Round 1: Tastycles -versus- IrishCanadian25

[Mr. TM]

Should The Undertaker's Wrestlemania Streak ever be ended?

IrishCanadian25 is the home debater, he gets to choose which side of the debate he is on first, but he has 24 hours.

Remember to read the rules. This thread is only for the debaters.

This round ends Friday 1:00 pm Pacific​

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I am going to debate that The Undertaker's streak SHOULD, in fact, come to an end, and I will post first.

I also want to say, before we begin, that I am thrilled (and anxious) at how the playoff seedings wound up. I'd said that I wanted a 2nd crack at Tasty since I couldn't bring my "A-Game" the first time as he deserves. Well, now I can. And I will. Best of luck, man.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Judges, over the course of the next week, I am going to outline for you why the best thing the WWE can do is to END the Wrestlemania undefeated streak of the Undertaker. I will explain why the obvious choice is for the Deadman to have his shoulders pinned to the mat on "the grandest stage of them all." And I have no doubt that, when all is said and done, I will have succeeded in convincing you of the same.

1. The Streak Overshadows the Man

We saw this very issue with Bill Goldberg. When we watch The Undertaker at Wrestlemania, we no longer care about The Undertaker himself. We care about a number. 17-0. The match ceases to be relevant, because the only thing that matters is whether the streak is in tact afterwards.

2. The "Rub" Factor

I was thinking about this the other day. If an upper-midcard heel built up enough steam to be on the cusp of main event status, there would be no greater rub than to be the man who finally defeats The Undertaker at Wrestlemania. It would be a pro wrestling status symbol for years to come. And in a company desparate to create and elevate new stars, it would be a virtual lock for whomever accomplished the task to draw from it for YEARS.

Imagine Jack Swagger, John Morrison, Ted DiBiase, or even Chris Jericho, or ANYONE after beating the Undertaker. The heat would be nuclear and the controversy would be endless.

3. Shock Value

This discussion board alone is packed with individuals who are disappointed with the apparent predictability of professional wrestling. But fans are totally unsure if The Undertaker's streak will live on or not. A loss at Wrestlemania would provide fans with that level of shock value that is no longer seen in the WWE. And since World and WWE title reigns are passed around like candy now-a-days, few victorys hold a long-term, resonatng value. A win over the Undertaker at Wrestlemania would be the ultimate "Holy Shit" moment that could remind fans that, yes, anything can still happen.

4. It's Not That Impressive Anyway

The streak is a number that has become bigger than it should be anyways, and anyone who claims it's more impressive that it really is is kidding you. Or they are delusional. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

Wrestlemania 7 vs Jimmy Snuka. A 5-minute squash against a declining "legend." A minor footnote. His Survivor Series debut was 10x more impressive.

Wrestlemania 8 vs Jake Roberts. The residue from the blow-off to the Savage / Roberts feud. Also, 'Taker's first big match as a face. It was ok for the 2nd match on the card. Roberts carried the whole feud, and 'Taker's only big moment was sitting up from 2 DDT's.

Wrestlemania 9 vs Giant Gonzalez. Gonzalez was Great Khali in a weird body suit. Moving on...

Wrestlemania 10 vs...NOBODY! HE WASN'T EVEN ON THE FREAKING CARD OF THE BIGGEST WRESTLEMANIA TO DATE!!!

Wrestlemania 11 vs King Kong Bundy. 9 years after losing to Hogan in a cage, The Michelin Man still hangs around...

Wrestlemania 12 vs Diesel. Decent feud, but absolutely 2nd fiddle to the Hart / Michaels deal.

Wrestlemania 13 vs Sid. Possibly the worst Wrestlemania title match ever. Totally overshadowed by Hart / Austin.

Wrestlemania 14 vs Kane. His first legitimately impressive Wrestlemania feud / match. The first WM feud against his brother, Kane.

Wrestlemania 15 vs Big Bossman. Since the build up was non-existant, it was made a "Hell in a Cell" and was totally useless. Overshadowed by the controversial hanging spot afterwards.

Wrestlemania 16 vs...NOBODY! Is the streak tainted considering he missed 2 of them now?

Wrestlemania 17 vs Triple H. Brilliant match by both men, no question. It's what you should expect from two awesome veterans.

Wrestlemania 18 vs Ric Flair. Also a solid match, a brutal no DQ match. Flair held his own.

Wrestlemania 19 vs Albert and Big Show. Natan Jones ditched, turning a bad tag team match into a terrible handicap match. What an insult.

Wrestlemania 20 vs Kane. Not a bad job here, but the outcome was never in question.

Wrestlemania 21 vs Randy Orton. Some people even feel that this match is where the streak SHOULD have ended. Instead, Orton lost a classic and didn't get the rub from it. Imagine if Randy HAD won and we had to hear this top heel with THAT on his resume? Maybe WWE missed the boat here...

Wrestlemania 22 vs Mark Henry. Was 'Taker the only guy Henry couldn't injure? This was a casket match, and one of the worst Wrestlemania matches I've ever seen. But it wasn't about the match - it was about the streak. This is like Florida playing Tuscoloosa Atlantic Technical College 61-0 to remain undefeated in a College Footbal season.

Wrestlemania 23 vs Batista. Brilliant match, and it proved that Taker could carry almost anyone (not named Henry, Bundy, or A-Train) to a good Wrestlemania performance.

Wrestlemania 24 vs Edge. Another good match, if only because Edge ALSO had a Wrestlemania streak going. Oddly enough, Taker is 17-0 at Wrestlemania with ONLY THREE TITLE MATCHES!!!

Wrestlemania 25 vs Michaels. Classic match, though Michaels was the reason. We all knew the outcome going in, but Michaels made us doubt it mid-way.

So of Undertaker's 17 "straight" wins (though he didn't even appear at 2 of them), he has had only 3 title matches, and only 3 or 4 of the matches qualify as legitimate Wrestlemania classics. He's won 17 matches against a range of opponents, so let's not make a huge deal. Besides - 'Taker just takes 3-5 months off after Wrestlemania anyways, so what is he building towards, and how does it benefit him?

5. Wrestlemania should be about the Main Event

Last year, the Undertaker / Michaels match totally stole the heat from the two title matches. I for one was exhausted after the Taker / HBK match to even be emotionally involved in the title matches. That's a problem. If the streak makes people care LESS about the championships, that's not a good thing long-term.

6. After Retirement, the "Streak" ceases to draw

Right now, the Undertaker's streak can draw fans and money. People who don't watch every week may tune in to see if Taker still wins. But once he retires (or loses), the streak no longer draws. It's like a huge superstar who is in a free agent year. You can let him go for nothing, or you can trade him for younger players. Trade the Undertaker's streak for legit heat on a younger competitor.

WWE needs to stop peddling a number like 17-0 to fans, and in the process, overshadowing the matches themselves. They owe it to the fans, they owe it to their championships, and to be honest, they owe it to The Undertaker himself to let him pass the torch.

 

[Tastycles]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I shall, over the upcoming week explain exactly why the wrestling institution that is the Undertaker's WrestleMania streak should never come to an end. I will structure my arguments firstly by stating my own position, before addressing the points that my opponent has made. And so, we begin.

1. To end the streak is to end a guaranteed WrestleMania draw

Every year, you have a few WrestleMania staples. The first is the title matches, the second is money in the bank, and the third is Taker's streak match. Now, obviously they could replace it with something else, but they've struggled to do so in recent times. WrestleMania requires a match that can rise to it's occasion, and somebody attempting to break the streak can do that. With very little build, Michaels vs Taker stole the show at this year's WrestleMania, and arguably saved it from a complete disaster. That match was all about Mr. WrestleMania vs The streak. If there wasn't a streak, it'd be just another match, just another feud, and WrestleMania would have become just another PPV.

2. Ending the streak will kill The Undertaker. Again.

The Undertaker is slowing down, and he is already quite a weak champion, having him lose at WrestleMania will remove his last true enigma, and will render him limp for the remainder of his WWE career. This could obviously be countered by saying he should lose on his exit from the company, but that would take away from the what the match should be, a big exit. If Flair vs Michaels had been about Michaels, then it would have completely subtracted from the emotion and impact of the match.

3. The Undertaker deserves it

Every big named star has a thing when they leave the company. Austin has his feuds, Triple H will have his titles, just like Flair, Hogan has slamming Andre, The Rock has his promos, the list goes on. Nobody has ever been a consistant in ring competitor for the WWE or its predecessors for longer than Undertaker has, and he deserves to have something to remember him by. The Undertaker deserves to have the streak as the thing to remember him by, in the same way that everyone before him does.

I shall now take the time to address my opponent's statements.

4. There isn't really a negative to losing

Nobody losing to the Undertaker has ever been seriously affected by it, and most of the young ones went from strength to strength to get there. Losing to unstoppables, especially at WrestleMania doesn't damage a wrestler's credibility, as it is kind of expected. Andre wasn't weakened by WrestleMania III, and Triple H wasn't weakened by losing inside two minutes to the Warrior. The streak has a lot of benefits, and no real negatives.

1. The Streak Overshadows the Man

We saw this very issue with Bill Goldberg. When we watch The Undertaker at Wrestlemania, we no longer care about The Undertaker himself. We care about a number. 17-0. The match ceases to be relevant, because the only thing that matters is whether the streak is in tact afterwards.

This is frankly untrue. If it was about the number, not the man, then it would be exactly like Goldberg. However, the number adds to the dimension of the man. The Undertaker's modus operandi is getting in the head of his opponents and it always has been. The streak helps him do that right now, his opponent kayfabe is thinking "this guy is frightening and he has never lost on the biggest stage", if he lost he'd be thinking "this guy normally wins on the biggest stage, but I have a chance". The streak adds immensely to the quality of the feud.

2. The "Rub" Factor

I was thinking about this the other day. If an upper-midcard heel built up enough steam to be on the cusp of main event status, there would be no greater rub than to be the man who finally defeats The Undertaker at Wrestlemania. It would be a pro wrestling status symbol for years to come. And in a company desparate to create and elevate new stars, it would be a virtual lock for whomever accomplished the task to draw from it for YEARS.

Imagine Jack Swagger, John Morrison, Ted DiBiase, or even Chris Jericho, or ANYONE after beating the Undertaker. The heat would be nuclear and the controversy would be endless.

This factor is hugely overrated. People don't get anywhere from one match result. For a classic example see Shelton Benjamin. He's had millions of "big wins" but he's still exactly where he'd be without them, one step above Goldust.

This has been repeated countless times over history. Nobody cares that Ivan Koloff finally beat Bruno Sammartino, nobody cares that Jim Duggan won the Royal Rumble. Stars are made by hard work and perspiration and talent, one big win doesn't get anyone anywhere. Otherwise, guys like Benjamin and Billy Kidman would have gone on to greatness.

3. Shock Value

This discussion board alone is packed with individuals who are disappointed with the apparent predictability of professional wrestling. But fans are totally unsure if The Undertaker's streak will live on or not. A loss at Wrestlemania would provide fans with that level of shock value that is no longer seen in the WWE. And since World and WWE title reigns are passed around like candy now-a-days, few victorys hold a long-term, resonatng value. A win over the Undertaker at Wrestlemania would be the ultimate "Holy Shit" moment that could remind fans that, yes, anything can still happen.

The boards are full of people who complain about everything, and even doubt that Cena is a draw, so that isn't a real yardstick. Here's a secret for you, wrestling fans don't really like suprises as much as you think. They want the good guy to win in the end. That's why in 25 years of WrestleMania there have been two main events won by a heel. The audience want the Undertaker to win, and as it is only once a year, and the show they pay the most to see, they should probably get to see that, rather than needless shock tactics.

4. It's Not That Impressive Anyway

The streak is a number that has become bigger than it should be anyways, and anyone who claims it's more impressive that it really is is kidding you. Or they are delusional. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

Hulk Hogan's four year reign wasn't that impressive either, when you look who he beat. Does that mean that he should have been beaten by King Kong Bundy? No. Every single wrestling streak or title reign is tainted in some way, exagerrated. That's the business of wrestling.

