Phenom's Streak....

[ShinChan]

At Wrestlemania 30, Brock Lesnar defeated The Undertaker and broke the latter's streak of 21 consecutive wins at Wrestlemania.

It took place more than 2.5 years ago and is still one of the most shocking results in professional wrestling.

So, what I want to ask is that:

Do you think that Brock was the right one to break the streak?

Ummmm... No, he wasn't the right one to break the streak.

I know that some people think that streak should've never broken and The Undertaker should retire undefeated at Wrestlemania. I don't agree with that too.

Breaking the streak would have been a huge rub off The Undertaker and it should've been somewhat like passing of the torch. In my opinion, Bray Wyatt should've broken the streak. He's supposed to be the New Face of Fear so logically he should have been the one to defeat The Undertaker at Wrestlemania.

A huge opportunity to make a star wasted.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I agree with you that Brock Lesnar was not the right one to break The Undertaker's streak.

I disagree with you that Bray Wyatt is the right one to break the Undertaker's streak.

I will always believe that the streak should never have been broken. If it really had to be broken, then she would have preferred "fake Undertaker" to be the one to break it. Then questions can come up like, is it really broken?? or was "fake Undertaker" really Mark Calaway, and was "real Undertaker" Brian Lee?? I would have even gone as far as to switching the two prior to the start of the match with the announcers telling us the Mark is the fake and Brian is the real.

 

[roipdh123]

Actually I always thought that if the streak ends it needs to end on either WrestleMania 29 or WrestleMania 34 (20-1 or 25-1), as it's a well rounded number.
But in all seriousness, WrestleMania 29 could have given us one of two ways to end the streak:
A.Cm Punk beating Taker - Same feud, same match only with a Title vs Streak stipulation. Have Punk win, and on the next night on Raw have someone cash MITB on him (Cena shouldn't have been Raw MITB winner in 2012).
B.The Shield - Have The Shield feud with Taker, Kane and Bryan heading into Mania and have the two teams face off in an ELIMINATION match. Kane will accidentally cause Bryan to be eliminated. Then Kane distracted by Bryan will be eliminated. Finally even though Taker will give his all after a 15 minute Three on One Handicap Match,The Shield will hit him with a third triple powerbomb, and with all three man covering him up, the streak will end.

Those two options are real, but if we are going by WWE logic here then the person the should have done it is JOHN CENA at Wrestle Mania 30...but that is how I would have done it (I would have preferred The Shield to do it, but Punk is okay as well).

 

[ShinChan]

I agree with you that Brock Lesnar was not the right one to break The Undertaker's streak.

I disagree with you that Bray Wyatt is the right one to break the Undertaker's streak.

I will always believe that the streak should never have been broken. If it really had to be broken, then she would have preferred "fake Undertaker" to be the one to break it. Then questions can come up like, is it really broken?? or was "fake Undertaker" really Mark Calaway, and was "real Undertaker" Brian Lee?? I would have even gone as far as to switching the two prior to the start of the match with the announcers telling us the Mark is the fake and Brian is the real.

Kudo to you for thinking something different.

But again that wouldn't benefit anyone involved. The rub off The Undertaker's streak is wasted. And thus an opportunity to build a legit star is also wasted.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Well, 2 and a half years and people are still talking about it so they have done what they intended to do and that is to create a buzz around that.

It had to be somebody established like Cena or legit contender like Lesnar, everything else would be ridiculous. If it was somebody they try to establish there is always a chance that he would not be big as they hope or just injured all the time and that you wasted The Streak on him. Only contender that I can think of that is now really established and that could work is Orton when he had a chance. So for that purpose they wanted it, Brock was perfect. Only thing I hate is that he didnt really "give that rub" to anyone after that. Still waiting for that to happen but its probably due to happen sometimes.

 

[ShinChan]

Well, 2 and a half years and people are still talking about it so they have done what they intended to do and that is to create a buzz around that.

It had to be somebody established like Cena or legit contender like Lesnar, everything else would be ridiculous. If it was somebody they try to establish there is always a chance that he would not be big as they hope or just injured all the time and that you wasted The Streak on him. Only contender that I can think of that is now really established and that could work is Orton when he had a chance. So for that purpose they wanted it, Brock was perfect. Only thing I hate is that he didnt really "give that rub" to anyone after that. Still waiting for that to happen but its probably due to happen sometimes.

I can see what you intend to say.

