertaker's past victories, streak importance, etc.) please post in here. DO NOT CREATE ANY MORE THREADS ON THIS SUBJECT. If another thread is created on this subject, its creator will be warned/infracted for posting duplicate topics.

Thank you​

​

​

To most people it does, I know that. It is a very impressive feat and says alot about how much the WWE value The Undertaker as a performer to have had him never lose a match at their biggest annual pay per view.

HBK on the other hand seems to be valued slightly differently. While he is always featured in a main event/big match he rarely gets the win, but in the process makes who ever he is with look like gold. Cena has never (IMO) looked as good as he did against HBK.

Nothing lasts forever. It would be a shame to simply have Taker retire without anybody being able to claim the Mania streak. And considering it has been quite a while since HBK's last title run perhaps this is something he could hold the honours of. If anybody deserves it, HBK is certainly the man. Even though a rookie or younger guy (like Shamus, Morrison or Punk) could benefit 100 times more than HBK, I think Michaels deserves the streak after such a great career.

I guess the question to you all is does the Streak really mean that much, and if it does, then should it ever end or should Taker retire having never lost at Mania?



*P.S There is a chance that someone has already done a simular post, but I didn't see one anywhere*

 

[THTRobtaylor]

It is the one piece of "history" that WWE has left, that has taken 19 years to build... if it is going to end, it is fitting it is Shawn who ends it, as he is the only other person who has been on Takers level for so long... using it to "push" a rookie would be a mistake... having it end at 18-1 would be fitting... Taker is human, recent months have shown that... his injuies, getting burned...its all building to the end of "The Deadman" persona... I think Shawn wins, Taker disappears for a bit and comes back as more "himself" like the American Badass...

 

[Rasha]

I think it's great for someone's career to be able to say they ended The Streak. That said, why waste it on HBK? This would be a great chance for WWE to give one of their young guys a huge push while simultaneously letting Taker "pass the torch." HBK's legacy isn't changed by having beaten Taker, so what's the point? It certainly makes short-term sense as it adds a great match to the WM card and is a solid counter-punch to the TNA hype, but in the long run it would just be a missed opportunity to actually improve someone else's career (e.g. Hogan beating Andre) with the Taker rub.

 

[Rulk25]

The streak means as much or as little as WWE wants it to. But quite frankly I see it as Undertaker's legacy. Most of the other greats have soemthing they will be recalled for. Stone Cold has his feud with McMahon, Shawn Michales has many great Wrestlemania moments etc. But really what does the Undertaker have outside of the streak. Sure he has had good matches but none that particularity stand out FOR THE UNDERTAKER. HIAC is not him but rather Mick Foley flying off the cage. Most of his streak matches were nothing to write home about. They were good but outside of the one with Shawn and perhaps the Edge one none of them true "classics".

 

[Davi323]

The streak is meaningless. It just means that for 17 specific matches, the Undertaker was booked to win. It is merely a way to market a wrestler, and I doubt you could find many people that would stop marking for the Undertaker should he lose. The Undertaker doesn't need the streak in any way shape or form, he would have been one of the true icons of pro wrestling regardless. If HBK were to be booked to end the streak, let me ask those who think the streak is important a simple question...is a 17-1 Undertaker any less likely to be an instant WWE Hall of Famer than an 18-0 one would?

It would be different if pro wrestling was an actual sport, where the outcomes of matches were not pre-determined. You can't compare the streak to something like the 49ers being 5-0 in the Super Bowl, the women's UConn Huskies basketball team having a 71 game win streak, or something like that, because sports teams earn their streaks, pro wrestlers are scripted them. If the streak ends in three weeks, so what? Will anyone think less of the Undertaker's character?