Wrestlemania 7 vs Jimmy Snuka. A 5-minute squash against a declining "legend." A minor footnote. His Survivor Series debut was 10x more impressive.

Who cares if his Survivor Series match was better. His WrestleMania debut saw him annihilate somebody who was considered one of the company's biggest stars 6 years ago. It would be akin to somebody squashing Mick Foley now, it just wouldn't happen.

Wrestlemania 8 vs Jake Roberts. The residue from the blow-off to the Savage / Roberts feud. Also, 'Taker's first big match as a face. It was ok for the 2nd match on the card. Roberts carried the whole feud, and 'Taker's only big moment was sitting up from 2 DDT's.

So he kicked out of one of the most high profile finishing moves in the business? To ignore the impact of doing that is a heinous wrestling crime.

Wrestlemania 9 vs Giant Gonzalez. Gonzalez was Great Khali in a weird body suit. Moving on...

Yes, he beat someone who was previously undefeated, pretty big news.

Wrestlemania 10 vs...NOBODY! HE WASN'T EVEN ON THE FREAKING CARD OF THE BIGGEST WRESTLEMANIA TO DATE!!!

How is it the biggest WrestleMania? Buys? Nope. Attendance? No. That WrestleMania was not the biggest in terms of anything. Except fattest main eventer. And so what, the guy isn't allowed to be injured?

Wrestlemania 11 vs King Kong Bundy. 9 years after losing to Hogan in a cage, The Michelin Man still hangs around...

He beat him more decisively than Hogan did, which is saying a lot actually.

Wrestlemania 12 vs Diesel. Decent feud, but absolutely 2nd fiddle to the Hart / Michaels deal.

So what, it wasn't the main event? It was actually the start of Taker being a solid WrestleMania undercard guy, a guy who made sure it wasn't all about the main event.

Wrestlemania 13 vs Sid. Possibly the worst Wrestlemania title match ever. Totally overshadowed by Hart / Austin.

Don't be so ridiculous. So what, it wasn't the best match on the card, so the win doesn't count? Sid was a huge skull to cap then, and Taker did it. It doesn't matter if the emotionality wasn't there, it was the win that mattered, and he got it.

Wrestlemania 14 vs Kane. His first legitimately impressive Wrestlemania feud / match. The first WM feud against his brother, Kane.

A stunning feud, and a match that nobody saw the outcome of it coming.

Wrestlemania 15 vs Big Bossman. Since the build up was non-existant, it was made a "Hell in a Cell" and was totally useless. Overshadowed by the controversial hanging spot afterwards.

Yeah, the whole Ministry vs Corporation feud had no build at all did it? He beat him in style, and then provided yet another iconic WrestleMania moment.

Wrestlemania 16 vs...NOBODY! Is the streak tainted considering he missed 2 of them now?

It's a winning streak, not an attendance streak. Nobody talks about Tito Santana's streak for precisely that reason.

Wrestlemania 17 vs Triple H. Brilliant match by both men, no question. It's what you should expect from two awesome veterans.

Yet another classic match.

Wrestlemania 18 vs Ric Flair. Also a solid match, a brutal no DQ match. Flair held his own.

So the most decorated star of all time merely held his own, that says it all really. Brutal is exactly what Taker was.

Wrestlemania 19 vs Albert and Big Show. Natan Jones ditched, turning a bad tag team match into a terrible handicap match. What an insult.

A shit match, hampered by Jones being too shit to compete, but it doesn't stop the fact that Taker beat a team that consisted of an up and comer and a guy in between World Title reigns.

Wrestlemania 20 vs Kane. Not a bad job here, but the outcome was never in question.

Another solid win against a top competitor.

Wrestlemania 21 vs Randy Orton. Some people even feel that this match is where the streak SHOULD have ended. Instead, Orton lost a classic and didn't get the rub from it. Imagine if Randy HAD won and we had to hear this top heel with THAT on his resume? Maybe WWE missed the boat here...

I'd argue that by beating him here, Orton would have lost a hell of a lot. As it happened, he feuded Taker for months afterwards, which both galvanised him as a performer and gave him the cutting edge that he never had before. Orton's character developed 20 times more from chasing the Undertaker than it would from beating him one off.

Wrestlemania 22 vs Mark Henry. Was 'Taker the only guy Henry couldn't injure? This was a casket match, and one of the worst Wrestlemania matches I've ever seen. But it wasn't about the match - it was about the streak. This is like Florida playing Tuscoloosa Atlantic Technical College 61-0 to remain undefeated in a College Footbal season.

A shit match, but he still got a decisive victory over a big name player.

Wrestlemania 23 vs Batista. Brilliant match, and it proved that Taker could carry almost anyone (not named Henry, Bundy, or A-Train) to a good Wrestlemania performance.

And another brilliant win.

Wrestlemania 24 vs Edge. Another good match, if only because Edge ALSO had a Wrestlemania streak going. Oddly enough, Taker is 17-0 at Wrestlemania with ONLY THREE TITLE MATCHES!!!

Edge had lost at WrestleMania 23 in the MITB. The fact he has so few titles proves how good a drawing device it is. It means that the Undertaker doesn't need to be a champion to have a compelling WrestleMania title behind him.

Wrestlemania 25 vs Michaels. Classic match, though Michaels was the reason. We all knew the outcome going in, but Michaels made us doubt it mid-way.

Exactly, decent opponents can make you doubt the foregone conclusiviness of the matches, thus rendering your predictibility argument null and void.

So of Undertaker's 17 "straight" wins (though he didn't even appear at 2 of them), he has had only 3 title matches, and only 3 or 4 of the matches qualify as legitimate Wrestlemania classics. He's won 17 matches against a range of opponents, so let's not make a huge deal. Besides - 'Taker just takes 3-5 months off after Wrestlemania anyways, so what is he building towards, and how does it benefit him?

He took time off for surgery, not as a consequence of WrestleMania. You think he'd have stayed in work if he had have lost? You say that the streak isn't straight, well it is. He has won every match in a row. Does the Patriots' undefeated streak not count because they had a bye week? Of course it does.

The fact so few matches have been title matches proves the streak's ability to stand on its own as a reason to watch WrestleMania.

5. Wrestlemania should be about the Main Event

Last year, the Undertaker / Michaels match totally stole the heat from the two title matches. I for one was exhausted after the Taker / HBK match to even be emotionally involved in the title matches. That's a problem. If the streak makes people care LESS about the championships, that's not a good thing long-term.

No, WrestleMania should be about the biggest match on the card. WrestleMania X was about the Harts, WrestleMania X-8 was about Hogan vs Rock. The biggest problem is that Orton vs HHH and Edge vs Cena had been done before. Are you seriously suggesting that Michaels vs Taker wouldn't have stolen the show if he had lost to Orton three years earlier?

6. After Retirement, the "Streak" ceases to draw

Right now, the Undertaker's streak can draw fans and money. People who don't watch every week may tune in to see if Taker still wins. But once he retires (or loses), the streak no longer draws. It's like a huge superstar who is in a free agent year. You can let him go for nothing, or you can trade him for younger players. Trade the Undertaker's streak for legit heat on a younger competitor.

This is probably your only valid point, but I don't think it does. The streak can become something a top star can aim for ("can the streak ever be matched?"), it can also be the thing they sell his one off appearances on, the way that they sell Flair's reigns. The streak wouldn't die with The Undertaker's career.

WWE needs to stop peddling a number like 17-0 to fans, and in the process, overshadowing the matches themselves. They owe it to the fans, they owe it to their championships, and to be honest, they owe it to The Undertaker himself to let him pass the torch.

The number adds to the match, it adds to the fans enjoyments, it takes the burden off their championships, and they owe it to The Undertaker to have something to set him out from the crowd.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

1. To end the streak is to end a guaranteed WrestleMania draw

Every year, you have a few WrestleMania staples. The first is the title matches, the second is money in the bank, and the third is Taker's streak match. Now, obviously they could replace it with something else, but they've struggled to do so in recent times. WrestleMania requires a match that can rise to it's occasion, and somebody attempting to break the streak can do that. With very little build, Michaels vs Taker stole the show at this year's WrestleMania, and arguably saved it from a complete disaster. That match was all about Mr. WrestleMania vs The streak. If there wasn't a streak, it'd be just another match, just another feud, and WrestleMania would have become just another PPV.

Well, there is one major, glaring hole in this logic. When Undertaker retires, the draw will end anyways. Now I am not saying end it this year. If Taker has 2-3 more years left, then wait until his last or second-to-last year. But the streak won't still draw after the Undertaker retires. The person who defeats him, however, WILL still draw after Undertaker retires, which is why it makes all the sense in the world o eventually end it.

2. Ending the streak will kill The Undertaker. Again.

The Undertaker is slowing down, and he is already quite a weak champion, having him lose at WrestleMania will remove his last true enigma, and will render him limp for the remainder of his WWE career. This could obviously be countered by saying he should lose on his exit from the company, but that would take away from the what the match should be, a big exit. If Flair vs Michaels had been about Michaels, then it would have completely subtracted from the emotion and impact of the match.

And going to WCW was supposed to kill Hulk Hogan. But it didn't. Katie Vick didn't kill Triple H. The American Bad Ass didn't kill Undertaker. Neither will this.

Undertaker's legacy doesn't ride on a number. He's a lock for his first eligible Hall-of-Fame year. Fans ages 8-88 will always remember him, and whether he is 19-0 or 18-1, he'll still be thought of as one of the greatest Wrestlemania competitors of all time. Please, don't insult the entire career of the Undertaker by placing his entire legacy on one single day.

3. The Undertaker deserves it

Every big named star has a thing when they leave the company. Austin has his feuds, Triple H will have his titles, just like Flair, Hogan has slamming Andre, The Rock has his promos, the list goes on. Nobody has ever been a consistant in ring competitor for the WWE or its predecessors for longer than Undertaker has, and he deserves to have something to remember him by. The Undertaker deserves to have the streak as the thing to remember him by, in the same way that everyone before him does.

Again, if "the streak" is all Undertaker has for his legacy, then you're insulting the largest percentage of his work. He is the only man to even defeat Hulk Hogan for 2 separate WWE Championships. He wrestled in the first major Hell in a Cell, Inferno, and Casket matches. His debut at Survivor Series is often regarded as the best debut in WWF history.

Undertaker deserves a lot. A legends deal. A Hall of Fame spot. And he deserves to hand pick the guy he loses to. Why? Because he's the Undertaker, and he understands the importance of passing the torch.

4. There isn't really a negative to losing

Nobody losing to the Undertaker has ever been seriously affected by it, and most of the young ones went from strength to strength to get there. Losing to unstoppables, especially at WrestleMania doesn't damage a wrestler's credibility, as it is kind of expected. Andre wasn't weakened by WrestleMania III, and Triple H wasn't weakened by losing inside two minutes to the Warrior. The streak has a lot of benefits, and no real negatives.

Of course not, but what is the benefit to The Undertaker now? Sure, maybe it hasn't harmed guys losing to the Undertaker, but he is well past a point where he actually benefits from winning. It's just another year he's not lost at Wrestlemania, and another competitor who doesn't get the "big win." The negatives to keeping the streak in tact are simply that it doesn't allow a young guy the biggest win of his career. And the positives of that rub vastly outweigh the positives of keeping it in tact.

This is frankly untrue. If it was about the number, not the man, then it would be exactly like Goldberg. However, the number adds to the dimension of the man. The Undertaker's modus operandi is getting in the head of his opponents and it always has been. The streak helps him do that right now, his opponent kayfabe is thinking "this guy is frightening and he has never lost on the biggest stage", if he lost he'd be thinking "this guy normally wins on the biggest stage, but I have a chance". The streak adds immensely to the quality of the feud.

