So I was thinking...

[Mr. Artistic guy]

People are generally split quite evenly on the idea of the end of Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak being ended by someone. People make the point that it is a draw at Wrestlemania, and that's true, and it explains why he hasn't lost as of yet.

But The Undertaker is going to have a last match one day. Is his legacy going to be totally sabotaged if the man is 20/21/22-1 as opposed to 21/22/23-0? Doesn't it make sense that he will lose his last match because he'll be unable to live up to his former self and he'll just get too old to stay at the same level, ala Ric Flair? Is The Undertaker's streak going to make WWE any money once Taker has retired? No. But can they do good business by having him lose his last match, putting a rocket on the back of a guy who will remain at the company in effect keeping the heat and the money in? They certainly can. So is there any good reason not to have The Undertaker lose his last ever match at Wrestlemania, leave an unbeatable 20+ Wrestlemania win streak and his legacy intact, but put the rub of a lifetime on a younger guy? Anybody?

 

[red ass skull muhfukkah]

I'm of the belief that Ryback should have won the title from Punk at Hell in a Cell, beat Rock at Royal Rumble and end the streak at Wrestlemania. The streak will only make money for another year or two, someone becoming a star because they ended it will make more money in the long run.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I'm not the biggest fan of Ryback but from the amount of stock they have already put in him and the fact he's got plenty of good years in him and the type of character he is, the guy is a prime candidate.

Don't get me wrong, I think they should get every penny out of the streak that they can. If they can get two matches, have two matches. If they can get three, have three. But when it's time for that last match, it ought to go to the guy who can use it, and when Undertaker is retired, he can't use it.

 

[red ass skull muhfukkah]

People worry far too much about legacies and the "importance" of the streak. Legacies only make money in DVD sales, possibly giving another guy a big boost or creating a new star makes more sense in the long haul. It probably won't happen as Taker has never really put anyone over other than Kane and maybe Hardy back in the day but it should happen.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I'm definitely in the camp who believes that the streak should never be broken, that Taker should retire with his WM undefeated streak intact. I'm not a believer in some random new dude getting a push on the back of the Undertaker. The only person on the roster who is worthy of ending the streak is John Cena and just like Taker's legacy is not hurt by a disruption of the streak, Cena doesn't really gain much from it either. I'm all for rewarding loyalty and longevity, and preserving the streak is a tangible way of doing so.

Personally, I'd like to see Taker miss WM this year, then return at WM30 to face Cena and preserve his streak. Rematch at Survivor Series, Taker loses a Casket Match to Cena, and then he's gone.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Ezackaley. I'm not sure how fair it is to say that Taker hasn't put many guys over, I don't think he's got much in the way of creative control because the leash for his character is very tight, although that's a discussion for another time. Point being I'm sure he himself would have no issue losing to someone if he was told to and it made sense. I don't think the guy has that big an ego to be honest, but that's my own private speculation I suppose.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I'm not a believer in some random new dude getting a push on the back of the Undertaker.

Aside from the fact whoever it is will likely be far from random, why not?

 

[hatehabsforever]

Aside from the fact whoever it is will likely be far from random, why not?

What I mean by that statement is, I don't think some guy such as Ryback, for example, should ever be considered to be the guy to end the streak. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Ryback, and I'd love to see his push continue, but there's no way he's earned the right to accomplish something as lofty as ending the streak.

There's only one person and one scenario that I would ever feel is worthy of the streak being terminated, and we all know that it's never going to happen in a million years.

 

[keehlnate]

this is the biggest streak in history and it should never end

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Well I agree with not having Cena be that guy. The whole idea hinges really on how important said person is for the long-term plans of the WWE. If a guy like Ryback is going to be there for the next five years on top, I see it as a worthwhile investment because purely in terms of a financial return, the money they will make off the back of him as a direct result will be amplified greatly.

I don't know if Ryback IS a guy like that, but from what we've been led to believe so far it seems likely to be that way. I think the best parallel for this is the night Chris Jericho won the Undisputed title. Before hand he was a guy that wasn't fully main event, last-match-on-the-card over, but winning that match and the accompanying accomplishment worked greatly for him even a full decade later. Now think about the way in which they have used that for Jericho, and times it by about 10 because that's how much it's worth.