But why would an established star like Cena, Brock or even Orton need this huge rub off The Undertaker? These three are already established veterans of professional wrestling and are already main event worthy stars.

Yeah, the risk would be there. But that's obvious. You could establish Roman Reigns by defeating Brock but what if he gets injured all the time? Risks are required to be taken so why not take with a young talented wrestler so as to make him a legit main eventer as well as a star.

 

[johnbragg]

Well, 2 and a half years and people are still talking about it so they have done what they intended to do and that is to create a buzz around that.

Well, the Streak was 20 years in the making, so the fact that its still something to talk about doesn't mean "OMG it created buzz." My thread about Bound For Glory 2010 should refute that idea.

It had to be somebody established like Cena or legit contender like Lesnar, everything else would be ridiculous.

It would have been ridiculous for CM Punk to break the Streak in 2010? Or the Shield a couple of years later, or Bray Wyatt before he lost some credibility, or the Shield?

AJ Styles could beat Sting in TNA at Bound For Glory but nobody who doesn't already have 5 title reigns could beat Undertaker at Wrestlemania? Really?

If it was somebody they try to establish there is always a chance that he would not be big as they hope or just injured all the time and that you wasted The Streak on him.

Sure, if you have CM Punk break the STreak in a Title vs Streak match, maybe CM Punk still goes off in a huff a few years later so you wasted the Streak and don't have a big new star to show for it. But Lesnar breaking the Streak gave you a 100% chance of wasting the Streak without a big new star to show for it.


Only contender that I can think of that is now really established and that could work is Orton when he had a chance. So for that purpose they wanted it, Brock was perfect. Only thing I hate is that he didnt really "give that rub" to anyone after that. Still waiting for that to happen but its probably due to happen sometimes.[/QUOTE]

 

[johnbragg]

Well, the Streak was 20 years in the making, so the fact that its still something to talk about doesn't mean "OMG it created buzz." My thread about Bound For Glory 2010 should refute that idea.



It would have been ridiculous for CM Punk to break the Streak in 2010? Or the Shield a couple of years later, or Bray Wyatt before he lost some credibility, or the Shield?

AJ Styles could beat Sting in TNA at Bound For Glory but nobody who doesn't already have 5 title reigns could beat Undertaker at Wrestlemania? Really?



Sure, if you have CM Punk break the STreak in a Title vs Streak match, maybe CM Punk still goes off in a huff a few years later so you wasted the Streak and don't have a big new star to show for it. But Lesnar breaking the Streak gave you a 100% chance of wasting the Streak without a big new star to show for it.

Only contender that I can think of that is now really established and that could work is Orton when he had a chance. So for that purpose they wanted it, Brock was perfect. Only thing I hate is that he didnt really "give that rub" to anyone after that. Still waiting for that to happen but its probably due to happen sometimes.

You think so? You think Lesnar seems like a "give back to the business" kind of guy? I'm pretty sure Lesnar retires without "doing the job" on the way out, at least not to anyone who "needs the rub."

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Here's the deal. Lesnar was the right character but the wrong person.

Lesnar turned into a world wide sensation. The booking was smart. A guy breaks the streak, becomes a super heel and then creates a big babyface. Here's the deal though. Stupid fans won't boo Lesnar. And Heyman and WWE also sell Lesnar as a face. Heyman always hypes him much.

From my POV, Heyman and Lesnar don't care about the bussiness. They only care about the $$$. If they were heels, Heyman wouldn't be hyping up Lesnar all the time, he wouldn't pander to the fans, he would start "Suplex City" chants. He would cut off those chants. He would speak back at the fans. He wouldn't start verbal wars with Stephanie McMahon.

WWE, Heyman, Lesnar and Vince are all to blame for what happened after the streak died. Lesnar would still have become a big deal, by squashing Cena. It seems, 2.5 years afterwards, that the whole streak deal was not needed. Such a shame.. Lesnar has zero heat at the moment. Not even after breaking Orton. Heyman is to blame for that. Why hasn't anyone told him that they are supossed to be heels?

The whole Lesnar deal was just a big junk of unfortunate events.

The original plan was a) Lesnar ends the streak, b) Lesnar kills Bryan and c) Lesnar puts over Reigns.

