Undefeated Streaks

[Richard]

I've thought about making this thread for a while because I've been wondering about WWE's use of new talent coming in and going on an undefeated streak.

So, WrestleZoners. I want your thoughts on undefeated streaks. Do you think they are over used? Are they irrelevant in today's wrestling? Are there better ways to push new talent? Any other points about them would be great aswell.

I think undefeated streaks now just get old quickly and the writers at WWE have to come up with better ways to build wrestlers up instead of billing them as undefeated in singles competition like Kozlov was. I think they are over used aswell and if it comes to it where WWE feel that someone absolutely has to be on an undefeated streak then the streaks should be very far apart and not have a new talent come in each year and go on an undefeated streak.

It's one of the few things WCW got right with Goldberg but the thing is, I don't think they started hyping Goldberg as undefeated until the fans recognised it and then they ran with it. I think if the announcers stop telling us about the undefeated streaks and reminding us all the time about them, people might not get as sick of it and the streak could naturally develop once the fans pick up on it.

 

[nitefightr69]

RRR, I agree with what you said about Goldberg. They didnt start pushing the fact that Goldberg was undefeated until he had ALOT of matches and the fact that, we, the fans noticed it.
WWE pushes it down our throats if someone is "undefeated". To me, undefeated means someone has NEVER lost... in ANY type of match. The fact that Kozlov was undefeated in "singles competition" is irrelevant. You lost a match, one-on-one or a tag match or w/e type of match... you are NOT undefeated.
Another problem with WWE is who they pick to be undefeated. Umaga, Kozlov, Jack Swagger... they all suck IMO. IF they want to push someone as undefeated, they need to build them up slooooooowly. He should not be the next "monster" heel that only can beat jobbers and wrestlers half their size and he should not be just an ok performer with a friggin lisp that no one can take seriously. If someone is going to be built up as undefeated...they should be special and not only sweat charisma but they should be great performers as well.

 

[Tastycles]

The success of Goldberg in WCW has, like any other successful gimmicks, been repeated countless times less succesfully. The problem with undefested streaks in the WWE is that they aren't really streaks at all, Kozlov lost a four way bettle royal very early on in his career and Kofi lost one at Wreslemania. They might not be getting pinned, but they certainly aren't winning every match.

Goldberg decimated everyone from the outset, and his streak wasn't mentioned until he was about 60-0. There's two points for the WWE to take heed of there. Firstly, many of his matches were against midcarders. Kozlov comes in and beat people like Stevie Richards. EVERYONE beats Stevie Richards, so this doesn't look good at all. It really isn't going to harm your midcarders if they lose to some unstoppable monster once, but it will make him look much better.

The other thing is that the WWE start plugging it too early. Kozlov was being called undefeated after beating about 5 randomers. This serves nothing, as these matches are invariably boring and exactly the same. Plenty of wrestlers win 5 matches in a row, these streaks need to be well into their 20s and 30s before they are even vaguely impressive.

The WWE overuse this gimmick on inappropriate people too. The gimmick worked to get Goldberg over as a potential champion quickly, aand it was good for Brock Lesnar too, in that respect. I can even see why they would do it with Swagger and Kozlov, because they want Swagger to be a champion and Kozlov to be a monster.

However, Ricky Ortiz was being called undefeated for ages, which is especially bizarre considering he won his second fight by DQ after Chavo and Bam Neely made him look ridiculous. This was unecessary, especially when you consider that Swagger started at a similar time and was also "undefeated".

The ways streaks end is often massively unsatisfactory. HBK going over Kozlov was unecessary and doesn't give either of them anywhere to go. The same can be said for almost every streak end - Shelton Benjamin beat Kofi, then lost to him about 3 times in a row. The only one that made sense to me recently, was Swagger's defeat to Finlay. It made Finlay look like he could actually beat him at No Way Out and without that match, it would have been even more of a foregone conclusion.

I think streaks could work, but at most I'd do one a year, and book it properly - have them beating people like Benjamin and MVP week in week out, and building them up like that. Nobody cares about a wrestler who has beaten Domino, then lost a battle royal, then beat Deuce, it is beyond boring, but they would if they beat people that actually win sometimes.

 

[ChainsawSmoker]

there's only two "undefeated" streaks that ever interested me. Goldberg, and The Undertakers "wrestlemania" streak.