It shouldn't go to a nobody, nor should it go to an established guy who can't fully use it. It goes to a guy who isn't yet on that astronomical plane, but the WWE has plans for them to be and for years to come. Someone just like a Randy Orton or Cena in 2004, a Jericho in 01, Punk in 08. I should rephrase the question:

If this move went some large way to establishing and creating the next mega-star of the WWE, would you pull the trigger?

this is the biggest streak in history and it should never end

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but for the purposes of the thread and my genuine curiosity, why? I personally feel it's interesting that you use the word should, because I feel strongly that the streak should end, it's almost irresponsible not to. It's missing the boat. I just want to know what good reason there is not to have the streak end.

Night night time for me anyway.

 

[hatehabsforever]

If this move went some large way to establishing and creating the next mega-star of the WWE, would you pull the trigger?

Personally, no I would not pull the trigger. For the simple fact that there could be no guarantee that ending the streak would establish or create the next mega-superstar of the WWE, as there are no guarantees of anything in the world of professional wrestling. It would be a shame to see something of this magnitude end, only to have the steak-ender not live up to the hype and hooplah of the achievement of the feat.

 

[Captain Morgan Freeman]

There would be a HUGE backlash if it were to happen. Im talking Cena levels of hate. Even worse if it was Cena that ended it.

It's possible someone could make a career out of it but aside from Cena, Orton, Punk and at a stretch Ryback no one else would be believeable in taking on Undertaker let alone winning, and 3 of the 4 guys i mentioned don't need the rub anyways.

 

[This Is My Name Thank You]

Is the person who ends it even going to be remembered? Do you think it will mean much if a guy like Del Rio ends it, or as a lot of people on here say Wade Barret should end the streak. To me this is the question that the WWE must have as well. If the streak ends and the "rub" from Taker is given, does this automatically make that person an instant star? Or would the plan totally back fire and make tarnishing the streak a huge mistake and complete waste of time?

There is much more that factors to the streak besides money. I personally don't think it should end. My opinion is have whoever is the last person to fight to end the streak wrestle Taker at Survivor Series where he debuted and have that person retire taker their. If done right, this could go perfectly for the WWE.

The superstar may not have ended the streak, but instead they beat the dead man at the ppv where he debuted then eventually where he also Rest's In Peace.

penny + penny = my two cents.

 

[Coco]

People are generally split quite evenly on the idea of the end of Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak being ended by someone. People make the point that it is a draw at Wrestlemania, and that's true, and it explains why he hasn't lost as of yet.

I'd go as far as to say that the streak isn't even a major draw. Mania sells itself, and a major draw takes it to another level. Rock is a major draw. Taker's just some wrestler who happens to be there.

But The Undertaker is going to have a last match one day. Is his legacy going to be totally sabotaged if the man is 20/21/22-1 as opposed to 21/22/23-0? Doesn't it make sense that he will lose his last match because he'll be unable to live up to his former self and he'll just get too old to stay at the same level, ala Ric Flair? Is The Undertaker's streak going to make WWE any money once Taker has retired? No. But can they do good business by having him lose his last match, putting a rocket on the back of a guy who will remain at the company in effect keeping the heat and the money in? They certainly can. So is there any good reason not to have The Undertaker lose his last ever match at Wrestlemania, leave an unbeatable 20+ Wrestlemania win streak and his legacy intact, but put the rub of a lifetime on a younger guy? Anybody?

Basically this. Even if the experiment failed, at least they took a shot at those possible future dollars. In entertainment, that's all that matters: The next pay day. What Red Skull is saying about DVD sales is another point everyone should be listening to. Legacies are meaningless. Rewarding loyalty rather than professionally gunning for that next big pay day is the kind of pathetic circle jerking that has us with the lack of big stars we do at the moment. Fuck the streak. History forgets everyone anyway. Go for the green.

 

[Slash-LN]

The streak has kind of become a novelty act. Coco is right. It isn't really even a draw. Undertaker could never wrestle again and people are still going to buy the pay per view in large numbers because it's Wrestlemania.

