Undertaker's Streak (The Mania's he missed)

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

I have been curious for some time as to weather or not the streak would still be intact had Taker been involved in WrestleMania X or 2000. These Mania's were early enough that the streak wasn't the streak yet and thus he could have lost. I know leading up to Mania X he had a fued with Yokozuna going on as they were involved in a Survivor Series match in 93 and had a casket match at the following Rumble. Now I think Yoko was always tabbed to take on Luger and Hart at Mania so I am not sure where Taker would have fit in. With Maina 2000, I don't remember what Taker was up to before he took time off. I know 99 was his Corporate Ministry year and he was around the world title during the spring/summer of the year. Now I remember hearing from somewhere that Taker and Austin were tabbed to fight at Mania 2000 for the title before they both took time off.

So I ask if anyone knows what was scheduled, or what the idea was for Taker at each of these Mania's before he went away and missed the shows. Also, would any of those plans put his streak in jeapordy?

 

[TheImpactPlayer]

There is definitely no way of telling who he would have faced at 10. He was heavily involved with Yokozuna until his leave of absence but he was still pretty unbeatable then and I don't think he would have lost no matter who he faced. When he left in late summer 99 the corporate ministry was already dead and he was tagging with the Big Show and it was kind of like a Mentor-Protege type of relationship. So I would guess that they possibly would have ended up facing each other at Wrestlemania. Also, if they felt strongly about pushing show, its possible he could have went over.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

At WrestleMania 2000 it could have been Undertaker vs. Big Show. Then in the main event they could have not done that ridiculous Fatal-4-Way and instead just had the Rock vs. Triple H, which is really how it should've been. If Undertaker were around maybe they would have had sufficient star power and not had to bring back Mick Foley.

Undertaker vs. Shane McMahon in a No Holds Barred Match/Street Fight/Hardcore Match would work. They could do some sort of angle based on the Corporate Ministry splitting.

 

[#heel420]

Nice thread.

WM X: It's Known the Yoko Vs. Lex & Yoko Vs. Bret main events were scheduled well in advance so that takes Yokozuna out of the realm of possibilities. Around this time he was feuding with mostly big men so it could only of been someone of larger stature. I've looked at the 1994 Roster and the only real opponent that I see would be Bam Bam Bigelow, maybe Crush if they didn't have him feuding with Savage.

WM 2000: Undertaker was mentoring Big Show, trying to bring out his full potential as a giant monster. Next logical step is a student-teacher like feud, only thing I can really figure. He left too early to determine exactly who'd he be working at mania.

 

[Thedancingheel]

I'm one of the people that would have said "Austin vs Taker" at Wrestlemania 2000 and taker would have lost because you don't have your money maker lose on the biggest stage of them all at that time. I would like to think but Undertaker walking away with the title but lets be realistic. Austin would have been the 1 against the streak and Mark Callaway would now be a hall of famer and retired.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

I think before Austin's injury the plan for WM2000 was Austin vs. Big Show, that's the original plan. So Taker/Austin probably wasn't in the cards especially when you consider Taker and Austin has feuded before. So yeah Taker vs. Big Show looks like was the plan moving forward, Taker probably would have held the streak since faces tend to go over at WM's.

 

[oneofakind318]

I love these types of posts. To me it's interesting to think back even before this to Wrestlemania 8 and what his role there might have been had they stayed the course and not rushed through the Hogan/Flair, Savage/Roberts feuds. Had he wrestled someone like Sid, it may well have ended right there.

As for Wrestlemania 10. I think Ludvig Borga probably made the most sense before his injury. Bam Bam and Crush already had long-term feuds in place. They could have brought Tenryu and Kabuki for that one or maybe pushed Adam Bomb based on Taker's past feuds with Harvey Whippleman's men.

Wrestlemania 16: Given how fast they were moving through stories back then it's tough to say where they would have ended up by this show. Big Show probably makes the most sense. I could also see Rikishi given how hot he was at that point.

 

[Wolf Pac]

As for Wrestlemania 10. I think Ludvig Borga probably made the most sense before his injury.

I've heard a rumor that before Borga was injured, the original plan was for The Undertaker to win the WWF Title from Yokozuna at the Royal Rumble and then lose the title to Borga sometime after and he would go onto defend the belt against Lex Luger (who'd have won the Rumble match) at Wrestlemania. If that indeed was the original plan then I wouldn't rule out Yokozuna as Taker's opponent for Wrestlemania. Apart from Taker, I can't see Yoko going up against anybody else on the roster at that time if Borga was originally scheduled to main event with Luger. And as it would be a rematch between Taker & Yoko, I'm not sure if I could see Yoko doing the job twice. Once Borga got injured & disappeared and Yoko/Bret/Luger became the new plan, I'd say that he would've gone up against Adam Bomb for the reasons oneofakind318 said.