 

[The Wolf]

Davi323 is right. HBK is Mr WrestleMania but look at his record. More loses then wins. As far as classics for Taker at Mania I cant agree with edge but Orton and HHH I can. Orton came as close as Shawn to endeing the streakand HHH they fought everywhere is was great.I got to agree with using the streak to push someone and not a rookie either I would think a mid carder who has proven hiself but cant break through

 

[klunderbunker]

It depends on one thing in my mind: age. Taker's Streak is the only thing that has remained constant over the years since he debuted. THink about it: next year it will be twenty years since Taker started it. Where were you 20 years ago? Some of you weren't even born yet. All that time has passed and a lot has come and gone. One constant in wrestling: Undertaker has never lost at Wrestlemania. Companies have come and gone, wrestlers have come and gone, things have changed dramatically, and yet Taker has never lost. FOr people my age that remember all of his wins, yes it means a lot. It's a lot of nostalgia for old fans like me. Second, it's damn impressive. Think of this: Hulk Hogan had 11 matches at Wrestlemania. Bret had I think 12 or so. Austin had 8. Rock had about eight or so. None of those are anywhere close to the total amount of matches Taker has had there and none of them come close to his win/loss record. Taker at Mania has had an amazing career. 3 world title wins, beaten all four members of Evolution, beat a ton of Hall of Famers, beat Shawn in a classic. How many people have had a career that amazing? Taker has done it at a single show. That's amazing to say the least. Come to think of it, screw the age thing. Yes it means a lot.

 

[Dan E. Inferno]

The streak definitely means a lot when you look at it from a kayfabe perspective. Every year, at the biggest wrestling show of the year, the streak is one of the most important features. Even when Taker is challenging for a world title, like against Batista or Edge, the streak seems more important than the title. Personally, when I was watching the matches, I wasn't thinking Taker could win the title here. I was thinking Taker could lose the streak here. I think that says a lot when you talk about how much it means.

Also, it's just a flat out awesome achievement to have. I understand that it is scripted and Taker has simply been booked to win every year, but I still think it's something to be proud of. I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone working in scripted television to be proud of their accomplishments. In Taker's case, it simply means WWE management trusted the Undertaker to win every year at Wrestlemania. The streak is even more impressive when you look at the list of present and future hall of famers he has beaten. So, I think the streak means a hell of a lot. Both in regards to Taker's character and legacy, and also in regards to it being a focal point at Wrestlemania every year.

 

[Ferbian]

Yes, certainly it means alot, atleast to me, and as KB stated, it means alot to people when looking at the age, but not only that, cause hell Taker's streak is older than mine, and to top it off I've only watched wrestling for about a year by now.

Actually I've had this argument with a friend before, I stated that Undertaker's streak should never be ended, and it shouldn't, Sure, some might argue that ending the streak, ends Undertaker's credibility and kills off a bit of his legacy.
But even if I didn't want the streak to end, I don't agree with the fact that killing Undertaker's streak would kill his legacy, because he's still done more at Wrestlemania than anybody else has, or probably ever will.

And my friend, arguing the fact that Undertaker's streak should indeed be ended, and to top it off, he damn hell said it should be done by a freaking rookie!
No I'm not a rookie hater, and I certainly believe that beating Undertaker at Wrestlemania will be an ultimative push, but looking back at the amount of names Undertaker has beaten, a rookie would simply not cut it to end the streak, a current main eventer would be the only one at best to be allowed to end the streak, and I don't think they would benefit from it very much, cause their already established!

So damn straight, the streak means something, and it shouldn't be ended by Shawn Michaels this year, or by anybody at all.
Even thou it would be a shame to see Shawn's career ending this year, because of the amount of potentially great matches Shawn could put on with other wrestlers at Wrestlemania. I will still repeat, Shawn should not, yes NOT end the streak, and a draw isn't a solution neither, cause that will just give people the feel that they didn't get their moneys worth as much as they could have by a Undertaker win.

 

[aluren]

The streak is meaningless. It just means that for 17 specific matches, the Undertaker was booked to win. It is merely a way to market a wrestler, and I doubt you could find many people that would stop marking for the Undertaker should he lose. The Undertaker doesn't need the streak in any way shape or form, he would have been one of the true icons of pro wrestling regardless. If HBK were to be booked to end the streak, let me ask those who think the streak is important a simple question...is a 17-1 Undertaker any less likely to be an instant WWE Hall of Famer than an 18-0 one would?