WCW did the Goldberg angle PERFECTLY. as has been stated. Not mentioning it, letting the fans notice before they really said anything. This was a Highlight in WCW for me. I was a HUGE WCW fan when i was younger, and still have a bunch of old cassette tapes from back then with WCW.

The Undertaker, WWE kind of pulled the same. No one really realized undertaker was undefeated, or atleast, really didn't care, until what, 3 or 4 years ago? When they mentioned it? Its a good streak really. Wrestlemania is the big show for WWE, and the Undertaker is their big name, so it makes sense with him.

as for Kofi and Koslov, i was so bored and uninterested in their streaks. i don't think anyone REALLY cared all that much for them. Kofi is great, IMO, but, i didn't care that he was undefeated. Koslov, 'eh, its just WWE trying to pull the "big man can beat people up" thing that i've seen for the last, oh, 20 years.

Maybe an undefeated streak with, say Evan Bourne, I might be interested in that. Its a little late for it. But you take a high flier like bourne, and set him on the "David v Goliath" undefeated streak, that'd be interesting to see. my thoughts anyways.

 

[Miko]

I dont mind undefeated streaks, agreed that I dont think they should be mentioned until they are impressive and some bigger names have gone down but as far as giving someone five consecutive wins goes before having them lose for the first time is a good thing. It gives the wrestler involved time to shine in a few matches and that first loss always seems to seperate the men from the boys. If they are good enough people will still care, if they are not they get their pink slip.

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't think that the WWE brings guys in and gives them undefeated streaks, as much as they debut a guy and simply want fans to believe he's an instant threat in the company. The WWE isn't trying to create another Goldberg. But they DO want you to believe that a certain wrestler is very good, and want you to believe he's very good in a short amount of time. And, usually it works. People buy Kozlov as a threat, just like they buy CM Punk as a thread.

It's not about the undefeated streak, it's about making the worker look strong. And you can't make a worker look strong if he loses a bunch of matches immediately.

 

[MikeKillam]

Yeah, I agree that undefeated streaks are overused in the business today.
I'm extremely glad Koslov got beat by HBK this week on Raw! I don think that WWE had no choice with him though. Koslov can't perform at the main event level that WWE wants him to, so they think making him undefeated will do the trick...nope...I still think he's boring.

I do think that sometimes WWE gets them right. I liked MVP's losing streak, that turned into his recent winning streak. It just played out nicely. It made MVP look stronger as a wrestler and got him a lot more attention.
I also think that PPV streaks such as Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak or Edge's streak up until a few years ago work really well. Although in the end, you know Undertaker will never lose, you watch every year because the thought that he MIGHT lose draws you to it.

I also think that personal streaks are great. Like if one guys goes up against another, and one advertises that the other has never beaten him, that works. You tune into PPV's to see if it will happen...and you keep watching until it does happen.

So, if they are used well, I think they are good. I'm glad that Christian didn't get a huge streak going upon his return. It actually helps his character to build up a feud with Swagger, instead of just winning the title in his third match. Now, instead of instantly becoming bored with him, I want to see the two go at it at Wrestlemania.
Basically, there is a time and place for undefeated streaks, and if done right, they can be perfect.

 

[Slyfox696]

I do think that sometimes WWE gets them right. I liked MVP's losing streak, that turned into his recent winning streak. It just played out nicely. It made MVP look stronger as a wrestler and got him a lot more attention.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, as I haven't been able to see Smackdown in a while...

But how does having a long and announced losing streak make someone look stronger? That makes zero sense to me. Looking strong is about...well, looking strong. Looking like you are tough to beat. When you lose all the time, and attention is drawn to your long losing streak, that doesn't make you look strong.

I would love to hear how losing for a long time made MVP look stronger as a wrestler.

 

[legendkiller6]

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, as I haven't been able to see Smackdown in a while...

But how does having a long and announced losing streak make someone look stronger? That makes zero sense to me. Looking strong is about...well, looking strong. Looking like you are tough to beat. When you lose all the time, and attention is drawn to your long losing streak, that doesn't make you look strong.

I would love to hear how losing for a long time made MVP look stronger as a wrestler.