With Wrestlemania 16 it's harder to say. I reckon he would've faced either Big Show or been a part of the Fatal 4 Way main event. If Austin was there too, it still could've gone either way. I've also heard about that Austin vs. Show rumor that was mentioned by shooter_mcgavin, so Taker could've been in the Fatal 4 Way instead of Show, with Shane in his corner, and the reason behind Shane being in Taker's corner could be due to their history in the Corporate-Ministry. But at the same time I have a hard time believing that rumor if Austin could've made it for WM 16. He was their top star, he was making the most money for them, why stick him in a co-main event (assuming it wasn't gonna be for the WWF Title) with Show instead of in the main event with HHH & Rock and possibly Foley? If both Austin & Taker could've been there for WM 2000, I believe Austin would've been in the main event with HHH &/or Rock (another rumor I've heard was Rock vs. Austin with Austin turning heel, one Wrestlemania earlier. If Austin faced Rock then I assume HHH would've faced Foley or Jericho. If Austin vs. HHH then maybe Rock against Benoit?) or HHH/Rock/Foley in a Fatal 4 Way (the four top guys of the Attitude Era facing each other...wow!) with a babyface Shane in Rock's corner and Vince in Austin's, and Taker would've faced Show. I remember during their alliance, Taker told Show that "one day he would stab him in the back", so I think Taker would've done as he said to set that match up for Mania or maybe Show would've turned on Taker instead, remembering what he said and doing unto Taker before Taker would've done unto him. If Taker faced Show, I believe he would've won. If he were in the Fatal 4 Way though, I believe he would've lost.

 

[shalliin]

I love these types of posts. To me it's interesting to think back even before this to Wrestlemania 8 and what his role there might have been had they stayed the course and not rushed through the Hogan/Flair, Savage/Roberts feuds. Had he wrestled someone like Sid, it may well have ended right there.

Yeah Sid winning at 8 is a much more impressive then his loosing at 13. Even if, and it's a huge if, it was Taker/Sid at 8, Sid would not have won. Sid was only just turning heal and was no where near Sycho Sid yet.

As for Wrestlemania 10. I think Ludvig Borga probably made the most sense before his injury. Bam Bam and Crush already had long-term feuds in place. They could have brought Tenryu and Kabuki for that one or maybe pushed Adam Bomb based on Taker's past feuds with Harvey Whippleman's men.

Going with this type of thought, could have had Taker/Virgil as his match and have the same impact/interest. Nothing against Virgil, but he was never on a par with Taker or other main guys.

Wrestlemania 16: Given how fast they were moving through stories back then it's tough to say where they would have ended up by this show. Big Show probably makes the most sense. I could also see Rikishi given how hot he was at that point.

Rikishi maybe, if you add in that he wanted revenge for his cousin Yoko. Hell, bring Yoko around and have him and Fuji in Kishi's corner. Think back, and the only time Taker/Show would ever happen at Mania is the way it did. Supposed to be a Tag match with Taker/Nathan Jones vs Atrain/Big Show. But there was backstage concern that Jones wasn't ready, so they worked it into a handicap match until the end when it looks like ATBS were going to crush Taker, Jones comes back and makes the save and Taker gets the win. Might as well say that Taker/Show is the biggest single match they never had at Mania next to a Hogan/Flair or Austin/Goldberg.

 

[Eyebrows]

Another possibility if they'd always planned on reuniting Kane/Undertaker as allies in 2000 is Undertaker, taking Rikishi's spot, with Kane against Road Dogg/X-Pac. They could have still built up to the Kane turning on Undertaker and the Summerslam match. Then Big Show and Rikishi could have faced off against one another.

If Undertaker's there I'd be inclined to agree with Sexcellence of Sexecution. I don't see him being part of the Fatal 4 Way as I don't see there being a Fatal 4 Way. Foley stays retired and the main event is Rock/HHH.

 

[Swarles Barkley]

I'm one of the people that would have said "Austin vs Taker" at Wrestlemania 2000 and taker would have lost because you don't have your money maker lose on the biggest stage of them all at that time. I would like to think but Undertaker walking away with the title but lets be realistic. Austin would have been the 1 against the streak and Mark Callaway would now be a hall of famer and retired.

Taker wouldn't have faced Austin because Austin was out. Unless in this hypothetical Austin doesn't get hurt either, there is no way that Taker would have squared off against Austin.

 

[Antichrist]

The Undertaker v Stone Cold Steve Austin v The Rock should have been the main event of Wrestlemania 2000, with Mick Foley v HHH v Paul Wight as the other WM of Wrestlemania 2000. The Streak would have ended with 91 92 93 95 96 97 98 99.
At Eight.