It would be different if pro wrestling was an actual sport, where the outcomes of matches were not pre-determined. You can't compare the streak to something like the 49ers being 5-0 in the Super Bowl, the women's UConn Huskies basketball team having a 71 game win streak, or something like that, because sports teams earn their streaks, pro wrestlers are scripted them. If the streak ends in three weeks, so what? Will anyone think less of the Undertaker's character?

I'm with you on this about the whole scripted thing. I also don't see much significance in the streak. The streak will not take away from Taker as being the most successful gimick in WWE/F history and him being multiple times champion. I will also remember him for his feud with Kane, Mankind, Austin, Bret, and his corporate ministry thing with Vince. So no, I don't care about the streak and I read that Taker doesn't care either, which is good.

 

[Lee]

No, no it doesn't. So what if Undertaker won 17 matches in a fake sport. So what. To me I hate the idea of the streak: Simply put you know the result of one of the matches already.

Lets look at Stings streak. Sting has a Bound for glory/Starrcade streak. He lost to AJ, lost to Luger (who cheated) lost a battle bowl match and lost a triangle match. Now aside from Styles his losses came where he had more than one match on the night. Yet Sting is still known for the streak, and with Sting it's a lot more interesting. You know because he has already lost matches in the past the results can go either way.

Also if you look at Undertakers is it really that impressive? Look at the biggest people Undertaker who has beaten who were in their prime...erm Triple H, Edge, HBK and Batista. It's at the point where Undertaker is only winning to save his streak, many said Orton should have gone over him and that would have been quite good.

Since then you've had the annoying promos for the streak, the annoying signs of random number -0, the reminder that he's on a streak....is it that big of a deal if you win one match at one PPV a year? Exactly, ultimately that's all the streak is, Undertaker could lose 364 days of the year but win at Mania and keep this streak. Just a bit silly if you ask me.

 

[Shocky]

Le Sigh, the guys in their prime argument.

Kevin Nash just came off of the longest WWF title reign of the 90's, surely not in his prime.
Sid Was WWF Champion, surely not in his prime.
Kane just debuted, Surely not in his prime.
Kane again was coming off his best year since his debut as a monster heel, surely not in his prime.
Randy Orton was coming off of a WWE title reign, surely not in his prime.

The Undertaker has beaten plenty of top guys during his streak, especially when they had it. The "not in their primes" is one of the worst arguments that is out there in the land of the IWC.

And for me, a lifetime fan that has watched every Wrestlemania since 2 Live, I have no problem with the streak. The "oh it's predictable" is crap as well. You watch this business long enough, you know the outcome of almost every match if you pay attention. Look at Wrestlemania and the last match, how many times has the Heel closed the show as champion, um Once at Wrestlemania 16 (Spare me Steve Austin and his failed heel turn at 17). so pretty much if Cena and Batista close the show, you could bet all of the VBookies on Cena.

Does it matter? It shouldn't. It's a fake sport, with predetermined outcomes. The IWC loves to bash the streak, yet the Undertaker matches usually get the biggest reaction of the night. The live crowd eats up every near fall, they eat up every finisher put on the Deadman.

 

[leemurf]

when you think of undertaker you think of 17-0 at wrestlemania and that is one of the biggest thing in wwe when the road to wm begins everybody thinks who will undertaker face and if he were to lose the biggest peice of wwe history ends and imo wm wont be the same without the streak

 

[Undertaker the 5th]

Hell yeah it does. It doesn't mean shit if it is a scripted sport. Not all of his opponents have been the best people to face at Mania but look at it this way. You have to start somewhere to make a streak don't you? It's not like on your first WM you are going to face off against the biggest names of the show(unless you are Shaemus or Brock Lesnar). He doesn't have to lose it. So a rookie beats him and then he could brag that he beat the Undertaker, wow. Shawn Michaels does not deserve it. He has done everything in the business: revolutionized the ladder match, had some of the greatest matches ever at wrestlemania, won the first hell in a cell, etc. Why would you want to add another accomplishment to his already storied career?