All of this, is great. It brings huge heat to Lesnar, which is used to elevate Reigns. BUT, Bryan gets injured and Lesnar squashes Cena. This brings some cheers. Then, Cena has to look strong, so he beats Lesnar via DQ and then Lesnar leaves for 4 months. WTF. Of course he comes back and gets in a feud with Cena and Rollins. A guy that everyone cheers his opponents and a heel. And then the whole Rumble thing happens.

To sum up, at the time, it was the right call because nobody knew what would come. Afterwards though, it was handed so carelessly.
In the end, Bray Wyatt would have been a better choice, but again, nobody knew what would come. It's not the fact that the streak was broken by Lesnar that matters to me, but how poorly WWE handed the situation afterwards.

PS: In wrestling, as long you have a wrestler that's over with the fans, the only thing left that's needed is a story. WWE completely fucked up this story. Even if Bray had broken it, WWE would still have done abo****ely nothing with it.

 

[johnbragg]

wards.

PS: In wrestling, as long you have a wrestler that's over with the fans, the only thing left that's needed is a story. WWE completely fucked up this story. Even if Bray had broken it, WWE would still have done abo****ely nothing with it.

Probably. But there would be a 5-10 year window where Bray Wyatt could always be rebuilt quickly as the guy who ended The Streak.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

I can see what you intend to say.

But why would an established star like Cena, Brock or even Orton need this huge rub off The Undertaker? These three are already established veterans of professional wrestling and are already main event worthy stars.

Because "The Streak" is more gimmick then something else. When you pass it to Lesnar he has bragging rights to that with "I am the one who ended Undertakers Streak". So next guy who beats him gets the rub from that. Because Undertaker wont be around forever to do that but Cena, Orton and Lesnar would be around a while to pass on that legacy.

It would have been ridiculous for CM Punk to break the Streak in 2010? Or the Shield a couple of years later, or Bray Wyatt before he lost some credibility, or the Shield?

Yes it would be. Punk ending The Streak and then going out of company next year, or massive turn off fans have on Reigns, or Seth going injured, or Lame Wyatt foot which injures once in a while. With established guy you know what you have around, with someone who still needs to be established you risk way more to squander The Streak on someone who(like in case of Punk) will be out next year or be injury prone like Bray.

You think so? You think Lesnar seems like a "give back to the business" kind of guy? I'm pretty sure Lesnar retires without "doing the job" on the way out, at least not to anyone who "needs the rub."

We would see, but pretty sure they dont build him like a unstoppable monster if they just intend to retire him without giving that rub to anyone. It would happen somewhere on the line, maybe even on next Mania.

 

[King Patrick Star]

Kudo to you for thinking something different.

But again that wouldn't benefit anyone involved. The rub off The Undertaker's streak is wasted. And thus an opportunity to build a legit star is also wasted.

That's the thing. No one ever needed to benefit from the "rub". Just look at who actually got the win. Lesnar most certainly didn't need the rub. Lesnar could have lost and it wouldn't have hurt anything. What was wasted was the legend of the Streak. It should have been kept intact, and never blemished. If it had to be, then my suggestion should have been the only way to go.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Brock Lesnar was NOT the right choice to end the Streak. In fact, he was one of the worst possible options. Lesnar was a former UFC Champion. He was going to be a perfect fit for the evil mega heel monster type of character no matter what he did. Why waste a once in a lifetime push by having someone like HIM end the Streak? Horrible idea on the WWE's part and my opinion of that has not changed in the past 2 and a half years. Punk would have been a much better option, and a better option than the Wyatt suggestion in the opening post. While Wyatt is not the ideal option either, he IS at least better than Lesnar would have been. The WWE missed a golden opportunity for a heel turn in the ending of the Streak. Imagine if Cena had been the one to end it, and turned heel in the process. It would have been the biggest moment since Hogan's heel turn when he formed the nWo. Now, I'm not saying it had to be Cena. Or even Punk. What I'm saying is that WWE missed a great opportunity that they will NEVER have again. There will never be another Undertaker and there will never be another Streak like his. All they can do is continue to build up Lesnar a bit more then have someone like Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose, or any other future top star, be the one to truly inherit the momentum. Someone who NEEDS it and will be around at the top for a really long time.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