 

[Saeros]

When did they decide "let's roll with this streak" idea? I don't remember them making that big of a deal about it until WM21 really and they made it seem that Randy Orton really did have a chance to beat him back then. That was the last time I thought they'd have Taker lose at WM. After that I knew he would get to 20-0.

The first time i heard it mentioned was WM17, JR stating that Taker had never lost at Mania tho it may of been mentioned before then. Then the next year when he beat Flair, he counted the 10 on his fingers. From then on i count it as the streak being recognized. As every year after it was hyped a little more.

When it became a really big deal though i think as you say was WM 21, That was when people started wanting to beat the streak and it became part of the storyline rather than just a statistic.

In regards to WM10 and 16, I highly doubt he would have faced Yokozuna again. I could of seen him face Ludvig Borga or Bam Bam aswell, Though who knows. Someone else may of turned heel to feud with him, He may of turned heel himself though very unlikely.

With WM 16, They Knew Austin needed time off like back in August/September of that year, i believe from what i remember reading sand whether it was even true, thats why he lost the belt to mankind at summerslam that year, but Austin carried on for a while after waiting for the right time to be written off TV. Even so, they knew a good deal in advance Austin wasnt going to be able to compete.

And i dont think he'd of faced Big Show either. Show and Taker showed signs of dissension towards the end of their tag team which was in September 99. I just cant see them holding off until April the following year for the match where Show has enough of Taker ordering him about.

Also, most replies here focus on Taker as the face. He was probably the biggest heel in the company at that time barring Vince. HHH was just starting his first title run but Taker had far more star power and presence. I cant see him turning face as towards the end of 1999 they had Rock, Show, Mankind, Kane as faces and only HHH as a major name that was Heel. Even though Show did turn and Mankind retired. And he probably wouldnt of changed to his American Badass persona if he didnt have at least some time off.

I could of seen him be put into the Fatal Four Way with Shane instead of Big Show taking that spot if he was heel. If he was a face then in with Kane against DX.

 

[JJ15776]

WrestleMania X: It's unlikely there were ever any "plans" for the Undertaker at WM X. They knew well in advance that he needed time off, and they put together his feud with Yokozuna for that sole purpose. If he didn't need time off, there's a good chance that feud doesn't happen the way it did, and that makes it very hard to speculate on what would've happened. If there was a "plan" for The Undertaker, I see two possibilities:

1.Bam Bam Bigelow. He had a match with Doink(actually a mixed tag match also involving Luna and Dink), but it seemed like that feud was unnecessarily prolonged. At the previous Survivor Series, they originally announced Bam Bam, Boston Booger, and The Headshrinkers against the four Doinks...but then the Doinks were replaced by The Bushwhackers and Men on a Mission. Maybe that was done because they needed something else for Bam Bam Bigelow to do at WrestleMania when they realized Undertaker wouldn't be available?

2.Adam Bomb. Bomb faced Earthquake at WM X, but supposedly the original plan was for Earthquake to face Ludvig Borga, before Borga's injury. What would they have done with Bomb if Borga vs. Earthquake took place? Maybe he was available because his original planned opponent, The Undertaker, was no longer available.

Again, this is assuming they ever had plans for Undertaker at all, which they might not have, but I think Bam Bam Bigelow would make the most sense.

WrestleMania 2000: This one's a little more interesting. When he left in September of 1999 due to a groin injury, they expected him to be back for WrestleMania 2000 before but he tore his pec before his planned return at Royal Rumble. So that means they had plans for him. And Steve Austin doesn't work, because he was out with neck surgery at this time. IMO, there's three possibilities here:

1.Big Show. The person before me said they showed signs of dissension in 99 and it'd be hard to see them stretching that out all the way to WrestleMania. Not true. Remember, they didn't start showing signs of dissension until AFTER Undertaker's groin injury - when they realized they had to rush the storyline and write him off. Without that injury, the dissension might not start showing up until later. I'd say, in this scenario, they probably planned to have Triple H vs. The Rock for the WWF title and Undertaker vs. Big show, with Mick Foley staying retired.

2.Mankind/Cactus Jack. (Keep in mind that Undertaker was a huge heel at this time.) Triple H didn't retire him until No Way Out - after they knew Undertaker wouldn't be available. So maybe they originally planned for him to have his "retirement" match against Undertaker at WrestleMania. In this scenario, it would've been a triple threat match for the WWF title with Triple H vs. The Rock vs. Big Show.