The guys who face him at Mania should feel glad that they are in a match with him under such conditions as is the streak. 'Taker makes them look good, they don't have to win to look good and it is his legacy.

Undertaker after March 28th 18- 0.

 

[Bobholly39]

I too believe that if wwe/taker decided it's time to end the streak, there's no one more deserving than HBK.

I don't see why everyone Internet wrestling fan seems to say "well a young guy would benefit for". who the hell cares? Are you guys booking WWE shows now, trying to elevate younger guys? Your job is to be fans, and enjoy the enterntainment aspect of it. That being said, i can't think of a feud/buildup that's been better done in recent years than HBK/Taker II, and bc of how great HBK is, if anyone deserves it, it'll be him.


concerning the streak itself...it's a cool accomplishment, the *ONLY* negative aspect i can out of ending it is that it's such a HUGE component of a WM buildup. If undertaker still plans to wrestle next yr, and the yr after that, the buildup to Wrestlemania will be lacking something without people talkin about the "Streak". That being said, i'm still hoping HBK wins

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I too believe that if wwe/taker decided it's time to end the streak, there's no one more deserving than HBK.

I don't see why everyone Internet wrestling fan seems to say "well a young guy would benefit for". who the hell cares? Are you guys booking WWE shows now, trying to elevate younger guys? Your job is to be fans, and enjoy the enterntainment aspect of it. That being said, i can't think of a feud/buildup that's been better done in recent years than HBK/Taker II, and bc of how great HBK is, if anyone deserves it, it'll be him.


concerning the streak itself...it's a cool accomplishment, the *ONLY* negative aspect i can out of ending it is that it's such a HUGE component of a WM buildup. If undertaker still plans to wrestle next yr, and the yr after that, the buildup to Wrestlemania will be lacking something without people talkin about the "Streak". That being said, i'm still hoping HBK wins

How do young guys become big stars? By having the guys before them put them over. It's been happening since professional wrestling was invented. How do you think people like HHH, HBK, and Taker became so big? Because guys like Hart and Foley put them over. HBK is already accomplished as can be as a wrestler so what does he need with this? It's not going to enhance his legacy more. Think about it if The Miz or CM Punk were able to break the streak. Those two are accomplished superstars but that win can elevate them even more. They would be the ones to say that they broke the streak and would increase their stardom. That's why I would rather prefer a young superstar to win and Undertaker retire after that. If HBK breaks the streak and Undertaker wrestles at WM 27, then breaking the streak won't be as big in the grand scheme of things as everybody makes it out to be.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Apart from HBK, is there anyone now that could beat Taker in a way that would be believable and not sacriligious?

All the streak haters love to spout about having a nobody come out and beat Taker. Wake up, he's beaten living legends through the course of the streak, and the majority of them were made to look like they did everything possible to beat him, and STILL lost.

HHH smacked him in the skull with a sledgehammer, and still lost.

Flair used a lead pipe and had Arn Anderson do a run in, and still lost.

Big Show and A-Train had a 2 on 1 advantage and individually, they both had a weight advantage, yet still lost (ok, there was a run-in, but seriously a boot in the face each was enough to cost them the match?)

Randy Orton was riding his Legend Killer momentum, and got his dad to help him cheat and still lost.

Mark Henry weighed a good 100lbs more than Taker and still lost in a casket match.

Batista delivered 30 minutes of pure power, slammed Taker through the announce table and even went outside the box by using aerial manouvers and still lost.

Edge hit more than one spear and tried to get Ryder and Hawkings to do a run in, yet still lost.

HBK, the Showstopper, MR Wrestlemania, put on one of the performances of his life, and still lost.

So how the fuck is someone like Miz going to beat him and make it look believable? Plus what's to stop him from turning around 6 months from now and saying 'I can't handle wrestling 300 nights a year, i think i'd rather go to TNA and take my wonderful rub from beating Taker along with me.'?

And it clearly means a lot to a large number of people, because the main site reported that WWEUniverse.com has a 'HBK wins we riot' thread in it. Fans woud rather see HBK never wrestle again, than see the streak end.