It's no where NEAR untrue. The "feud" with Michaels last year wasn't about the men, it was about the streak. It was about Michaels trying to prove that he, not Taker, was the greatest in Wrestlemania history. Two years ago, two undefeated Wrestlemania competitors (Taker vs Edge) was the storyline that overshadowed the World Title. I stand by my statement that the streak has become so hyped that it's more important than WHO Taker actually wrestles at Wrestlemania. Couple that with his obligatory months off after the event, and Taker's Wrestlemania match is little more than an exhibition.

This factor is hugely overrated. People don't get anywhere from one match result. For a classic example see Shelton Benjamin. He's had millions of "big wins" but he's still exactly where he'd be without them, one step above Goldust.

This has been repeated countless times over history. Nobody cares that Ivan Koloff finally beat Bruno Sammartino, nobody cares that Jim Duggan won the Royal Rumble. Stars are made by hard work and perspiration and talent, one big win doesn't get anyone anywhere. Otherwise, guys like Benjamin and Billy Kidman would have gone on to greatness.

But the first time Chris Jericho beat the Rock for the WCW Title didn't do anything? Or when Booker T beat Jeff Jarrett at Bash at the Beach? Hell, The Undertaker himself benefitted HUGE from the rub he got by beating Hogan! And Hogan got that same rub by beating Andre!

Sure, some guys do something with it and some guys don't. This has to be done with the right wrestler, the right way, and at the right time. But you're making it sound like the guy who beats the Undertaker is doomed to fail. Just because Shelton got a couple Monday Night War wins over Triple H doesn't mean he'd be the choice to go over Taker at Mania.

The boards are full of people who complain about everything, and even doubt that Cena is a draw, so that isn't a real yardstick. Here's a secret for you, wrestling fans don't really like suprises as much as you think. They want the good guy to win in the end. That's why in 25 years of WrestleMania there have been two main events won by a heel. The audience want the Undertaker to win, and as it is only once a year, and the show they pay the most to see, they should probably get to see that, rather than needless shock tactics.

Well I seem to remember the crowd being pretty pumped when John Cena made a surprise return at Royal Rumble a ways back.

And the Main Event victories by heels are irrelevant, because Undertaker has only been in two such Main Events in 17 apperances - those being the title matches.

Hulk Hogan's four year reign wasn't that impressive either, when you look who he beat. Does that mean that he should have been beaten by King Kong Bundy? No. Every single wrestling streak or title reign is tainted in some way, exagerrated. That's the business of wrestling.

4-year title reigns were par for the course back when Hogan did it. Fans had just gotten done seeing Sammartino and Backlund. This Undertaker streak has t-shirts and promos dedicated to the streak alone. All I am saying, is, let's not revel in a string of victories that include some real ho-hum matches. He's had some classics, sure, but the fact that those wins over Triple H and Shawn Michaels came merely to keep an undefeated record in tact absolutely diminutizes the matches themselves.

So he kicked out of one of the most high profile finishing moves in the business? To ignore the impact of doing that is a heinous wrestling crime.

I clearly stated that it was impressive. But guess what? I am probably this forums' resident expert on Wrestlemania 8, and having been in numerous discussions about it, I can basicaly promise that people don't remember that match for the DDT's, the tombstone on the concrete and Jake's twitching leg and limp arms, or even the pre-match build up of the rumor Jake would bring a snake to the ring. It's just a tick mark on the way to 17-0. The match itself has been reduced to a footnote.

He beat him more decisively than Hogan did, which is saying a lot actually.

This is ludicrous. Hogan beat Bundy 9 years earlier, and Hogan had broken ribs at the time. Of course Hogan would have a tougher time. Incidentally, Hogan's match with Bundy was a main event title match. Hogan has had more main event title matches than anyone in Wrestlemania history. Taker's match with Bundy? Survey says...FOOTNOTE!

It's a winning streak, not an attendance streak. Nobody talks about Tito Santana's streak for precisely that reason.

Did you really just compare Tito Santana to The Undertaker? I hope you're kidding. Nobody CARES about Tito Santana. And the fact that the streak effectively ignores two instances in which Taker wasn't even on the card is significant.

A shit match, hampered by Jones being too shit to compete, but it doesn't stop the fact that Taker beat a team that consisted of an up and comer and a guy in between World Title reigns.

Did you just call Albert an "up-and-comer?" Seriously?

I'd argue that by beating him here, Orton would have lost a hell of a lot. As it happened, he feuded Taker for months afterwards, which both galvanised him as a performer and gave him the cutting edge that he never had before. Orton's character developed 20 times more from chasing the Undertaker than it would from beating him one off.

That's fine. I am not saying Orton should have beaten Taker there, mind you, I am merely stating that the opinion exists. And given that fact, you could see how effective the use of a young, brash heel would work well, nd how the dynamic would shift if he were victorious.

Edge had lost at WrestleMania 23 in the MITB. The fact he has so few titles proves how good a drawing device it is. It means that the Undertaker doesn't need to be a champion to have a compelling WrestleMania title behind him.

Edge didn't lose that MITB match, he just didn't win it. Call it an "unbeaten" streak, but that's how it was booked.

And The Undertaker in so few title matches proves my point that Undertaker's streak is bigger than he is, to his detriment. I can see the booking meeting prior to Wrestlemania 22 now. "Okay, so John Cena vs Triple H, Mysterio, Angle and Orton, Edge vs Foley, and Michaels vs McMahon. Okay, good, we have our major matches, so...OH SHIT! We have 'Taker's streak! Who's left? Mark Henry, yeah, he'll do, throw it together..."

Exactly, decent opponents can make you doubt the foregone conclusiviness of the matches, thus rendering your predictibility argument null and void.

So is he going to beat Shawn Michaels every year now until he retires? The last time the streak was in doubt was against Orton, and before that HHH. That's it. Only 3 times.

The fact so few matches have been title matches proves the streak's ability to stand on its own as a reason to watch WrestleMania.

You see? You just lent further substance to my point. It's not Undertaker drawing anymore, it's the streak.

No, WrestleMania should be about the biggest match on the card. WrestleMania X was about the Harts, WrestleMania X-8 was about Hogan vs Rock. The biggest problem is that Orton vs HHH and Edge vs Cena had been done before. Are you seriously suggesting that Michaels vs Taker wouldn't have stolen the show if he had lost to Orton three years earlier?

Wrestlemania 10 was NOT about the Harts! That was what happened AFTER the event ended because of the quality of the match and the shock of Owen's victory. The lead up to Wrestlemania 10 was about the co-winners of the Royal Rumble and the two title matches.

Wrestlemania 18 is the only spot you may have a valid point, Rock vs Hogan was vastly more interesting than the Jericho vs HHH main event. But Rock vs Hogan was once in a lifetime of that magnitude. Every other Wrestlemania has been about the build up of the main event, which is almost always (save for Wrestlemania 1) a title match.

Are you seriously suggesting that Michaels vs Taker wouldn't have stolen the show if he had lost to Orton three years earlier?

Of course not, which is why I wouldn't have wanted Taker to have lost to Orton. But the debte question isn't "should the streak have ended?" The debate question is "should the streak ever end?" and my answer is, YES, when Taker is within a year of retirement.

The number adds to the match, it adds to the fans enjoyments, it takes the burden off their championships, and they owe it to The Undertaker to have something to set him out from the crowd.

Oh good, I am sure that Cena, Triple H, Orton, etc are THRILLED to have the pressure to perform in their main event title matchs taken off of them. Are you kidding? Wrestlemania is all about the pressure of a well-build main event championship match, has been for more than 2 decades. The fact that a winning streak - not a man, mind you, but his winning streak - overshadows those titles is not the best position for the WWE to be in.

 

[Tastycles]

With a topic as narrow as this, I feel that my opponent and I have probably touched upon all of the most relevant points, for and against, for the streak to continue, or for it to die. To this end, I shall take the time in the following debates to focus on refuting my opponent's arguments.

Well, there is one major, glaring hole in this logic. When Undertaker retires, the draw will end anyways. Now I am not saying end it this year. If Taker has 2-3 more years left, then wait until his last or second-to-last year. But the streak won't still draw after the Undertaker retires. The person who defeats him, however, WILL still draw after Undertaker retires, which is why it makes all the sense in the world o eventually end it.

This is wrong on two levels. Firstly, The Streak can still draw in the sense of "will Future Wrestler be able to reach the dizzy heights of the great Undertaker and have a streak as good?". Secondly, the person who beats the Undertaker will either have to already be destined for greatness, in which case he doesn't need the addition of one solitary win to his CV, or he will be forever the "man who beat the Undertaker", just like Booker T is "5 time WCW Champion" and will never be recognised for anything else.

And going to WCW was supposed to kill Hulk Hogan. But it didn't. Katie Vick didn't kill Triple H. The American Bad Ass didn't kill Undertaker. Neither will this.

WCW almost did kill Hulk Hogan, he had to completely reinvent himself. The American Bad Ass wasn't really out of keeping with anything, and plenty of wrestlers get killed by one event. This isn't a bad storyline, this is an adverse career changing moment, like the one that nearly killed Hogan, like when Montreal killed Bret Hart, turning heel killed Goldberg in WCW, time away killed Ahmed Johnson and Ludvig Borga etc etc.

Undertaker's legacy doesn't ride on a number. He's a lock for his first eligible Hall-of-Fame year. Fans ages 8-88 will always remember him, and whether he is 19-0 or 18-1, he'll still be thought of as one of the greatest Wrestlemania competitors of all time. Please, don't insult the entire career of the Undertaker by placing his entire legacy on one single day.

But that is what WWE do. It's not Ric Flair, wrestling legend. It's Ric Flair, 16 time champion. It's not Randy Orton, great wrestler. It's Randy Orton, youngest ever champion. It's not The Rock, the most entertaining ever. It's The Rock, first third generation wrestler. WWE is always about the figures, longest running weekly episodic show, don't you know, and to that end, I fully anticipate that The Undertaker will get this treatment. Not having "a number" like everyone else does will make him look limp in comparision, which is really unfair.

Again, if "the streak" is all Undertaker has for his legacy, then you're insulting the largest percentage of his work. He is the only man to even defeat Hulk Hogan for 2 separate WWE Championships. He wrestled in the first major Hell in a Cell, Inferno, and Casket matches. His debut at Survivor Series is often regarded as the best debut in WWF history.

I'm not detrating from that at all, but the streak is an infinitely more impressive thing than that. Shawn Michaels was in the first of several match types too, Stinf took the WCW title off Hogan twice, lots of people had great debuts, you see the streak is what sets him apart.

Undertaker deserves a lot. A legends deal. A Hall of Fame spot. And he deserves to hand pick the guy he loses to. Why? Because he's the Undertaker, and he understands the importance of passing the torch.

Maybe so. He's passed the torch to a lot of guys already though, Foley, Orton, Lesnar, Edge arguably. The one consistent thing through that is that he's made them work for it by beating them at WrestleMania first. I'm not saying that Taker shouldn't ever lose, I'm saying someone will gain more from losing to him first then coming back later than they ever would from just one fight on just one night, and that something as special as that should be preserved.

Of course not, but what is the benefit to The Undertaker now? Sure, maybe it hasn't harmed guys losing to the Undertaker, but he is well past a point where he actually benefits from winning. It's just another year he's not lost at Wrestlemania, and another competitor who doesn't get the "big win." The negatives to keeping the streak in tact are simply that it doesn't allow a young guy the biggest win of his career. And the positives of that rub vastly outweigh the positives of keeping it in tact.

You and I both know that if the streak were to end, it wouldn't be some young guy on the way up, it'd be HHH or Orton or Cena, someone else who wouldn't benefit from a win. How do I know this? Because that's the precident in wrestling. Wrestlers have never been quick to elevate anyone, and the politics of this would prevent someone young from even doing it.

Even if we ignore that, the benefit of him winning for the product is that it instantly makes him more imposing a prospect for a future feud, sdomething that is vital in maintaining now that he is old and slow. The benefit for him is that he has a lasting legacy, and the benefit that

It's no where NEAR untrue. The "feud" with Michaels last year wasn't about the men, it was about the streak. It was about Michaels trying to prove that he, not Taker, was the greatest in Wrestlemania history.