Brock Lesnar was NOT the right choice to end the Streak. In fact, he was one of the worst possible options. Lesnar was a former UFC Champion. He was going to be a perfect fit for the evil mega heel monster type of character no matter what he did. Why waste a once in a lifetime push by having someone like HIM end the Streak? Horrible idea on the WWE's part and my opinion of that has not changed in the past 2 and a half years. Punk would have been a much better option, and a better option than the Wyatt suggestion in the opening post. While Wyatt is not the ideal option either, he IS at least better than Lesnar would have been. The WWE missed a golden opportunity for a heel turn in the ending of the Streak. Imagine if Cena had been the one to end it, and turned heel in the process. It would have been the biggest moment since Hogan's heel turn when he formed the nWo. Now, I'm not saying it had to be Cena. Or even Punk. What I'm saying is that WWE missed a great opportunity that they will NEVER have again. There will never be another Undertaker and there will never be another Streak like his. All they can do is continue to build up Lesnar a bit more then have someone like Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose, or any other future top star, be the one to truly inherit the momentum. Someone who NEEDS it and will be around at the top for a really long time.

Pretty much this. Lesnar was the worst choice to end the streak. He didnt deserve it

Lesnar spits in the face of the wrestling business and its fans. He doesnt give back to the wrestling business. He barely puts people over.

I truly and will always hate brock lesnar. The man get sky rocketed to top in 2002 beating people like taker, show, booker, angle and others in this first year. Won kotr and rr as well. And the wwe championship.
And after a year and half in the business. He acts like a primmdonna and leaves.
Biggest spit in the face of the wwe.
I will always say that brock didnt deserve that monster push in 2002.
But that is a different discussion.

The undertaker streak should of ended at wrestlemania 28 against hhh. In the end of an era match. That was the perfect ending for hhh, shawn and taker.
He should of retired after that.
I grew tired of taker after wrestlemania 26.

Takers legacy died at wrestlemania 30. Lesnar destroyed takers legacy.
Takers legacy will be forever tarnished bc of lesnar.
Taker shouldn't of let lesnar end it.
Stupid on vince parts.

Kane or cena should of ended the streak. If given the chance.
Anyone but lesnar.

That killed wrestlemania for me.
Streak ending.

To me the streak shouldnt of ended.

I will forever and always hate lesnar. Not for ending the streak.
But for the disrespect he showed towards the wrestling business. And other sports he has been involved in.
Lesnar is a disgrace to professional wrestling.
He is the most laziness and selfish person I've seen.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

I don't think Brock was the right guy. But as much as I mull over it, I can't put somebody else in that place and work out a better- continuing story from it. Sure, the rub from such a monumental win would last for awhile in a heel sense, but does a guy like Bray Wyatt suddenly become a force in the WWE when he was being booked so poorly before? I don't know, it's a hard case to ponder. I can still sit there and say -No, Brock was a bad choice because he can become the unbeatable beast without ending The Streak- ....

...then I go back and watch the actual match. Brock Lesner looks to be in good shape for the match. The Undertaker is a different story. I don't know what diet he was on or what was going on in his life at the time but he looked frail and weak. Hell, he looked in way better shape the following year.

Meanwhile, Brock Lesner moves on to become the next special part timer. Undertaker is still around, but now Brock Lesner has that unbeatable cloak around him and he's tearing wrestlers up left and right. People HATE him for ending The Streak, they hate him for his UFC style matches, they HATE his attitude and that's why they cling to his next opponent everytime. Now the wait is on to see who will take down The Beast.

 

[ShinChan]

Because "The Streak" is more gimmick then something else. When you pass it to Lesnar he has bragging rights to that with "I am the one who ended Undertakers Streak". So next guy who beats him gets the rub from that. Because Undertaker wont be around forever to do that but Cena, Orton and Lesnar would be around a while to pass on that legacy.

But does Brock Lesnar need this rub?

Beating Brock Lesnar clean and ending the undefeated streak of The Undertaker are two situations where two legitimate stars can be made.

Like suppose, Wyatt ended the streak and Reigns defeated Lesnar clean, there we get two stars who get a big rub off their opponents.

But now if Reigns beats Lesnar clean, there's only one star made. Would Reigns say that he beat the ender of The Undertaker's streak? No. At that time, Lesnar had only one year left on his contract. So Undertaker surely would have been more around than Lesnar.

 

[ShinChan]

That's the thing. No one ever needed to benefit from the "rub". Just look at who actually got the win. Lesnar most certainly didn't need the rub. Lesnar could have lost and it wouldn't have hurt anything. What was wasted was the legend of the Streak. It should have been kept intact, and never blemished. If it had to be, then my suggestion should have been the only way to go.

If streak is never broken then what's the purpose left for the streak? Every streak needs to end someday just to give a big rub.