Some people said 'Would Taker losing really hurt his legacy?' Well let me counter that by asking 'Would HBK winning really do anything to boost his legacy'? Would losing twice to Taker make him any less likely to be inducted into the HOF?

For me, i want the streak to never end because frankly, Taker deserves to have it. He's the only guy who's stuck with WWE for 20 years straight, without taking 4 years off (HBK's back injury), or without being reprimanded for breaking kayfabe (HHH being buried for participating in the MSG incident), or being accused of politicking his way to the top (HHH and HBK ((true or not, they get shit loads of bad rep for it all the time, i only ever see people bitch about the Streak when it comes to Taker and since we know he couldn't care less about it either way, obviously he isn't in Vince's ear every year trying to make sure he wins))) or walking out on the company because he disagreed with the booking (Austin on three separate occassions) or upping to join Hollywood (Rock), or pissing off to become a boxer/singer (Jericho/Big Show), or having to change his gimmick repeatedly (Kane), or leaving the 'E' to work a more comfortable schedule, or simply because he doesn't like McMahon's business decisions (Kurt Angle, Mick Foley, Taz, Jeff Hardy etc etc).

So why do so many people want to reward HBK's career by taking away the only special accolade of the Undertaker's? I just don't get that.

Plus no one said he's retiring this year, so why end his streak a couple of years before he hangs up his boots? You'd miss out on the opportunity for all that hype for WM and have to find some other way of recreating it, which based on current trends they'd really struggle to do.

Plus does the fact that HBKs telling young guys to step up in his absence not tell you what the outcome of his WM match is likely to be?

 

[Jsaturn14]

I look at wrestling in general as being as entertainment. What match at the end of the night am I going to remember the most? That is the most important thing to me. So does the streak mean all that much to me? HELL NO! I think the streak is pretty stupid to be honest. So the Undertaker is 17-0 at Wrestlemania...ok...so what? Besides the "its fake" argument which has already been used in this thread, there is also the fact of the match quality of the streak. Yes, Taker has wrestled some all time great matches at Wrestlemania (Kane at XIV, HHH at XVII, and HBK this past year jump out at me) BUT Taker has also wrestled some really, really, god awful matches at Mania too. King Kong Bundy at Mania 11? The Giant Gonzalez at Mania 9? The Horrible Hell in a Cell with Big Bossman at Mania 15? That awful handicap match against Big Show and A-Train at Mania 19, and of course the casket match against Mark Henry at Mania 22. Even with the allure of "The Streak" on all of these matches they still sucked, plain and simple. The Streak is not some mystical thing that automatically makes every match Taker is in at Mania suddenly amazing, and a "Must See." because no amount of "Streak" can help a match when it is finally happening in the ring. The Streak is quite simply a joke, and I for one look forward to when somebody finally ends it. Now if you wanna talk about a REAL Streak that is not predetermined before the match begins how about we talk about the streak that HBK is on: having one of, if not, THE most entertaining and most memorable match at Wrestlemania for the past 7 Manias.

Mania 19 against Chris Jericho (IMO the Match of the Night)
Mania 20 against HHH and Benoit (The Best Triple Threat of All Time)
Mania 21 against Kurt Angle (Obviously The Match of the Night)
Mania 22 against McMahon (Maybe not the most technically sound match, but was it entertaining? yes! was it memorable? yes! I will never forget that leap from the ladder!)
Mania 23 against John Cena (Arguably the Match of the Night)
Mania 24 against Ric Flair (Absolutely the most emotional and memorable match of the night)
Mania 25 against Taker (Match of the Night)

Now that to me is a real streak. Not a predetermined joke that everyone says they don't care about, Including Taker!, but something to be proud of because while the matches are always talked about and planned out beforehand, it is up to the competitors to go out there and make the plan come alive, and make the match something special, and there is no better guy at doing that than HBK.