So the whole "you've got to go through hell..." stuff, was that about the streak? Michaels being in the casket, was that about the Streak? Bigging up that they were Texans, was that about the streak? No talking about unfinished business in the 90s, was that about the streak? That feud had many dimensions, one of which was that the Undertaker had never lost and Michaels was Mr. WrestleMania.

Two years ago, two undefeated Wrestlemania competitors (Taker vs Edge) was the storyline that overshadowed the World Title. I stand by my statement that the streak has become so hyped that it's more important than WHO Taker actually wrestles at Wrestlemania.

That feud had a hell of a lot more to do with Edge using Vickie to get what he wanted than it did about Taker's streak. Edge cut maybe one promo that referenced the streak and The Undertaker cut none about it. That feud was about Edge, Vickie, Taker and the title and The Streak did nothing but add a little garnish to the feud.

Couple that with his obligatory months off after the event, and Taker's Wrestlemania match is little more than an exhibition.

The problem being of course that he wrestled on Smackdown once after WrestleMania this year before going away, and then for over a month in the previous years. Taker is old, he needs time off, but that has absolutely nothing to do with his WrestleMania Streak. If Taker hadn't have tombstoned Michaels, his knee wouldn't have miraculously repaired itself.

But the first time Chris Jericho beat the Rock for the WCW Title didn't do anything? Or when Booker T beat Jeff Jarrett at Bash at the Beach? Hell, The Undertaker himself benefitted HUGE from the rub he got by beating Hogan! And Hogan got that same rub by beating Andre!

How huge a rub was that then? Being the champion for 6 days before 5 years in the wilderness. WOAH! Taker benefitted more from feuding with Jake Roberts than he did from beating Hogan once in dubious circumstances. Even Warrior beating Hogan in his prime clean at WrestleMania didn't elevate him to the status anyone wanted, and that is about a big of a rub as you can possiby get in pro wrestling. Booker T and Jericho are the only ones that benefitted, but what really happened is that they have never really escaped that. It is always 5 time WCW champion Booker T and first undisputed champion Chris Jericho. These acheivements were too big for those wrestlers, and they have spent the rest of their careers not living up to them.

Sure, some guys do something with it and some guys don't. This has to be done with the right wrestler, the right way, and at the right time. But you're making it sound like the guy who beats the Undertaker is doomed to fail. Just because Shelton got a couple Monday Night War wins over Triple H doesn't mean he'd be the choice to go over Taker at Mania.

I didn't say he was, I'm saying beating Undertaker will either make the event more than the man, or it won't effect anyone who was on their way up anyway.

Well I seem to remember the crowd being pretty pumped when John Cena made a surprise return at Royal Rumble a ways back.

To see their favourite come back. If they saw their favourite lose, they'd be annoyed.

And the Main Event victories by heels are irrelevant, because Undertaker has only been in two such Main Events in 17 apperances - those being the title matches.

So what? I was pointing out that the crowd want their favourite to win.

4-year title reigns were par for the course back when Hogan did it. Fans had just gotten done seeing Sammartino and Backlund. This Undertaker streak has t-shirts and promos dedicated to the streak alone. All I am saying, is, let's not revel in a string of victories that include some real ho-hum matches. He's had some classics, sure, but the fact that those wins over Triple H and Shawn Michaels came merely to keep an undefeated record in tact absolutely diminutizes the matches themselves.

Why does it? Does Hogan's win over Andre diminutise itself because it was only done to keep the belt on him longer? Wrestling is scripted, every match serves some overarching purpose, be it keeping a title on somebody or keeping a streak alive or whatever.

I clearly stated that it was impressive. But guess what? I am probably this forums' resident expert on Wrestlemania 8, and having been in numerous discussions about it, I can basicaly promise that people don't remember that match for the DDT's, the tombstone on the concrete and Jake's twitching leg and limp arms, or even the pre-match build up of the rumor Jake would bring a snake to the ring. It's just a tick mark on the way to 17-0. The match itself has been reduced to a footnote.

Maybe it is now, but how many people understand the relevance of WrestleMania 2 now? It's in the past and it's forgotten. The Streak wasn't mentioned for about 10 years after this event, so to suggest that it was in someway geared towards that is preposterous. Pssht, and you call yourself an expert.

This is ludicrous. Hogan beat Bundy 9 years earlier, and Hogan had broken ribs at the time. Of course Hogan would have a tougher time. Incidentally, Hogan's match with Bundy was a main event title match. Hogan has had more main event title matches than anyone in Wrestlemania history. Taker's match with Bundy? Survey says...FOOTNOTE!

Footnote to what? The Streak that didn't exist. Are you seriously suggesting that only main event matches matter, because if so, some of the most iconic matches in history are footnotes.

Did you really just compare Tito Santana to The Undertaker? I hope you're kidding. Nobody CARES about Tito Santana. And the fact that the streak effectively ignores two instances in which Taker wasn't even on the card is significant.

No it doesn't. He's won every match he's been in. If a sportsman scores points every game he plays, but misses two through injury, does that remove the acheivement? I'll ask again, does the Patriots' unbeaten season not count because they had a week off?

Did you just call Albert an "up-and-comer?" Seriously?

He'd been an intercontinental champion, so yes.

That's fine. I am not saying Orton should have beaten Taker there, mind you, I am merely stating that the opinion exists. And given that fact, you could see how effective the use of a young, brash heel would work well, nd how the dynamic would shift if he were victorious.

And I'm saying that a young brash heel could still get the rub, as Orton did, with added character development, as Orton did, by losing first, then feuding with him later.

Edge didn't lose that MITB match, he just didn't win it. Call it an "unbeaten" streak, but that's how it was booked.

If you don't win, and you don't draw, you lose.

And The Undertaker in so few title matches proves my point that Undertaker's streak is bigger than he is, to his detriment. I can see the booking meeting prior to Wrestlemania 22 now. "Okay, so John Cena vs Triple H, Mysterio, Angle and Orton, Edge vs Foley, and Michaels vs McMahon. Okay, good, we have our major matches, so...OH SHIT! We have 'Taker's streak! Who's left? Mark Henry, yeah, he'll do, throw it together..."

And you think if there wasn't a streak, he wouldn't have been shoehorned on the card? Ask yourself that honestly.

So is he going to beat Shawn Michaels every year now until he retires? The last time the streak was in doubt was against Orton, and before that HHH. That's it. Only 3 times.

So why were there countless threads saying Edge and Batista could do it on these very forums? The only total foregone conclusion was Mark Henry. And I ask, if there was no streak, would you for even one second think he'd lose to Mark Henry?

You see? You just lent further substance to my point. It's not Undertaker drawing anymore, it's the streak.

No, it's Undertaker and the streak. A dynamic duo. Undertaker + an extre dimension is always going to be better than Undertaker alone.

Wrestlemania 10 was NOT about the Harts! That was what happened AFTER the event ended because of the quality of the match and the shock of Owen's victory. The lead up to Wrestlemania 10 was about the co-winners of the Royal Rumble and the two title matches.

No, the build up largely focussed on The Harts falling apart, as far back as Survivor Series 1993.

Wrestlemania 18 is the only spot you may have a valid point, Rock vs Hogan was vastly more interesting than the Jericho vs HHH main event. But Rock vs Hogan was once in a lifetime of that magnitude. Every other Wrestlemania has been about the build up of the main event, which is almost always (save for Wrestlemania 1) a title match.

First point: Lawrence Taylor vs Bam Bam Bigelow. Second point: If the streak has been present at almost 75% of WrestleManias, and you think the focus has always been on the main event, then this completely negates the point that The Streak distracts the audience from the main event, which is what you were trying to say initially. You've proved yourself wrong.

Oh good, I am sure that Cena, Triple H, Orton, etc are THRILLED to have the pressure to perform in their main event title matchs taken off of them. Are you kidding? Wrestlemania is all about the pressure of a well-build main event championship match, has been for more than 2 decades. The fact that a winning streak - not a man, mind you, but his winning streak - overshadows those titles is not the best position for the WWE to be in.

How does it detract from those matches? They get more hype, more build, more everything then Taker's streak. I could go into the minutae of dissecting Raw in detail, but if you think Orton's feud with McMahon's or the Edge - Show - Vickie love triangle got less TV time than Taker vs Michaels you are sorely mistaken.

I also fail to understand why you seem to think that having another match on the card to be built up is a bad thing. I ask you this, imagine the streak wasn't a big deal, and Taker went for his surgery in February. Imagine how shit WrestleMania 25 would have been then, then decide if the Streak is a negative thing.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Rather than continue with the endless cut-and-paste match, I am instead going to address what I feel my opponents main points were in summary form. Tastycles, if at any time I an inaccurate in my summations, please feel free to correct me.

1. My opponent feels that "The Streak" will continue to draw at Wrestlemanias for years to come as other competitors attempts to emulate the feat.

Absolutely not. When a wrestler is 4-0, do you think people are going to be waiting on baited breath to see the 5th match because that would put him 13 or 14 wins away from The Undertaker? And when a wrestler is 10-0, do you think fans will be excited about #11, or will they scream bloody murder that the only reason it's being done is to tease Taker's streak? Nobody will ever have an 18-match winning streak at Wrestlemania again. Ever.

2. My opponent feels that a win over The Undertaker at Wrestlemania would be a waste, as anyone who is actually able to be great some day wouldn't need it, and anyone who did need it shouldn't have it.

Interesting, but certainly not accurate. If done correctly, a win over the Undertaker at Wrestlemania could be the biggest rub and the greatest vote of confidence possible. Let me offer you this example - Edge and Randy Orton were BOTH put over by Mick Foley in their careers prior to the greatness they now enjoy. Foley was the King of the Hardcore match in WWF, and he put both Edge and Orton - two men who had never had reputations as Hardcore guys before - in Hardcore matches. Now, with those men being former multiple-time World Champions, when it comes to Hardcore matches, we know that they are both capable of mean streaks, because we saw them beat the best. Beating Undertaker at Mania would be an even bigger rub than beating Foley in a Hardcore match.

3. My opponent feels that WWE's need to quantify wrestlers accomplishments will make "undefeated at Wrestlemania" a natural fit for The Undertaker.

Okay, so yes, Flair is "16-time World Champion." But here's a question...what's the issue with "The Undertaker - winningest Wrestlemania competitor in history." Whether he is 20-0, 19-0, 19-1, or 18-1, nobody is going to touch his Wrestlemania winning percentage with that number of matches. If he wins this year and loses next year, and then retires, he'd be 19-1, and have a Wrestlemania winning percentage of .950 over the course of 22 years. How sick is that? Losing once isn't going to erase his career, Tastycles, and I honestly feel that you do the man a disservice by suggesting that it would.

4. My opponent feels that having The Undertaker continue to win at Wrestlemania and then putting his opponents over at other events would have a greater effect than having Undertaker lose at Wrestlemania.

You bring up Edge, Orton, Lesnar, Foley, etc. And sure, historically, this makes sense. But you even mention the issue with this yourself - at his age, his body can't take the wear and tear of the pre-Wrestlemania build-up AND have any appreciable feud afterwards. So the only way Taker is going to put over a younger guy at Wrestlemania is to lose the match.

5. My opponent feels that an established star would be the only type of person WWE would put over The Undertaker at Wrestlemania instead of a younger wrestler.

The only established star I think could potentially be in line for that is Chris Jericho. A Jericho win over Undertaker would solidify Jericho as the company's #1 or #2 heel, and the mic work we could expect from Jericho afterwards would be something to behold. I don't think Triple H would do it because he he roughly the same age and wouldn't see the benefit to the company. If WWE ever turned Cena heel, it would be the ultimate way to piss off the fans. Tastycles, a win over the Undertaker could build the next monster heel or turn a massive babyface into a monster heel. Those are the only premises I could see it working under, and I think it should be done. Think back to when WWF was building Yokozuna - he went over Bret Hart at Wrestlemania and then Hogan at King of the Ring. He wasn't established yet. Hell, he was still a rookie!