You're right in saying that Lesnar didn't need that rub. The streak's big rub was surely wasted. I don't think that Lesnar would agree to lose to Undertaker. Why not just never book Undertaker Vs. Lesnar? Of if you want to book it, don't do it at Wrestlemania.

 

[ShinChan]

I don't think Brock was the right guy. But as much as I mull over it, I can't put somebody else in that place and work out a better- continuing story from it. Sure, the rub from such a monumental win would last for awhile in a heel sense, but does a guy like Bray Wyatt suddenly become a force in the WWE when he was being booked so poorly before? I don't know, it's a hard case to ponder. I can still sit there and say -No, Brock was a bad choice because he can become the unbeatable beast without ending The Streak- ....

...then I go back and watch the actual match. Brock Lesner looks to be in good shape for the match. The Undertaker is a different story. I don't know what diet he was on or what was going on in his life at the time but he looked frail and weak. Hell, he looked in way better shape the following year.

Meanwhile, Brock Lesner moves on to become the next special part timer. Undertaker is still around, but now Brock Lesner has that unbeatable cloak around him and he's tearing wrestlers up left and right. People HATE him for ending The Streak, they hate him for his UFC style matches, they HATE his attitude and that's why they cling to his next opponent everytime. Now the wait is on to see who will take down The Beast.

I didn't mean to say that Wyatt should've been the one to end the streak at Wrestlemania 30. It could be done at 32 or 33 but not without building Wyatt as a dominant force. Building the one to break the streak is surely needed.

Yeah, he looked in horrible shape and the suplexes just worsened his situation. The streak was one of the significant features of Wrestlemania which it is no more.

Most probably Roman Reigns would be one to take down The Beast. Again a waste.

 

[the_peoples_adam]

I think Brock Lesnar was the right one to break the streak 100% bcoz if anybody could have broken the streak it was him. The reason is whoever breaks the streak still everybody will say he was not the right choice ,the same as in the case with Brock.
Also in my opinion the streak should have never been broken..It should have went on to infinity with Undertaker retiring with the streak intact..

 

[King Patrick Star]

If streak is never broken then what's the purpose left for the streak? Every streak needs to end someday just to give a big rub.

You're right in saying that Lesnar didn't need that rub. The streak's big rub was surely wasted. I don't think that Lesnar would agree to lose to Undertaker. Why not just never book Undertaker Vs. Lesnar? Of if you want to book it, don't do it at Wrestlemania.

I think the Undertaker should have won at WrestleMania XXX.

I think Brock Lesnar should have won at SummerSlam 2015.

The same story could have been told, even if they would have switched the results for these two matches. Brock Lesnar could have still won the rubber match at Hell In A Cell 2015, and everyone involved would be happy.

 

[ShinChan]

I think the Undertaker should have won at WrestleMania XXX.

I think Brock Lesnar should have won at SummerSlam 2015.

The same story could have been told, even if they would have switched the results for these two matches. Brock Lesnar could have still won the rubber match at Hell In A Cell 2015, and everyone involved would be happy.

Exactly. Because Undertaker losing at Summerslam doesn't waste the rub off the undefeated streak of The Undertaker at Wrestlemania. Plus Wrestlemania 30 match was more of a squash match which also degraded the match itself considering it was at Wrestlemania.

WWE screwed the match result again at Summerslam 2015. The way to make Undertaker win the match and trying to make him heel was absurd.

 

[StaRRStruck]

The whole Lesnar deal was just a big junk of unfortunate events.

The original plan was a) Lesnar ends the streak, b) Lesnar kills Bryan and c) Lesnar puts over Reigns.

This. I candidly thought Daniel Bryan's injury that year really took the plans for a turn. D-Bry being squashed would have caused MASSIVE heat on Lesnar, who already had breaking the streak notched under his belt. The piss poor Cena/Lesnar feud from the year took a lot of steam out of the program, and in turn Bryan's return caused a huge domino effect on Roman Reigns' push essentially rendering Lesnar's path of destruction becoming pointless.

As for the Streak ending regardless of the plans Vince had in place, I don't think Lesnar should've broken it to begin with. First of all, 21-1. Really? I'm not Punk should've been the one either but that number alone just made the whole thing feel off. Secondly, Lesnar had lost to HHH the year before the whole thing in my head just downgraded the Streak altogether. Brock got pushed to tremendous heights the fire lit under his ass could only be so effective considering the minimal appearances he was making ESPECIALLY that year. So no, Brock Lesnar ending the streak in my eyes was a very underwhelming approach. Yes the shock value was insane, but was it really worth it?