EDIT: I just saw this and had to point this out. This is from the post above mine:


"And it clearly means a lot to a large number of people, because the main site reported that WWEUniverse.com has a 'HBK wins we riot' thread in it. Fans woud rather see HBK never wrestle again, than see the streak end."

I have been on that thread, and read it, and yes, while 50% of it are people saying that they will riot if the streak ends, the other 50% is of people saying that they won't and that they don't really care about the streak, and they are HBK fans, and all that. The issue of the Streak is very much a divided issue. No matter what happens at Mania this year, people are going to be pissed off.

 

[thepalaceprince]

Absolutely it means alot! Just look at the list of people hes vanquished at wrestlemania. Its a whose who of hall of famers some of the biggest and most recognizable names in wrestling history and hes beaten every single one at the biggest stage the wwe has to offer. While it sounds nice to have a young guy get the 1st win over taker a lot of people including myself would go apeshit and probably actually riot if taker lossed to someone who hadnt earned that honor. thats why hbk is getting the rematch because hes someone who has earned it. While there are stil a lot of people that would be pissed if taker lossed I think ultimately they could except it out of respect for how great hbk is. Personally I love both of them so much they have brought so much joy to my life over the years that I respect both of them enough that as long as Im treated to a great match I will cheer for both of them no matter who wins.

 

[AndyUK]

It shouldn't mean so much and if anyone deserving ever did end the streak then I really wouldn't care that much but I think people want him to stay undefeated because it all comes down to is The Undertaker deserves to have something to remember him by and something that will put him down in history.

I mean, I doubt he'd be easily forgotten due to the gimmick he has played and the longetivity of his career but he isn't known for his amount of title reigns he's had and he hasn't had as many legendary feuds as other superstars have had either.

 

[Bobholly39]

How do young guys become big stars? By having the guys before them put them over. It's been happening since professional wrestling was invented. How do you think people like HHH, HBK, and Taker became so big? Because guys like Hart and Foley put them over. HBK is already accomplished as can be as a wrestler so what does he need with this? It's not going to enhance his legacy more. Think about it if The Miz or CM Punk were able to break the streak. Those two are accomplished superstars but that win can elevate them even more. They would be the ones to say that they broke the streak and would increase their stardom. That's why I would rather prefer a young superstar to win and Undertaker retire after that. If HBK breaks the streak and Undertaker wrestles at WM 27, then breaking the streak won't be as big in the grand scheme of things as everybody makes it out to be.

In response to that, i'll say the same thing the other guy below you said in his reply.

What young guy do you give the streak to? Miz? CM Punk? Kofi? (just examples, i'm sure u might even have other suggestions).

The problem with that is, none of them have longevity atm, nobody knows how long they'll be around. They might quit for TNA, they might fizzle out with the fans and become lackluster, they might even simply quit wrestling and move onto other things.

the streak seems like such a huge achievement that took 20 years to build. I wouldn't want someone like the Miz to end it, i would want someone whose already established as a big time main event player, in a memorable match.

I don't so much want HBK to win beacause i want the streak to end, i just want HBK to win because i love HBK, and see them putting on a monumental match, and i think it'd be fitting.

If not for HBK though, the other people i could have sees ending the streak would have been Stone Cold, the Rock...Someone whose huge and and would create a huge feel.

 

[Brainbusters]

The Undertaker's streak means alot to the marks.. but for the fans that really appreciate and understand pro wrestling...it doesn't mean a damn thing.

I really hope HBK wins so I don't have to listen to this streak crap anymore. Appreciate the wrestlers for their performances (in the ring, out of the ring, on the mic) and less for their win/loss record that doesn't mean anything in the world of sports entertainment.

 

[Bernkastel]

I view the streak as a way to draw the interest of the older, pre modern era WWE fans. These fans remember when Undertaker fought Jimmy Snuka, Kevin Nash, HHH, Ric Flair, and Kane. If Undertaker ever lost at Maina, the nostalgia that went with all of those memories would be lost.

The streak isn't just 17 booked wins, it's 17 years of storylines, 17 years of promo's, and 17 years of character development and adaptation, so it means a hell of allot more to fans than Undertaker getting his seemingly mandatory win at Maina each year.