6. My opponent feels that the "lasting legacy" of the streak is worth preserving.

For what purpose? Are wrestling records really as revered as you think they are? And after The Undertaker retires, do you think the streak is going to have any long term positive effect on Wrestlemania? What could that effect possibly be? And could it outweight the opportunity to give a next generation star the chance to make his career and give the WWE a greater sense of sustainability?

7. My opponent feels that past "rubs" have set the bar too high for wrestlers to live up to.

You mention that Jericho hasn't lived up to the monicer of "first Undisputed Champion." Well, that's because there were how many, 7 or 8 undisputed champions? That sort of killed his momentum there too. And yet here he is, most consistent performer on both Raw AND Smackdown. And when you recall that Jericho is also the only man who ever defeated both The Rock and Austin in one night, it makes you think that he could win at any time.

The man who defeats The Undertaker will become a big-stage performer, and a man who raised his game to do what nobody else before has.

I do have to quote Tastycles directly on this next point, because I don't want to try to paraphrase:

Does Hogan's win over Andre diminutise itself because it was only done to keep the belt on him longer? Wrestling is scripted, every match serves some overarching purpose, be it keeping a title on somebody or keeping a streak alive or whatever.

Which also brings me back to another one of my original points. Wrestling is, indeed, scripted, so how impressive is the streak, really? Undertaker didn't "defeat" 18 opponents, he was written to win over them. And at times when the streak was more relevant that the man, he was given "lay-ups" like Mark Henry and A-Train/Big Show simply to keep a number going. How is a fabricated winning streak more important that using the momentum developed BY the streak to serve a future purpose?

Take the Goldberg streak, for example. Goldberg, of course, didn't "win" those matches, he was written to play the victor in them. Nearly 200 wins in a row blew up a metaphorical baloon. When Kevin Nash ended that streak with his run-in tainted victory at Starrcade, all of the air was let out of the baloon. The win was cheap, and Nash gained nothing from the win. It didn't make him look strong at all, and the manner in which he won cheapened the streak overall. Had he lost legitimately to a mid-career guy like a Diamond Dallas Page or better still a Chris Benoit or Chris Jericho, the event would have been HUGE, and would have catapulted whomever beat him into the history books.

And maybe, had that been done, it would have helped to save WCW. We often say that a refusal to develop young stars contributed to WCW's demise, and warn the WWE to not make the same mistake. What an opportunity they have now...

Maybe it is now, but how many people understand the relevance of WrestleMania 2 now? It's in the past and it's forgotten. The Streak wasn't mentioned for about 10 years after this event, so to suggest that it was in someway geared towards that is preposterous. Pssht, and you call yourself an expert.

I never claimed that Taker went over Jake to preserve the streak at Wrestlemania 8. What I stated, very clearly, was that looking back, the match is only remembered as Jake becoming "just one of Undertaker's Wrestlemania victims." Not for being a great match or a great feud. That great match is lost in the shuffle of The Streak.

I have to quote Tastycles again, he makes very direct comments that would be unfair for me to paraphrase.

No it doesn't. He's won every match he's been in. If a sportsman scores points every game he plays, but misses two through injury, does that remove the acheivement? I'll ask again, does the Patriots' unbeaten season not count because they had a week off?

There's a HUGE difference between a winning streak that occurs in a legitimate football game every week than a scripted sports theatre that takes place every year. Every football team has a bye week built in to their schedule. Undertaker being kept off of Wrestlemania is like the NFL telling the Patriots "we know you're 12-0, but we don't want you to play this Sunday because we don't have room for you on the schedule."

And you think if there wasn't a streak, he wouldn't have been shoehorned on the card? Ask yourself that honestly.

There is a streak, and yet he was still kept off the card twice. Consider myself honestly asked and honestly answering.

First point: Lawrence Taylor vs Bam Bam Bigelow. Second point: If the streak has been present at almost 75% of WrestleManias, and you think the focus has always been on the main event, then this completely negates the point that The Streak distracts the audience from the main event, which is what you were trying to say initially. You've proved yourself wrong.

Nice try. The Streak hasn't always detracted from the Main Event, and I thought I made that clear. You mentioned that "The Streak" wasn't mentioned by commentators until about the 9-0 mark or so, and I agree with that. But last year, the Undertaker / Shawn Michaels match totally overshadowed the two title matches because of the magnitude of the streak. Obviously that wasn't the case when Undertaker faced Edge or Batista in title matches - because those WERE the main events. Now, if Undertaker goes into Wrestlemania this year as the champ, watch to see what gets more attention - his title or his streak.

I also fail to understand why you seem to think that having another match on the card to be built up is a bad thing. I ask you this, imagine the streak wasn't a big deal, and Taker went for his surgery in February. Imagine how shit WrestleMania 25 would have been then, then decide if the Streak is a negative thing.

I LOVE having other big matches on the card. We already discussed Hogan / Rock. Michaels / McMahon. Hogan / McMahon. Hogan / Justice. Austin / Hart. But having matches just for the sake of keeping Taker's streak in tact is foolish. I've enjoyed his winning streak and the memories it has created, honestly. But I do absolutely feel that the value the streak would create if somebody broke it in the next 2-3 years is so significant that it would be foolish to be so sentimental about a scrpited winning streak as to refuse it.

Let me add this to my point. I live in New Jersey, which is the home of the New York Giants. Yes, I know, it makes no sense, but we deal with it. Anyway, I am surrounded by Giants fans at work, and the addition to the New York Giant legacy that their Super Bowl victory over the New England Patriots created is so significant it's still talked about constantly. And that streak was one year. Now, multiply it by 18, and put that kind of momentum in the hands of a young, talented wrestler. The sky is the limit. WWE simply has to pull the trigger.

 

[Tastycles]

I could break down my opponent's argument as he has done with mine, but I feel that the best way of approaching the argument is to directly negate what he has said, and I shall continue in this manner.

Absolutely not. When a wrestler is 4-0, do you think people are going to be waiting on baited breath to see the 5th match because that would put him 13 or 14 wins away from The Undertaker? And when a wrestler is 10-0, do you think fans will be excited about #11, or will they scream bloody murder that the only reason it's being done is to tease Taker's streak? Nobody will ever have an 18-match winning streak at Wrestlemania again. Ever.

So then you surely accept that it is a once in a lifetime thing then and that it should be preserved? I disagree with your sentiment anyway, they already teased the idea with Edge, like you said, and it would only take somebody to go a few undefeated for it to matter. Even if it isn't 18, going undefeated for a while at WrestleMania would still be huge, made huger because you could compare an otherwise average worker to Taker.

Interesting, but certainly not accurate. If done correctly, a win over the Undertaker at Wrestlemania could be the biggest rub and the greatest vote of confidence possible. Let me offer you this example - Edge and Randy Orton were BOTH put over by Mick Foley in their careers prior to the greatness they now enjoy. Foley was the King of the Hardcore match in WWF, and he put both Edge and Orton - two men who had never had reputations as Hardcore guys before - in Hardcore matches. Now, with those men being former multiple-time World Champions, when it comes to Hardcore matches, we know that they are both capable of mean streaks, because we saw them beat the best. Beating Undertaker at Mania would be an even bigger rub than beating Foley in a Hardcore match.

Except, beating The Undertaker wouldn't add a dimension to anyone. The Orton and Edge comparision showed two otherwise standard workers as hardcore workers, that's why it mattered. Beating the Undertaker would be a scalp, but it wouldn't aid character development the way a hardcore match with a hardcore legend did.

Okay, so yes, Flair is "16-time World Champion." But here's a question...what's the issue with "The Undertaker - winningest Wrestlemania competitor in history." Whether he is 20-0, 19-0, 19-1, or 18-1, nobody is going to touch his Wrestlemania winning percentage with that number of matches. If he wins this year and loses next year, and then retires, he'd be 19-1, and have a Wrestlemania winning percentage of .950 over the course of 22 years. How sick is that? Losing once isn't going to erase his career, Tastycles, and I honestly feel that you do the man a disservice by suggesting that it would.

Except it would. Saying someone is unbeatable, and saying they're hard to beat are two very different things. I appeciate that if you look at the cold facts, he has a superb record, but that isn't what wrestling commentators do. They don't say "actually, Randy Orton's reign as the youngeest champ was piss poor" They say "Randy Orton was the youngest. The difference is huge, and while students of the facts will appreciate it, most won't.

You bring up Edge, Orton, Lesnar, Foley, etc. And sure, historically, this makes sense. But you even mention the issue with this yourself - at his age, his body can't take the wear and tear of the pre-Wrestlemania build-up AND have any appreciable feud afterwards. So the only way Taker is going to put over a younger guy at Wrestlemania is to lose the match.

That's not what I said at all, I said that Taker is old and often has time off. He had time off after his feud with Edge finished, and after he had put him over. He had time off during his feud with Orton, he's been having time off for a long time, but he's still the guy that has done more for young guys than anyone else.

The only established star I think could potentially be in line for that is Chris Jericho. A Jericho win over Undertaker would solidify Jericho as the company's #1 or #2 heel, and the mic work we could expect from Jericho afterwards would be something to behold. I don't think Triple H would do it because he he roughly the same age and wouldn't see the benefit to the company. If WWE ever turned Cena heel, it would be the ultimate way to piss off the fans. Tastycles, a win over the Undertaker could build the next monster heel or turn a massive babyface into a monster heel. Those are the only premises I could see it working under, and I think it should be done. Think back to when WWF was building Yokozuna - he went over Bret Hart at Wrestlemania and then Hogan at King of the Ring. He wasn't established yet. Hell, he was still a rookie!

Yeah, and then after those huge wins he lost to Hart and was relegated to nowhere, which completely proves my point. The fact is, is that wrestling and particularly the WWE doesn't give these big things to who they should, they give it to who wants it on a top down basis. Shawn Michaels gained nothing by retiring Flair, but he got to do it. It's not fai, but it is precisel the circumstance within which Taker's streak would end. You said yourself that Michaels was the only one you perceived able to end it, why do you think that was?

For what purpose? Are wrestling records really as revered as you think they are? And after The Undertaker retires, do you think the streak is going to have any long term positive effect on Wrestlemania? What could that effect possibly be? And could it outweight the opportunity to give a next generation star the chance to make his career and give the WWE a greater sense of sustainability?

You keep dwelling on this rub, but I have said time and time again, that there is no long term gain for whoever beats the Undertaker. None. History dictates that when the little guy gets the win it doesn't matter. But also dictates that whoever wins rarely deserves it. Keeping the streak beyond retirement preserves something unique that the WWE can bring up whenever they want, in the same way that they bring up all those other things that all those other legends have. Taker doesn't have anything else that you can sum up in a sentence, and he deserves it.

You mention that Jericho hasn't lived up to the monicer of "first Undisputed Champion." Well, that's because there were how many, 7 or 8 undisputed champions? That sort of killed his momentum there too. And yet here he is, most consistent performer on both Raw AND Smackdown. And when you recall that Jericho is also the only man who ever defeated both The Rock and Austin in one night, it makes you think that he could win at any time.

Except it doesn't. Nobody thought Jericho had a chance against Cena this time last year, because he didn't. Jericho won three titles in 2 months, and was then consigned to the midcard for three years, retired for two years, then came back for a year in the midcard, two titles in two months, followed by a year in the midcard. Jericho is the living embodiment of an upper midcarder and he did not gain anything from that win apart from a label he never lived up to.

The man who defeats The Undertaker will become a big-stage performer, and a man who raised his game to do what nobody else before has.

Or he'll go the way of Jericho and be a flavour of the month before going right back to where he started. Except beating The Rock and Austin on the same night isn't something that has its own enigma, which The Streak does, and which would be lost for no gain.