The losing streak was to take away some of the bullshit with his character. Meaning the stupid wannabe Orton pose, pyros, him claiming to be the highest paid superstar on Smackdown. It turned him into a babyface, and now the crowds behind him and he's on a winning streak. Soon everyone will forget the losses and recognize him as contender for championships.

 

[Agent-67]

Taker & HBK should have a very good match at WM. Both wrestlers are legendary and have impacted the business in many ways. Now that I have said that...Takers streak needs to end at some point! This is the entertainment industry(ie:its fake). There is no point in having a streak unless someone else, who is upcoming ends it. I don't think it would make any sense for HBK to end the Taker's streak. HBK is as over as he will ever be. But how sweet would it have been for the Legend Killer Orton to have ended the Taker's streak at WM. It would have elevated Orton and his angle(which was interesting at the time) to an amazing level. I get sick of hearing people all the time say Hogan never put anyone over. Really...? Take a second and think. Hogan elevated Savage with the Mega Powers angle. He elevated Piper with their angle, in which he never pinned Piper. He gave the ball to the Ultimate Warrior but he dropped it. He tried to elevate Earthquank but he sucked. He gave Goldberg the match of his career on Nitro. He revitalized Sting's gimmic with a fued. He also put over The Rock & Lesnar. Who has the Taker ever put over?????? NO ONE. He threw a "glorified stunt man" Mick Foley of a cage to elevate his career but won the fued. Didn't Hogan also put over the Taker for his 1st title??? Taker never loses fueds & he will probably never lose at Mania, but he should. Some young upcoming star could use a major push like that. Streaks need to come to an end for a great story conclusion. Plus what will be the point of Taker's streak when he retires?? Yea its impressive, but its entertainment. Its kind of egotistical for him to not want to put someone over.

 

[eXtremely-Priceless2K9]

I don't Like Kozlov, I don't know why Vinnie Mac Is! He Really Is Almost as bad as TGK. But I think streaks are neccesary...Sometimes Like GoldBerg But Really, Giving EVERY new wrestler that doesn't go to ECW a streak is pointless

 

[jellmoo]

I'm not a huge fan of the undefeated streak. I look at it as mostly a case of lazy booking, and only decent for the short term.

Goldberg is a great example. His undefeated streak got him over, for sure. However, who on earth wouldn't go over with the squash matches he had? Sure he had a great look, but he had a limited move set and poor mic skills.

When the streak ended, a lot of his momentum halted as well. Sure he was still over, but the bookers had to work him into actual storylines, as opposed to:

Segment 4: GOLDBERG WTF PWNS EVERYONE!!!1!1 LOLZ!

The unbeaten streak needs to be used *very* sparingly, and WWE needs to learn this. Almost every new superstar they debut has a form of an unbeaten streak that the announcers try and cram down our throats, and frankly, it's silly.

It takes a much better and more sophisticated booking to have a guy lose a match but still look great. That's what they should be doing.

My one exception to this rule is Taker's Wrestlemania streak. At this point, it's so well entrenched that it's classic. Should he lose at some point? Sure. It's about the best rub they can give a wrestler. However, it needs to go to the perfect Superstar. Somebody young who will be with the company a good long while, and is just about to break out as the "next big thing". Nobody fits that just now, but I'm pretty sure that the top guys are already thinking about who will fill this role, as Taker does not have all that many Manias left in him.

(Of course, if it were up to me it would be Kane... But whatever...)

 

[simonhirst]

I can see why people get annoyed with the streak thing. To name a few names, we've had...
Kurt Angle
Umaga
Kozlov
Kofi
im sure there are others
as most people have mentioned, goldbergs had the best undefeated streak and obviously takers.
despite being 'mr wrestlemania' i dnt see shawn taking it. no reason y he needs it.only two cases ive been curious as to it may go have been batista and orton. there was talk of ted dibiase fighting taker in the future and his dad havin a role in it as his dad bought him to the WWE.
There's been talk bout Kane takin it, perhaps like a rock v austin feud, when rock sed hes been beat twice by austin but wud win thrid time sorta thing. taker sed he'd give it kane too, but i dnt know, they need to built kane up as an indestructable monster again. they fooled us wen we thought he was revertin back to the mask, but turned out to be a lame feud with rey.
i personally wud like to see him lose it to someone random. one year, he shud have a mystery opponent. it cud sell ppv's probably. i think it wud interest ppl if done right. have him bein attacked leadin up to mania, then reveal his opponent at mania. what dya reckon?