3.Taking Mankind's place against Triple H/Rock/Big Show for the title. Let's be honest, Mankind didn't really fit in that match. He had just been retired a month before, and he didn't really have a claim to a shot at the title after losing two straight title matches to Triple H. I can't imagine that was the plan all along. Maybe it was as simple as Foley just replaced Taker.

It's entirely possible that this one has two different answers. One for the original plan before his groin injury in the fall of 1999, and one for the original plan upon his return from that groin injury but before the pectoral injury took him off the show entirely. I think, of the possibilites above, #3 is the least likely. And I can't imagine they started the Undertaker/Big Show feud without a huge payoff planned. I think Undertaker vs. Big Show, with Triple H vs. The Rock(vs. Mick Foley?) for the WWE title, makes the most sense here.

 

[HBsam31]

Undertaker vs Big Show would have been the logical chocie for Mania 16 as they had the teacher student angle going. I guess it is a possibility that the student could have beaten the teacher, but I don't see them putting Big Show over The Undertaker. Mania 10 is a little harder to predict. Yoko would have made the most sense, but he was always going to be in the main event vs Bret. I like the Ludvig Borga scenerio people came up with, but I highly dount he would have went over in that match. It is fun to speculate on these things though because if they would have had him lose back then imagine how different things would be at Mania now.

 

[Judah's Lion]

Taker's Mania Streak has been on my mind for awhile now. since Mania, i've posted on quite a few threads about the topic and i just finished watching all 21 Streak matches on dvd the last two weeks. 21-0 is impressive, but i've been wondering if 23-0 could have been. Taker has only missed two Mania events in his long career with WWE.

Mania X is interesting. after losing to Yoko in a Casket Match at the Rumble for the WWE Title, him returning and going straight for Yoko makes sense. so if Taker returned in time for Mania, Yoko would be the most logical booking for him i think. but i think Taker could have taken a different route... Ted Dibiase. Dibiase was calling the match at Rumble and had an ongoing feud with Taker for a couple of years. Taker feuded with multiple members of the Million Dollar Corporation, including King Kong Bundy at Mania 11. why not have Taker take on the boss at Mania X? i think he'd be the best heel for Taker to work with for Mania until he could get his revenge on Yoko.

Mania 2000, aka Mania 16 is also very interesting to consider. i think that whole card was in desperate need of reworking. i'm not sure what plans would have been if Austin were healthy, but i'm gonna keep in mind that he wasn't and not book Stone Cold in any matches that he couldn't work. i think Rock/Triple H should have been the main event with the deck stacked against The Rock. then have Stone Cold return, clear the ring and Rock win. kinda exactly what happened one month later at Backlash, only do it at Mania since it's the biggest stage of the year. so if that was the main event, Taker's options for suitable opponents obviously gets narrowed down by three. with Austin injured and Foley retired, Big Show makes the most sense to me. these two never had a one-on-one match at Mania and this would be a good time to have one i think. it also gives the added bonus of freeing up Taker for Mania 19 if he has his match with Big Show here instead.

really interesting thread. gotta love The Streak!

 

[Killercam]

I was a huge fan in 94. I'm pretty sure Taker was hurt so he couldn't go at "WM X" but in my opinion they probably should have used the "Undertaker Vs Undertaker" feud they used at SummerSlam 94 for WrestleMania 10. From 93-96 Undertaker was more over than the champ 24-7 no-matter who it was. I loved the Undertaker-Undertaker feud and even though it main-evented SS 94 (it screwed Bret and Owen over big time). As far as WrestleMania 16, the best angle they could have come up with was Taker-Foley, Hell in a Cell (Foley retires). In fact, had that happened (assuming everything else stays the same) that would have and should have main-evented 16

 

[justtxyank]

Of the two you listed, 2000 is the most interesting because he had the best chance of losing there.

That said, Wrestlemania XII is the one where Taker fans should breathe a sigh of relief. Had Nash not decided to leave for WCW (and for those that don't know he tried to get Vince to match the contract to stay) he was going to go over Taker at 12 and then feud with Michaels over the title.

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

Of the two you listed, 2000 is the most interesting because he had the best chance of losing there.
That said, Wrestlemania XII is the one where Taker fans should breathe a sigh of relief. Had Nash not decided to leave for WCW (and for those that don't know he tried to get Vince to match the contract to stay) he was going to go over Taker at 12 and then feud with Michaels over the title.

Agreed. The Attitude Era was the time in Takers career where he suffered the most defeats. Most of that can be attributed to him being a heel for the greater duration of that time. Mania 14 could have went either way, no way he was losing at Mania 15, and by the time Mania 17 came around was when the streak started to get some pub so the call could have came as early as then to never have him lose at Mania. So 16 would have been his greatest chance at defeat when you take into account his character at the time and the level of opponet he would have been facing (Show or Rock or Trips).