Which also brings me back to another one of my original points. Wrestling is, indeed, scripted, so how impressive is the streak, really? Undertaker didn't "defeat" 18 opponents, he was written to win over them. And at times when the streak was more relevant that the man, he was given "lay-ups" like Mark Henry and A-Train/Big Show simply to keep a number going. How is a fabricated winning streak more important that using the momentum developed BY the streak to serve a future purpose?

Because the purpose it serves is to boost Undertaker, which it does. Had the Streak not existed, had he been beaten by Giant Gonzalez, Kane and say, Triple H, The Undertaker would have still been on the card for WrestleMania 22 and XIX. You accept this surely? They still would have had to find something for him to do, which likely would have been the same matches, with the same outcomes, except they wouldn't have had anything interesting about them at all, at least this way they had the streak.

Take the Goldberg streak, for example. Goldberg, of course, didn't "win" those matches, he was written to play the victor in them. Nearly 200 wins in a row blew up a metaphorical baloon. When Kevin Nash ended that streak with his run-in tainted victory at Starrcade, all of the air was let out of the baloon. The win was cheap, and Nash gained nothing from the win. It didn't make him look strong at all, and the manner in which he won cheapened the streak overall. Had he lost legitimately to a mid-career guy like a Diamond Dallas Page or better still a Chris Benoit or Chris Jericho, the event would have been HUGE, and would have catapulted whomever beat him into the history books.

So the precident of a big streak being ended was lacklustre? That doesn't bode well for you. Neither does the way Kozlov's 1 year streak ended, nor Edge's WrestleMania one for that matter. Streaks are characteristically badly broken, and should probably be avoided entirely. However, this one exists, and the best thing to do is to keep it going, otherwise it will look like 20 years of build up for a very minor conclusion.

And maybe, had that been done, it would have helped to save WCW. We often say that a refusal to develop young stars contributed to WCW's demise, and warn the WWE to not make the same mistake. What an opportunity they have now...

I think you and I both know that Benoit ending Goldberg's streak wouldn't have suddenly made AOL Time Warner suddenly sit up and say "you know what, this wrestling thing is awesome".

I never claimed that Taker went over Jake to preserve the streak at Wrestlemania 8. What I stated, very clearly, was that looking back, the match is only remembered as Jake becoming "just one of Undertaker's Wrestlemania victims." Not for being a great match or a great feud. That great match is lost in the shuffle of The Streak.

But the same is true of all matches in the past. Without looking, do you know who Shawn Michaels faced at WrestleMania IX? Maybe. Do you remember the feud in detail? Probably not. All matches from the past are just statistics eventually, its sad but true. The fact that there is a streak is the only reason why the average fan would even know that he fought Roberts then at all.

There's a HUGE difference between a winning streak that occurs in a legitimate football game every week than a scripted sports theatre that takes place every year. Every football team has a bye week built in to their schedule. Undertaker being kept off of Wrestlemania is like the NFL telling the Patriots "we know you're 12-0, but we don't want you to play this Sunday because we don't have room for you on the schedule."

But that's not why he wasn't there. He wasn't there because he was injured. It's not scheduled admittedly, but it is outside anyone's control that he didn't wrestle at those events. Perhaps a better example would be that of Carl Lewis. Carl Lewis is undefeated at the long jump in the Olympics, but he didn't go to Moscow 1980 despite qualifying because of the boycott. It doesn't mean that he isn't unbeaten at the Olympics.

There is a streak, and yet he was still kept off the card twice. Consider myself honestly asked and honestly answering.

It's still a winning streak, not an attendance streak. Both instances when he wasn't on the card was due to injury. It's still an undefeated streak, which is what it is billed as.

Nice try. The Streak hasn't always detracted from the Main Event, and I thought I made that clear. You mentioned that "The Streak" wasn't mentioned by commentators until about the 9-0 mark or so, and I agree with that. But last year, the Undertaker / Shawn Michaels match totally overshadowed the two title matches because of the magnitude of the streak. Obviously that wasn't the case when Undertaker faced Edge or Batista in title matches - because those WERE the main events. Now, if Undertaker goes into Wrestlemania this year as the champ, watch to see what gets more attention - his title or his streak.

Undertaker vs Michaels overshadowed the main events because they were shit, and because it was a match between two legends. Orton vs HHH got about 5 months of build, and came out with a weak outcome. Like I said, that match would have eclipsed the main events with or without that streak.

I LOVE having other big matches on the card. We already discussed Hogan / Rock. Michaels / McMahon. Hogan / McMahon. Hogan / Justice. Austin / Hart. But having matches just for the sake of keeping Taker's streak in tact is foolish. I've enjoyed his winning streak and the memories it has created, honestly. But I do absolutely feel that the value the streak would create if somebody broke it in the next 2-3 years is so significant that it would be foolish to be so sentimental about a scrpited winning streak as to refuse it.

But having matches for the sake of having him on the card is equally foolish, which is the alternative. The WWE always has a few shit matches on the card in order to ensure it's big names get on the card. You keep going on about Henry vs Taker being a pointless addition, but it made a hell of a lot more sense than Booker T and Sharmell vs The Boogeyman, which was on the same card. That is clearly an excuse to get Booker on the card, just like some of Taker's matches have been. Don't blame the streak.

Let me add this to my point. I live in New Jersey, which is the home of the New York Giants. Yes, I know, it makes no sense, but we deal with it. Anyway, I am surrounded by Giants fans at work, and the addition to the New York Giant legacy that their Super Bowl victory over the New England Patriots created is so significant it's still talked about constantly. And that streak was one year. Now, multiply it by 18, and put that kind of momentum in the hands of a young, talented wrestler. The sky is the limit. WWE simply has to pull the trigger.

Exactly, they are dwelling on that victory and ignoring the fact that now they have failed to live up to it since. Not to mention of course, as you already have, that it is a legitimate sporting contest, where people do like to be shocked. Ending the streak would be the culmination of 18 years of build up, and noody at all could live up to that and come out of it looking any better.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

So then you surely accept that it is a once in a lifetime thing then and that it should be preserved?

I surely accept that it is a onetime thing. I surely reject that it should be preserved. You seem to have this notion that, if the Undertaker loses at a Wrestlemania, suddenly the entire "streak" ceases to add any meaning to his legacy and legend. It won't. Goldberg eventually lost, but fans still remember him for his unbelievable run to start his career. If Taker loses at Mania, fans will still remember him for being one of the best "big game players" in history.

Even if it isn't 18, going undefeated for a while at WrestleMania would still be huge, made huger because you could compare an otherwise average worker to Taker.

Sure, 6 consecutive Wrestlemania wins would be impressive. And since Undertaker won his first 18 Wrestlemania matches, whether he loses one or not will not detract from how impressive a streak is. The New Orleans Saints and Indianapolis Colts have won their first 8 games - does the fact that they aren't the 2007 Patriots make their streak any less impressive? No.

Except, beating The Undertaker wouldn't add a dimension to anyone.

Except for being known as the man who finally defeated the Undertaker at Wrestlemania for the rest of his career. But, yeah, no added dimension at all.

The Orton and Edge comparision showed two otherwise standard workers as hardcore workers, that's why it mattered. Beating the Undertaker would be a scalp, but it wouldn't aid character development the way a hardcore match with a hardcore legend did.

And the person who defeats The Undertaker at Wrestlemania would show an otherwise standard worker as someone who is capable of raising his game and winning on the biggest stage against the best big stage wrestler in history, with the exception of maybe Hogan.

Except it would. Saying someone is unbeatable, and saying they're hard to beat are two very different things. I appeciate that if you look at the cold facts, he has a superb record, but that isn't what wrestling commentators do. They don't say "actually, Randy Orton's reign as the youngeest champ was piss poor" They say "Randy Orton was the youngest. The difference is huge, and while students of the facts will appreciate it, most won't.

Ludicrous. They will still call him "the winningest wrestler in Wrestlemania history." I'll actually argue that a loss would BENEFIT the Undertaker's career, because he will cease to be just a number we started keeping track of.

That's not what I said at all, I said that Taker is old and often has time off. He had time off after his feud with Edge finished, and after he had put him over. He had time off during his feud with Orton, he's been having time off for a long time, but he's still the guy that has done more for young guys than anyone else.

Okay, fair enough. But have you noticed his time off last year was following his win over Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania? And why is that? Because he had to work the Road to Wrestlemania tour prior to the event, and then the match itself. Because of age and injuries, he's past the point where he can take momentum FROM a Wrestlemania win and use it the rest of the year. So, as I've been saying, his matches at Wrestlemania are great and all, but they exist just to keep a number alive. Far better at a time when so many aging WWE stars are looking towards retirement to use a win over Taker to elevate someone to new heights.

Yeah, and then after those huge wins he lost to Hart and was relegated to nowhere, which completely proves my point.

He wasn't "relegated to nowhere" because he lost momentum. His weight caused health issues and injuries, that is why Yokozuna faded away. He remained a viable contender until Vader took him out.

Shawn Michaels gained nothing by retiring Flair, but he got to do it.

This is your most relevant point yet. You're right, but Flair wanted to be retired by Shawn, and thus it happened that way. Undertaker has always been a company man, and I honestly feel he'd want to lose to whomever could carry the torch best. Whether it's Cena, Orton, Edge, or another one of the "next generation" superstars who will be on top from 2010-2019.

You keep dwelling on this rub, but I have said time and time again, that there is no long term gain for whoever beats the Undertaker. None.

You're wrong. There's no convincing you otherwise, but you're wrong. Defeating The Undertaker at Wrestlemania would be one of the biggest rubs ever.

History dictates that when the little guy gets the win it doesn't matter.

So when Hogan beat the "undefeated" Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania 3, it didn't matter? I remember it as positively iconic. When Shawn Michaels beat Bret Hart in the Ironman Match, it didn't matter? When Austin beat Michaels? When Foley beat Rock? When Angle beat Austin? When Eddie beat Lesnar? When Benoit made HHH tap out? When Cena beat JBL? When Bulldog beat Bret?

So the precident of a big streak being ended was lacklustre? That doesn't bode well for you. Neither does the way Kozlov's 1 year streak ended, nor Edge's WrestleMania one for that matter. Streaks are characteristically badly broken, and should probably be avoided entirely. However, this one exists, and the best thing to do is to keep it going, otherwise it will look like 20 years of build up for a very minor conclusion.

The WAY the Goldberg streak was broken was lackluster, because it involved interference from another wrestler. The controversy surrounding the win tarnished the streak itself. And Kozlov's streak ended on an episode of Raw, NOT in a co-main event of Wrestlemania. BIG difference, Tastycles.

But the same is true of all matches in the past. Without looking, do you know who Shawn Michaels faced at WrestleMania IX? Maybe.

Tatanka. Opening match. For the IC Title. Tatanka won by count-out, Michaels kept the title.

Yes, that was without looking.

But that's not why he wasn't there. He wasn't there because he was injured. It's not scheduled admittedly, but it is outside anyone's control that he didn't wrestle at those events. Perhaps a better example would be that of Carl Lewis. Carl Lewis is undefeated at the long jump in the Olympics, but he didn't go to Moscow 1980 despite qualifying because of the boycott. It doesn't mean that he isn't unbeaten at the Olympics.

You're right, Carl Lewis is a much better example, and you raise a valid point with him. Doesn't change the fact that, as opposed to Carl Lewis's records or The Miami Dolphins or Rocky Marciano, Undertaker's win streak is scripted, and thusly hasn't got the lustre that the true sports records have. As a result, it makes sense that Undertaker use the steam that the streak has built to put over another wrestler for the long term sustainability of the product.

Ending the streak would be the culmination of 18 years of build up, and noody at all could live up to that and come out of it looking any better.

I respectfully disagree. I think, done properly, a victory over The Undertaker at Wrestlemania could be the next Hogan / Andre moment, or even the next huge heel turn moment.

 

[Tastycles]

Quick note to say sorry for my recent absence, I was away in Sheffield for Smackdown, and have just returned home. Anyway, I shall now return to the world's most cyclical debate, and continue to refute the arguments of my opponent.