 

[ChrisIrvine]

I don't think that the WWE brings guys in and gives them undefeated streaks, as much as they debut a guy and simply want fans to believe he's an instant threat in the company. The WWE isn't trying to create another Goldberg. But they DO want you to believe that a certain wrestler is very good, and want you to believe he's very good in a short amount of time. And, usually it works. People buy Kozlov as a threat, just like they buy CM Punk as a thread.

It's not about the undefeated streak, it's about making the worker look strong. And you can't make a worker look strong if he loses a bunch of matches immediately.

LOL, who the hell believes Kozlov is a threat to anything? He will never hold a belt. He will never win a marquee match. Hell, odds are, he'll be out of the company within a year because, frankly, he sucks. I gave him a chance. he can't speak, wrestle or entertain. Who did he blow to even get hired???

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

Many of the newer talents over the past several years has had undefeated streaks, so it's no new concept. I like undefeated streaks, personally, but it gets a little annoying when it lasts for too long and the commentators continue to mention it for a long time. You've had undefeated streaks that last a couple of weeks, a few months, or even an undefeated streak on a certain ppv. What I don't like about undefeated streaks is the fact that they all come to an end. I know that all undefeated streaks have to end, but the problem is that once an undefeated wrestler suffers their first defeat, they usually go on to a bit of a losing streak. It's happened in the past with Bobby Lashley and even recently with Ricky Ortiz and DJ Gabriel. So, I don't really have much of an opinion on undefeated streaks, but I just don't like the way they end sometimes.

 

[rashaba]

Now I normally just read these things, never thought i would ever be interested enough to respond to these topics but i have to here. I am 23 years old and i have been watching wrestling from before Yokozuna came to the WWF

First of all it is ridiculous to say that the Undertaker has never put anyone over. Im sure many people have forgotten that the first stepping stone that pushed the Rock to prominence was when he defeated the Undertaker cleanly. I cant remember if it was on Raw or on pay-per-view but everyone was surprised to say the least, myself included. The Undertaker helped to cement Stone Cold's career at SummerSlam when he dominated the match but still lost to Austin who was champion at the time, he even handed the belt back to Austin as a sign of a respect. Had Austin lost that match Im certain he would have lost some credibility because quite simply, beating Shawn Michaels clean and beating the Undertaker clean are quite far and away two completely different things. This does not mean that i think lowly of HBK, next to Taker', Austin, Angle and Bret, he is one of my favourite wrestlers.

With regards to Taker's Mania streak, I personally see no reason why it should be broken by any of the current stars out there 2day. I may be watching wrestling less these days because the quality of it IMO is quite weak but for sometime to beat Taker he would have to have a Hulk Hogan type aura going on. Like Cena a few years ago, another person who Undertaker has put over. Cena before the titles would have been a good person to end Taker's streak because he was popular, a face and on the up. You dont always have to lose to a person to put them over, e.g. the Undertaker v Jeff Hardy ladder match, Kurt Angle v John Cena (when he was in those nasty looking tights) the Rock v Chris Jericho for the WCW Championship-i seriously thought Jericho was going to retain. Anyhow, Takers' streak is there as it is. He's only headlined Wrestlemania a couple times and he has less title reigns than Cena n a few others. So unless there is someone on the WWE's roster that is capable of making a big, sustained push, there is no reason why Takers streak should ever end. I do hope this match with HBK really isnt his last because once he goes Im finished with WWE (yes, taker is my favourite wrestler - he's strong, quick, agile, jumps through the air and does submissions-what more do u want in a wrestler, unless your name is Brock Lesnar)

 

[Shocky]

Winning streaks are over used, and for the most part now, pointless. They were nice, but it gets stupid that as soon as one streak ends, magically another rookie comes along and has a huge winnings treak as well. It never freaking ends at all, it's one big cycle.

Some of the more notable streaks were Andre and his 17 year undefeated streak in the WWF, which if you followed the business, it was bullshit, but hey, there wasn't the exposure level there is now, and the WWE was able to get away with it.

Likewise with the Undertaker. Going into Survivor Series 1991, The Undertaker was billed as undefeated going into the match, yet you could find some old school Colliseum Home Videos that saw him get beat by the Warrior (granted by disqualification).