I really don't think it would be a huge deal for someone to beat a hobbled old Undertaker that has been humanized over the past few years. If someone were to beat him where do you go from there? Is that going to be their only claim to fame or are they going to be the next mega star? Really in wrestling there is no way to know how a career is going to play out.

I think Undertaker should retire with the streak in tact. It will be something to cement his legacy. For as popular as he is he has never been "the" guy. So let him keep the streak.

 

[Coco]

If this one loss takes his legacy away, he really must not be worth a damn.

All this said, and no matter how right I am, I still expect him to keep the streak intact.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

As much as I appreciate the nobility of some, this is still fake wrestling. When he's ready to go he should be beat. I don't necessarily like the idea of one guy getting heat by beating UT. I really like the idea of a guy or group of guys committing the ultimate disrespect by cheating him out of another victory.

If Punk is going face UT this year at WM and this will be UT's last match have the Puppeteers/Sprockets interfere with or without Punk knowing and get Punk the win. Punk gets the win on his resume and the others get the heat for disrespecting the holy grail of WWE.

Do you hear me IWC?!?! I just made a star out of you precious Dean Ambrose!

Can't wait for Cole to say, "No! No! It can't end like this!".

Fuck the streak, book it Vince.

 

[SD619]

This may be related:

[YOUTUBE]MIBFRRAT7yE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[TLC]

The amount of anger within the IWC if this was too happen would be hilarious, so yeah, I'd love it.

Big Show should end it. Nothing can beat the KO Punch.

 

[BaconBits]

I think Gillberg should end the streak. Then, whilst he is walking to the back, Goldberg comes out and spears the shit out of him.

 

[Danger Burger]

I posted this in the spams before, regarding the rumour that punk would beat both the rock and Taker. But here makes more sense... Its a little exaggerated, but still reflects my uneducated opinion on the topic.

The streak is nothing. Its only useful as long as they can cash in on it. His legacy cannot be tainted, and keeping a clean sheet a wrestlemania serves no benefit to a man sitting at home on his couch. Like it or not taker is faaaar beyond his physical peak. His one match a year is still high calibre, no doubt, But the likelyhood of him performing is less and less every year. The only way we can let the streak mean something, is if we let it be defeated. Nobody but punk has the right ratio of Deserves:Needs to face and defeat the deadman.

This is spams too?? ack, I'll never get my post count up. I feel a poll here would have been handy!

 

[smizzy]

Even if he loses a WM match he'll still have the streak. 20-1, he'll still have won 20 manias in a row, and that stat may never be approached again. But really, there's a reason that wrestling doesn't use stats like other sports and that's what the streak is: just a stat.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

For the longest time I've been strictly against it. I've always said that Taker should go out undefeated but I'm on the fence about it these days. If it happens, and that's a big if, it should go to someone that you're investing in for the next several years or it should go to someone who still needs that push to really cement himself. As for the first option, it could go to a number of guys. Ziggler, Barrett, and Ryback immediately come to mind. With option two, Punk comes to mind. Punk is super over no doubt. But what will he really be remembered for? As a transitional champion that just so happened to hold the strap for over 400 days? This is why he needs the win over Taker more than anyone else at his level. Cena doesn't need it. Orton doesn't need it. Sheamus doesn't deserve it. Show damn sure doesn't deserve it. If someone says Kane should do it one more time I'm going to pull my hair. Punk is the answer in my humble opinion. If the streak ends, let it be Punk who ends it, and clean damn it! Just my two cents.

 

[Steve0904]

I think the Undertaker should remain undefeated because they only really have two options at this point. Either he loses the streak to an established star (at this point I believe that Cena may his only active legitimate threat that people could possibly see beating him.) I'm not including Lesnar or Rock because I don't consider them truly active. And I'm sorry, but I don't put CM Punk in this category. It would be a huge stretch of my imagination to envision Punk beating the Undertaker. Don't ask me why.

Or he loses to an up and comer (say Ryback). The problem here IMO is that WWE would be taking a huge chance, but maybe to some that's the idea. To me, you'd have to have an awful lot of faith that someone like Ryback or another up and comer could become a huge star, otherwise Taker loses the streak for basically nothing.

I know he has to officially retire at some point, but I think it should be at Survivor Series, where it all started for him.