I surely accept that it is a onetime thing. I surely reject that it should be preserved. You seem to have this notion that, if the Undertaker loses at a Wrestlemania, suddenly the entire "streak" ceases to add any meaning to his legacy and legend. It won't. Goldberg eventually lost, but fans still remember him for his unbelievable run to start his career. If Taker loses at Mania, fans will still remember him for being one of the best "big game players" in history.

Undertaker's streak isn't the same thing as Goldberg's though. Goldberg looked like he was an unstoppable force wreaking havoc on WCW, something that wasn't lessened by a cheap defeat, and something that always made him look strong. The Undertaker's streak is about mind games, and one man having some sort of grip over one event. He loses a match, he loses that edge and the Streak's value ceases. Goldberg can always say that nobody could beat him fairly, Undertaker won't be able to say that his presence was ineffable at WrestleMania, because it won't be.

Sure, 6 consecutive Wrestlemania wins would be impressive. And since Undertaker won his first 18 Wrestlemania matches, whether he loses one or not will not detract from how impressive a streak is. The New Orleans Saints and Indianapolis Colts have won their first 8 games - does the fact that they aren't the 2007 Patriots make their streak any less impressive? No.

Of course it makes their streak won't be as impressive if they don't win. There is no argument that being undefeated is more impressive than having lost one. Whether your looking at it aesthetically or statistically 18-1 isn't as impressive as 18-0.

Except for being known as the man who finally defeated the Undertaker at Wrestlemania for the rest of his career. But, yeah, no added dimension at all.

It wouldn't. You said yourself that Nash got nothing from ending Goldberg's streak, why would this be any different?

And the person who defeats The Undertaker at Wrestlemania would show an otherwise standard worker as someone who is capable of raising his game and winning on the biggest stage against the best big stage wrestler in history, with the exception of maybe Hogan.

No it wouldn't. If it was a standard worker that did it, and I have no reason to believe that it would be, but if it was, the general reaction would be "what's this nobody doing beating The Undertaker". The person who beats the Undertaker would never live up to the build.

Ludicrous. They will still call him "the winningest wrestler in Wrestlemania history." I'll actually argue that a loss would BENEFIT the Undertaker's career, because he will cease to be just a number we started keeping track of.

There is absolutely no argument that can be made for "winningest" being more impressive than "unbeaten". Unbeaten implies nobody greater, winningest implies long term experience.

Okay, fair enough. But have you noticed his time off last year was following his win over Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania? And why is that? Because he had to work the Road to Wrestlemania tour prior to the event, and then the match itself. Because of age and injuries, he's past the point where he can take momentum FROM a Wrestlemania win and use it the rest of the year. So, as I've been saying, his matches at Wrestlemania are great and all, but they exist just to keep a number alive. Far better at a time when so many aging WWE stars are looking towards retirement to use a win over Taker to elevate someone to new heights.

If the Undertaker is going to be on the roster, then you have to expect him to be on tour and in programming, that's the nature. Whether he wins at WrestleMania or not, he is still going to be wrestling loads throughout the year, and that means that he will still need time off. You seem to think that the only reason The Undertaker, who is unquestionably in the top 5 draws in the company, is on the WrestleMania card is to keep the streak alive. You have zero justification for this.

He wasn't "relegated to nowhere" because he lost momentum. His weight caused health issues and injuries, that is why Yokozuna faded away. He remained a viable contender until Vader took him out.

No he didn't, he was a nobody for two years. He only started to look truly awful in 1996, before that he was the same as his 1993 shape.

This is your most relevant point yet. You're right, but Flair wanted to be retired by Shawn, and thus it happened that way. Undertaker has always been a company man, and I honestly feel he'd want to lose to whomever could carry the torch best. Whether it's Cena, Orton, Edge, or another one of the "next generation" superstars who will be on top from 2010-2019.

Cena, Orton and Edge wouldn't gain a long term thing a la Kevin Nash. The up and comers would either be at a point were they too wouldn't gain a thing, or it'd be too soon and they'd be burdened with it forever, a la Chris Jericho.

You're wrong. There's no convincing you otherwise, but you're wrong. Defeating The Undertaker at Wrestlemania would be one of the biggest rubs ever.

No it wouldn't. There is almost no precident for a wrestler going on to consistent higher success based on the back of one victory.

So when Hogan beat the "undefeated" Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania 3, it didn't matter? I remember it as positively iconic. When Shawn Michaels beat Bret Hart in the Ironman Match, it didn't matter? When Austin beat Michaels? When Foley beat Rock? When Angle beat Austin? When Eddie beat Lesnar? When Benoit made HHH tap out? When Cena beat JBL? When Bulldog beat Bret?

Hogan slamming Andre was huge, but it didn't reallymake him more popular. Shawn Michaels didn't become any more popular based on that victory, hence his dog shit title reign. Austin gained hardly anything from beating Michaels. It was all about his feud with McMahon, and his build throughout 1997. Foley beat Rock, but it didn't make him any more popular, same goes for Angle. Eddie and Benoit went back to midcard obscurity within months, Cena was on the up and up anyway, and Bulldog got a big cheer at Wembley, that's it. You've basically just named a bunch of first time title matches, none of which actually contributed long term to a character's build.

The WAY the Goldberg streak was broken was lackluster, because it involved interference from another wrestler. The controversy surrounding the win tarnished the streak itself. And Kozlov's streak ended on an episode of Raw, NOT in a co-main event of Wrestlemania. BIG difference, Tastycles.

The way that the streak ended would be equally lacklustre. The way the Undertaker is booked at WrestleMania, would lead any outcome, even a clean win seem a bit "what went wrong". I guarantee that the crowd would boo a face if they won, which the compnay obviously wouldn't want. If a heel beat him clean, people wouldn't understand how it was possible and react negatively. If a heel beat him dirtily, it would be tainted. It's a catch-22 scenario.

Tatanka. Opening match. For the IC Title. Tatanka won by count-out, Michaels kept the title.

Yes, that was without looking.

Didn't know the feud though, did you?

You're right, Carl Lewis is a much better example, and you raise a valid point with him. Doesn't change the fact that, as opposed to Carl Lewis's records or The Miami Dolphins or Rocky Marciano, Undertaker's win streak is scripted, and thusly hasn't got the lustre that the true sports records have. As a result, it makes sense that Undertaker use the steam that the streak has built to put over another wrestler for the long term sustainability of the product.

But that isn't the way it works within wrestling, and you know it. Streaks only maintain any steam whatsoever because they are booked as legitmate. Undertaker's streak is exactly the same as Carl Lewis' within the eyes of the wrestling universe, and has just as much lustre. Itit didn't have the lustre, then it couldn't have steam, then nobody could get the rub you claim they'd get. You have to treat it as real, otherwise it means nothing at all.

I respectfully disagree. I think, done properly, a victory over The Undertaker at Wrestlemania could be the next Hogan / Andre moment, or even the next huge heel turn moment.

A heel turn would taint the streak in exactly the same way that Nash's taser stunt did with Goldberg's, which would emphatically be a bad thing.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Tasty, seeing as each of us has made 4 very exhaustive (and quasi-repetitive, as you pointed out) posts thus far, what do you say we each post our closing arguments in the next 24 hours and leave it at that? Will make it easier for the judges to not have to search more lengthy posts in search of new points. It also avoids the childish "wait until the final 10 minutes and then post in hopes of getting the last word in" technique.

Whaddayasay?

 

[Tastycles]

I totally agree, what I would suggest is that you go first, as per the argument so far and I shall respond about this time tomorrow evening, assuming you have finished up by then. While this topic is great for bringing out an argument, the problem is that it is quite narrow, and I think our opening arguments pretty much covered anything worth saying.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

In Closing...​

Tasty and I have both agreed that, out of respect for one another's time as well as the sanity of the judges reading the debate, we are now going to post our closing debates.

In my closing, I feel I will be able to summarize and reiterate my irrefutable arguments as to why the undefeated streak of The Undertaker should, in fact, come to an end with a loss. I am confident that the logic I have used to demonstrate the long-term benefit will convince the judges of my stance as well.

The Value of "The Rub"​

Some great and defining, epic and iconic moments in professional wrestling history occured as a result of one wrestler's simple victory over another. In 1987, more than 93,000 fans watched the seemingly unbeatable Andre the Giant getting bodyslammed by Hulk Hogan, followed by a legdrop and pinfall that allowed Hogan to retain the WWF Title. Three years later, with Hogan still on top of the world, The Ultimate Warrior defeated Hogan for his first WWF Championship at Wrestlemania, where Hogan had hitherto been 4-0-1 - all but one of those matches in the Main Event. In the opening bout of Wrestlemania 10, Owen Hart won a clean victory away from his older brother Bret, legitimizing Owen and making him a main event contender. On December 24th, 1998, hated WWF Champion The Rock lost the title to Mick Foley in a title change that started to swing the Monday Night Wars back to the WWF.

NONE of the "losers" in that bout had momentum even close to what The Undertaker's undefeated streak has become to wrestling fans. Taker's streak is actually two decades old, despite him being 18-0. I am willing to wager that well over half of these forums weren't even watching wrestling when the streak began at Wrestlemania 7.

The smartest thing that the WWE - a company desparate for the next generation of superstars - can do is to capitalize on the streak by allowing someone to defeat The Undertaker at Wrestlemania. The streak will no longer draw once Taker retires, but a wrestler who defeats him WILL. For that reason alone, it's a no brainer.

Keeping the Streak in tact is foolish sentimentality
​

As I just mentioned, the Streak really will not generate significant revenue after Taker retires. For that reason, what could possibly be the reason to keep it in tact? As I browse again through my opponents posts, the reason seems to be nothing but plain and simple sentimentality. It seems that my opponent feels fans are better off worshipping a number like 20-0 rather than revering the greatest winner in Wrestlemania history AND also becoming wrapped up in whomever it was who finally put Taker's streak to rest.

I can understand that wrestling is a dirty business and fans often search for something pure to hold on to. But even Taker's winning streak is somewhat tainted considering whom he opposed for some of these matches, and how few of the matches were main events. By ending the streak, the focus comes OFF of the number, and will finally allow fans to appreciate the forest for the trees - the great career and matches that The Undertaker put on. With the streak in tact, you take a legend and make him a one night a year story.

It would legitimately shock fans who need it...​

My opponent seems to think that fan only want to see good guys win, but with the mystique of pro wrestling largely giving way to knowledge of the theatre - including small details such as the name change from "Federation" to "Entertainment," a plot twist and some shock value is just what the doctor ordered. Do you remember when The Undertaker defeated Hulk Hogan for the WWF Title at Survivor Series? The stunned silence? The shock and disbelief? Taker's shoulders being finally pinned to the mat for 3 seconds at the "Granddaddy of them all" would be a legitimate shock, and you can be damn sure it would reinvest fans emotionally in the post-Wrestlemania goings on. Wrestlemania routinely draws as many buys as 4 smaller PPV's - why not use the shock value to keep momentum going and turn it into something long term?

I'd also like to point out some of the reasons why my opponents argument, though somewhat well constructed, it largely flawed and ultimately incorrect.

My opponent feels wrestlers would benefit more from LOSING to Taker at Wrestlemania than WINNING...​

This idea is so counterintuitive it's painful. It is SO RARE for a wrestler to be more benefitted from a loss than a win (Austin / Hart is the one that comes to mind), and even worse when you consider that Undertaker winning at Wrestlemania is "just another notch in his belt," whereas a loss at Wrestlemania would make it "the biggest upset in Mania history."

There is nothing - no championship, no victory, no event that could possibly mean more than a victory over The Undertaker at Wrestlemania. We have seen dozens of World Title changes in the past 2 years. Somebody wins a Royal Rumble every year. Taker's streak being broken can only happen ONE time, and whomever does it will be known for rising to the occassion bigger than anyone else could. They will have done something that Triple H, Ric Flair, Batista, Edge, and Shawn Michaels all failed to do.

Seriously, a win over The Undertaker would mean MORE at Backlash or Judgement Day? Ridiculous.