In my opinion, I thought Taker would either retire 25-0 or 25-1 with his final match being the loss. If he were to beat Brock that means we would be entering his final victory, which I would see him beating Cena. But with Taker at 23-1 I still see him putting on two more Mania's. One against Cena and the other against an ex-Shield member or Styles.

 

[aaronmb]

Looking at Vince's logic, where he thought it was Taker's last match, with the person ending the streak getting a huge push, then Lesnar would've made sense, if say Sting was Takers final opponent.
However, it made no sense to do it, since he's done two more Mania's, which both were pointless.

 

[johnbragg]

I'd compare Undertakers' Wrestlemania streak to be a gimmick on par with Warrior beating Hogan at Wrestlemania VI. Taker was invincible at Wrestlemania, Hulk was invincible period.

WWF made the right decision in 1990 or so, even though Warrior was/went crazy and wasted the push. Sure, Punk or Bryan or Roman Reigns or Bray Wyatt may have taken the rub of ending the Streak and wasted it the way Warrior wasted the "man who beat Hogan" rub.

But WWF jobbed Hogan to the next guy who was supposed to carry the company. The modern (or semi-modern, it's 3 years ago) equivalent would have been a young guy just below the Cena-Orton level, Punk or Bryan or Reigns or Ambrose or Rollins or Wyatt--or Miz or Swagger or Jeff Hardy or Alberto Del Rio or Seamus or Ziggler.

What Vince McMAhon didn't do in the age of MC Hammer? Job Hogan out to Mike Tyson, who was a huge star outside of WWF but would only be appearing 2-4 times a year. Now that *would* have sold a lot of PPV. But would Tyson have done the job to Warrior or Hart or Flair before he ended up going to jail?

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The problem is the streak itself should NEVER have happened and only ever did thanks to an injury. Taker was hurt when he lost to Yokozuna at the Rumble 94... had that injury not occured, and no time off needed then that loss would probably have shifted to Wrestlemania X instead - perhaps at the expense of the Bret/Owen match or Luger in the Main Event mix... Taker losing to Yoko, who then lost to Bret would have been a shock... but had it been done as at the Rumble, with all the heels getting involved... it would have been a good thing.

Failing that, Wrestlemania 11 was the worst use of Undertaker at Mania against Bundy... although most of the roster were horribly used... Taker should have been going against a Bret Hart or British Bulldog at the show... Bret would and should have won, but Davey would have been a good shout to upset the deadman and properly kickstart his heel turn.

My point being, the streak should never have been allowed to be a "thing" to begin with... it didn't save Undertaker's career, it became somewhat of an albatross round his neck. By 97 he was legit main eventing rather than the attraction, but the Streak forced him back to being an attraction. Sure his career might have been shorter without the streak... but he'd have been on top far more than he would have been otherwise.

As for Brock being the right person, I can't see, by that stage anyone else.. It's not the boon to a career you are thinking for a young talent, it would easily become the albatross round THEIR neck... had it even ended 10 years earlier with someone like Edge or similar, then it might JUST have been worth it, but Brock didn't have that problem or baggage... It was clear by 30 that Taker had no real business being there... it showed in the match and how he collapsed after. The streak had become a self-perpetuating monster.

Is there a talent who could have really benefitted from it? In recent years, not really, unless you went with Punk and used it to fuel his anti-McMahon/WWE gimmick. Bray ending it means Bray is saddled with the new Taker tag for his career... he doesn't need a torch passing, he has his own lantern so to speak...

Looking further back, one guy who could have benefitted was heel Austin... Had Bret left in 96, then Taker losing to Austin would have been an alternate way to get Austin over.... the double turn could still have happened, with Taker not accepting the loss and reverting more to the Michael Myers-esque character he once had...

The other guy who could have probably benefitted was Wade Barrett... if they'd been serious about him as part of Nexus and that push, then giving him the title and putting him against Taker at Mania would have followed after defeating Cena... That Barrett, beating Cena and Taker within a year would have been a main eventer for years to come... they didn't... by then Taker was in his "I'm only gonna wrestle 3 guys in 5 years" phase, the other reason the streak is so bogus... it's been padded out SO bad over the years.... it should have just ended early.