Goldberg is a classic example of the Streak done right. As stated earlier, no one said anything about the streak until Goldberg was well into it. It just happened to be something that people noticed that the guy hadn't lost on TV yet (I state on TV because I remember reading a house show result that had Piper go over Goldberg by DQ or something along those lines). Despite that, the Streak took a life of his own, and became an afterthought when Goldberg was established. The streak complimented Goldberg, but Goldberg was already over.

Brock Lesnar is the last effective Streak winner. I think it had little to do with the streak though. Brock was just a freaky, nasty bastard that demanded attention from everyone. Brock was so impressive physically that the Streak was also another afterthought.

Then you get into the stupidity of Umaga and Koslov and others that got streak pushes, but nothing really amounted from them. It's pretty much just a boring way of pushing a wrestler because a company really doesn't know how to create anyone without going to the Streak drawer to often. Instead of having them do soemthing memorable creative just says, hey, give him a streak.

 

[Ben-Phillips]

Ok, here is what I don't like. Everyone immediately jumps into the whole Goldberg thing when they talk streaks. The fact of the matter is, the first significant streak wasn't Goldberg's, it was Undertaker's. But regardless, I think streaks should only be used for either standout performers or big monsters, and not play that much into their character. Of course, the only people who ever go 'undefeated' are the monsters. You haven't seen the better workers in the company go undefeated, Jericho, Orton, Edge, etc. It's people like Umaga, 'Taker, Kozlov, Khali, so on and so forth.

I think the more efficient way to build someone up is the way WWE built Kennedy up. He was undefeated for what? 3-5 months of in-ring competition? Then he lost to Eddie Guerrero by Disqualification, but then to further his build, they started counting the former world champions he had defeated, instead of starting another streak. I think that is a far more effective way to throw someone up the card, with Kennedy they were building his push off that he had beaten Batista, Undertaker, Kane, Chris Benoit, and Rey Mysterio, 5 former world champions he had beaten.. And it just continued, and being Kennedy, he got hurt/suspended and ruined it. WHATEVER, I think streaks are drastically overrated.

 

[RATED R CHAMPION]

Streaks Help Introduce Wrestlers Into Stardom, Is Real That Wwe Is Over Using Streaks, As They're Giving One To Almost Every New Great Star, But Kozlov Is Not A Bad Performer, I See A Lot On Him, I Think He's A Great Dominant Guy, Great Technique, Power, Good Heel, Cause Is A Foreing, From "russia" That Helps Him, So Streaks Are Good To Introduce Wrestlers But Need To Improve The Endings Right Now....

 

[ThePeoplesChampion]

Personally the only streaks that worked was in order, Taker, Goldberg, and Lesnar.....i mean no one believed kofi streak...i mean hell of a wrestler but not a force......for someone to have a streak....it needs to be the face of the company like the last three mentioned.....and personallly i think wwe does this so they can have someone look better than lesnar ever was....so they do it a lot to get that memory out quick .......thats why they made orton the youngest champion ever.

 

[Hacksaw Highway]

Nodoby is mentioning Joe's streak! Joe going undefeated for like 3 years was a great streak, second only to Goldberg IMO. I agree that a streak shouldn't be announced until it is legit though, don't announce a guy is undefeated after beating 3 jobbers, Jimmy Wang Yang and Jesse. Give a guy time to develop the streak before going all out on it. The other thing is, dont bother with a streak if it isn't going to be lengthy. Streaks like Swagger's, CM Punk's Kofi's, etc. all failed because they only lasted 3-6 months or so, not nearly long enough to be a serious streak.

 

[Splinter]

there were good and bad streaks which i can remember.

goldberg's streak was a done great, although wcw pushed it a little too far, since there were times when goldberg seemed to win 10 matches every week

undertakers wm streak is by far the best, although that's kind of a different and an unique winning streak.

mvp's losing streak was also cool, although they ending could've been better, since triple h was involved.

the best example for a bad winning streak is to me sid vicious run in 1999, when wcw claimed that he was on a winning streak, but he was still losing matches at every house show

i think winning streaks are used too often, like in the past 2 years for umaga, snitsky and kozlov. this fact takes away the uniqueness, it's just not special anymore and therefore not that interesting to watch.