Also, the streak is a testamony to the immortality of the Undertaker, it's part of the reason why we fans can so easily buy into the Undertakers gimmick. I think Undertaker losing at Mania, at this point, would hurt the credibility of his gimmick more than it would benefit someone else's.

 

[maar130]

The Undertaker's streak means alot to the marks.. but for the fans that really appreciate and understand pro wrestling...it doesn't mean a damn thing.

I really hope HBK wins so I don't have to listen to this streak crap anymore. Appreciate the wrestlers for their performances (in the ring, out of the ring, on the mic) and less for their win/loss record that doesn't mean anything in the world of sports entertainment.

And now you are one of those guys who really understand pro-wrestling at is fullest? please, spare me the lecture.

If it doesn't mean anything then why bother to post in this topic?

Then in reality you don't care who wins or loses because you understand pro-wrestling and in that world all of them are winners just because?

Without wins/loss records this does not mean anything because even if it is scripted, it is based on that, if not championships does not mean crap either.

And please don't get me the "It is al scripted, it is not a real sport" because if that is your train of though then I don't know why you watch at all when everything produced to creat the feeling of it being real, other wise the feeling they try to recreate won't make sense at all.

The streak is a big deal just because one of the more succesful individuals and the only guys who has been around the company for almost 20 years keeps that at the Mayor event, and 3 of those matches has been for the title.

The Undertaker is not the only wrestler undefeated at Mania, Goldberg is undefeated at Mania but does anyone care? No because he was with the company barely a year. Sable is also undefeated at Wrestlemania and does anyone care or even remember? No, because she was not there for more 4 years and was nothing impressive to begin with.

The Undetaker has one if not the most successful gimicks of the WWE hand has being very popular for the whole game, almost 20 years and he is still very popular.

The streak is an acolade to his achivements and means a lot to his fans but also a lot o people who is not a fan of his.

It mean something you probably hate for what you posted, so it is big.

It means a lot, it is also a double edged sword, because like all you said it can become predictable but it also becoes bigger with every year that passes.

And to be quite honest, there has been so many rumors than before Wrestlemania comes, everyone marks it will end (except the year Mark Henry came around, none marked for him) and in the end because it doesn't everyone that said it will end says "Oh he won't, it was so predictable" that is really annoying.

If you don't believe me, look at news archives that rumor had it Orton would end it, Batista would end it, Edge would end it, Hell HBK was about to end it at some point and now since the career is on the line, even with rumors of HBK taking time off, they are saying he might end it anyway to retire next year.

The Streak means a lot to the wrestling world, good and bad, there are fans of it, and people that hates it (which seems to be your case) because it is huge, 17-0 is easy to say, but means that at leats for 17 years you have to have a damn match at Mania, meaning that at least you need to be relevant for 17 years, and to win it means that there are something coming your way since no win at Mania goes just into oblivion (only in the case of Goldberg because he was leaving), that is how much success it means and the Underker has been very successful because his path does not end at Wrestlemania, even he takes time off it continues during the year.

So the streak is a big deal, even if you don't want to acknowledge it, otherwise It would not have so many haters that will love to see it end, and later will try to find something as big to complain about.

 

[bxbigshow]

While I am not proud to say it. And I hope it doesn't happen. But if WWE allows anyone to end The Undertaker's Wrestlemaina streak it will be...

Vincent Kennedy McMahon.

Here are my points:

Vince and Taker have not gone at it at Wrestlemaina yet. And it seems to be a trend that everyone at the top of the card ends up feuding with Vinny Mac. Hogan, Michaels, Austin, HHH, and now Bret. It's only a matter of time that Taker, the concience of the WWE, will take on Vince...at 'Maina.

Maybe Vince gets more out of control character wise and Taker has to check him. Maybe Vince just orders the match because of ego.

But if Undertaker works into the rotation of Superstars to go one on one with Vince in a major feud, I'd imagine it would be at Wrestlemania.

And because Vince is Vince, I see the streak ending there. I'm not advocating it, more like fearing it.