My opponent feels that the WWE "owes" the streak to Taker​

And Taker owes it to WWE to allow them to solidify one of their next great superstars by defeating Taker at Wrestlemania. After all, Taker didn't actually "win" any of those 18 matched - the WWE WROTE that into the storylines. Undertaker has made millions of dollars and enjoyed loads of fame as a result of his work in the WWE, and since Taker will likely want to be associated with Pro Wrestling even after retirement, it makes sense that he will want to know that the momentum from his streak can be carried further by somebody else.

Besides, Taker is a true "company man." He's never had an issue putting over a deserving talent. If anything, Taker's knowledge of the business and the backstage affords him the right to hand choose who he puts over.

And finally, my opponent believes that a loss will damage the legacy of The Undertaker​

This is just such a blatant slap in the face of everything Taker has accomplished it's not evn funny. The man is so much more than a number or a streak, and yet we've allowed the hype machine of 18-0 to overshadow his year round accomplishments for two decades. This issue, in and of itself, amplifies why the streak should end. Taker has had some of the best feuds in wrestling history. He's been one of the longest tenured company guys in history, along with Shawn Michaels and Hardcore Holly. And yet, for some reason, losing this one match is going to taint his career?

I'll tell you exactly how it'll go. He'll lose, the crowd will be stunned. Taker may shake the hand of the man who beats him. As Taker leaves the ring, the ovation will be epic. Chants of "Un-der-ta-ker!" will resonate through the crowd, as JR proclaims "there goes the greatest competitor in Wrestlemania history. 19 / 20 consecutive wins, and today he finally comes up short, but what an amazing run for the deadman." The, the DVD comes out "Undertaker - Mr. Wrestlemania" and it talks about the importance of losing to whomever. As a send off, he comes back for one final Wrestlmania match the following year - maybe against McMahon - so he wins in his final match.

Taker should not retire undefeated at Wrestlemania. The storm is just too perfect for somebody not to defeat him at long last. And maybe, instead of just counting, it'll help us all take a step back and realize how remarkable he's been his entire career.

 

[Tastycles]

My closing statement

Throughout the week, my opponent and I have demonstrated the best arguments both for and against the ending of The Undertaker's streak. In this final post I intend to show that not only is keeping the streak a good thing, but ending it, be it now orin retirement would be a bad thing.

The Undertaker deserves a legacy

He's not going to have a lot of title reigns, and Kane is probably the only person who has had their career best feud with him, and so Undertaker needs something to define him when he retires. It sounds daft, but it really isn't. Bob Backlund isn't held in as high a regard as Sammartino and Hogan by the average wrestling fan, because he doesn't have that defining characteristic. Hogan had Hulkamania, Sammartino came first, Backlund didn't and he has all but been forgotten by the average fan unfortunately. If the Undertaker doesn't have a "undefeated at WrestleMania"-esque tagline, they will stop speaking about him when he leaves.

My opponent said, well theey'll call him the winningest WrestleMania wrestler, but that actually wouldn't be true. Sure, he'd have won the most matches, but the undefeated titan that is Torrie Wilson would have a higher win percentage, having won all her matches there. There are plenty of others who have never lost at WrestleMania, but nobody has done it a long. If he did lose, he'd cease to become the wrestler with the highest percentage of wins. Saying he had the most wins there is saying he'd been around for ages, and it is a feasibly attainable goal. John Cena has 5 wins and at least 10 years left, for example. So not only does it lack the same impact, it wouldn't even be accurate.

The draw/The Deadman

The biggest part of what makes The Undertaker such a terrifying prospect, is the psychological hold he has on people. Taker's streak is what helps to maintain that in a wrestling feud, and then you have a real problem. The Streak itself can help draw fans into a match, because everyone, every year questions if Edge/Orton etc. can finally do it, as well as getting a standard feud to boot. It is the sort of thing that makes a normal feud a WrestleMania quality feud instantly.

There is no such thing as a sustained one match rub

My oppponent keeps talking about the rub, but time and again I have showed that it ends up being a burden or having no lasting effect. I will now illustrate, using his own examples, that there is no basis or precedent of this.

Andre vs Hogan: There is no denying that Hogan's slam of Andre is an iconic moment, but you have got it wrong as to why. When showing that on WWE programming now, they don't ever talk about Andre being undefeated, they talk about what Hogan did. He slammed a half ton man, something that had never been seen before. If Hogan had have won by a big boot and leg drop, nobody would care about that match, it'd have been just another win. Nobody had seen a man that size put on his arse, people have seen someone hitherto undefeated lose, so it is an entirely different prospect.

Ultimate Warrior vs Hogan: The culmination of Warrior's 3 year push ended here. The problem, of course, was that Warrior wasn't ready for it. He was given the title, didn't even sustain enough interest to hold it a year, then faded into obscurity. The Warrior gained a few months out of it, but then faded away.

Owen vs Bret: Probably the best example yet. All this match did was make Owen a threat to Bret. He had a few title shots against Bret, that was it. 5 years later he found himself feuding with the Godfather dressed as a shit superhero. Do you really mean to say that he got anything of a sustained rub from that win?

Foley vs Rock: Foley got so much more over from being screwed by McMahon in the first place. Foley beat the Rock, true, but he wasn't much more popular for it and spent the second half of 1999 doing very little more than he had been doing in 1996, 97 and 1998. To say it elevated him is a fallacy.

Can I just also say that we are talking here as if Dolph Ziggler is going to come down to the ring and win. That isn't going to happen. After years of fighting "young" stars, you said yourself that the only one you perceived with a chance of winning was Michaels. If anyone beats Taker, it will be an established main eventer.

But let's say its an up and comer. You get far more from such feuds by losing first, then coming back to beat your opponent. Kind of like a good wrestling match, but over time. Orton is the classic example. Randy Orton benefitted loads from losing, then coming back over the year. The comparison is there too. He won the World Heavyweight Championship without build, and it was a huge damp squid. It took feuding with Taker to put him back on that level, and it wasn't by a single quick win, but by sustained push.


Youngsters will never live up to it

Again, if a young star won it, they'd never live up to it. If you are the person who beat's Taker at WrestleMania, then you are unstoppable,when you then lose, people don't get it and you become a one trick pony, who always ha to bring it up, because it is bigger than you are. Chris Jericho is the absolute prime example of this. He can never let the fact he beat Austin and Rock go, neither can the commentators, but looking at it from outside, Chris Jericho is exactly where he was now momentum wise during the Invasion. He gained nothing apart from lacklustre title reigns and an accolade he can never live up to.

There is no satisfactory way of ending the streak

This is something my opponent has failed to argue, because it is absolutely correct. There is nobody who could beat Taker and make it look legit. If a face won, they'd get booed out of the arena. If you used it to turn them heel, you've done it with a clean victory, which means that they will struggle to maintain heel momentum. If a heel wins clean, then you basically make The Undertaker, and by association everyone who has failed to beat him, look really weak. IF a heel wins dirty, or a turning face wins dirty, then you taint the streak the same way beating Goldberg with a taser tainted his. IT's the biggest catch-22 in wrestling, I've said it before but it's true, there is no goood way to end a face's winning streak.

The myth of the shock

My opponent things its good to suprise the audience, but it isn't. IT's good to suprise the audience with something they want to see, e.g. a face's return. It's bad to suprise the audience with something they don't want to see, e.g. Michaels beating Bulldog in Britain. To have 20 years of momentum behind an angle then to end it with a suprise is WCW booking at its finest. I didn't expect David Arquette to win the world title, nobody did, but then he did, and the audience didn't like it. The audience will react badly if a nobody beats The Undertaker.

That's the sum total of my arguments, and I'd just like to thankmy opponent. I'd also like to apologise to my opponent and the judges for letting the side down on both time and content this week. I've been away and I have a huge essay to write.

 

[Mr. TM]

Clarity: Really, I cannot take a point from either poster here. You both had clear arguments. Your posts were both well written.

Emotionality: Hmm, I have to not split points in this one as much as possible, so I think I will give it to Tastycles here, he narrowly beat IC. I think IC can be a little to emotional at times, when he needed to stay together.

Punctuality: Tastycles missed on a day of remembrance. Irony perhaps.

Information and Persuasion: You guys are lucky, you both got an argument that is closed off, unlike many open ended debates. So gathering information could come from very limited sources. As you see I added these to together. They really are partners in debates. Some debates they go together, some they dont. In this closed debate, they do. IC used information, Tastycles equalled it. IC attacked Tastycles points, and IC attacked Tastycles. They each had points to win. They each get 1 point here.

Tastycles 2-2 IC25

 

[CH David]

Clarity: Both were fantastic, and I expected nothing less from them, especially now in the playoffs.

Point: Split

Punctuality: Tasty was late unfortunately.

Point: IC25

Informative: This point is tough to gauge in a closed-answered debate like this. IC brought a lot of very good facts, such as Taker's opponents at Wrestlemania throughout the streak. I couldn't really see where Tasty had the chance to bring in cold hard facts from the outside.

Point: IC25

Emotionality: This wasn't a heated battle at all. I expected there to be a little more emotion. However I did feel that Tasty brought in that little extra that pushed him ahead of IC for this point.

Point: Tastycles

Persuasion: Like the rest of the debates, this was a very tough one to decide. Both sides were presented extremely well, and I would like to commend both of you. In the end (It doesn't even matter, sorry, little Linkin Park moment) IC was able to convince me it should end. Tasty put up one hell of a fight, and like I said it was a tough debate, but IC made a few more points that swayed me to his side.

Point: IC25

CH David scores this IC25 3.5, Tastycles 1.5.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Clarity Of Argument - I give the point to IrishCanadian25 here. I think Tastycles did better in the critical thinking department (in his first rebuttal), but I'll give him his due for that later on.

Point: IrishCanadian25

Punctuality - Read what everyone else said.

Point: IrishCanadian25

Informative - I'm not exactly sure what listing all of The Undertaker's Wrestlemania matches did for your argument, IrishCanadian25. This was a rare instance of information overload on your part. I know you two went to the max here, but you could have saved tons of energy by being more efficient in this instance. For once, I'm giving the point to your opponent, as he managed to keep things relevant.

Point: Tastycles

Emotionality - Both guys did a good job here. Tastycles, I'm giving the point to you because you were able to back up your assertiveness with great points and a great initial rebuttal.

Point: Tastycles

Persuasion - IrishCanadian25, I thought Tastycles had you with his first rebuttal. But, luckily, as the debate progressed, you were able to overcome his (very valid) criticisms of your opening argument by incorporating them into your overall argument. Ultimately, this is what got you the point here.

Point: IrishCanadian25

tdigle's Score

IrishCanadian25 - 3
Tastycles - 2

 

[BooCocky]

Clarity: Both were well written and I can't take a point a way from either debater.

Point: No ome.

Punctuality: Tastycles was a little late. IC gets the point.

Point: IC25

Informative: These posts were very well written and each showed and brought out a lot of information. But I believe IC went the distance and used some good info. Therefore he gets the point.

Point: IC25

Emotionality: Both did a good job. No one gets the pont...

Point: ...

Persuasion: I never thought Takers streak should come to an end, and I believe Tastycles kept me focused and IC didn't do enough to persuade me. Therefore Tastycles gets the point for keeping me on his side.

Point: Tastylces

Final

Tastycles-1
IC25- 2

 

[Blade]

Clarity: IC25. Points made and no bullshitting around. He just said what he needed to. IC25 gets the point here.

Emotion: Tastycles gets the point here. It's like he was backing up Undertaker and his work rather than the streak, which I thought was pretty cool.

Punctuality: IC25. Reasons stated above.

Informative: IC25 chronicled the "streak" and used it really well within his arguments. Tastycles was arguing more about what could happen.

Persuasion: IC25 gave one of the best debate performances I have ever seen. He persuaded me that it would definitely be beneficial for the streak to be ended. Considering how torn I was on the subject before reading this debate, that shows how good IC25 actually was here.

IC25 4 Tastycles 1