when was the Undertaker's streak in more jeopardy?

[MEGAFAN420]

Since Shawn could not win 2 years in a row, I thought he would Super-Kick HHH and cost HHH the win. Shawn left the ring pissed off at HHH during the last RAW before WM27. Otherwise, since HHH is the son-in-law, I thought he may win cleanly because he has alot of stroke. Either way, I am surprised they did not involve Shawn some way in that match.

Let's face it, it's "The Streak" and even Kane will never take it away. BTW, since Kane "Buried Him" last year, why did'nt he get his 3rd chance and ending "The Streak". Instead, he was in that lame 8-man match.

The Undertaker will now disappear for another 6 months or longer, yay! Since he disappears in 6 month increments, are people starting to not give a rip about him or his "Streak" anymore???

 

[midgensa]

The big problem is debating this as "The Streak" I don't think they really started talking about it a lot until the Flair win that made him 11-0, though I do remember some other discussions.

I would have to agree with most, the Orton match seemed possible, but honestly, once the streak became an event, I never thought he would lose ... it would literally be the end of his career for the most part.

It has overtaken everything about him, and a large part of WM has been built on it. It is a built in program that if you have him lose, you lose the program.

I didn't think there was any way Batista, Edge, HBK 1, HBK 2 or HHH was going to go with an Undertaker job, so that leaves Orton as the last time I really thought it might happen.

 

[midgensa]

Simple. When UT took on BIG DADDY COOL!
GO back and watch that match. To me up until UT made a major comeback it was a SQUASH match. Big Daddy Cool had Taker beat with the powerbomb but HE himself pulled him up. That right there could have been the END of the streak

But it wasn't "The Streak" yet then ... so it really was not in any danger.

Obviously, any of the early matches are what were in the most danger, because it was not an angle yet.

Once it became an angle, did it ever really become in danger of ending?

 

[H33LTurn]

I have to say it was when he went against Michaels. This was the one guy who came closer than anybody else. This last match was kind of a dissapointment. Dont get me wrong, it was exciting, but you could tell from how it went that Taker was going to get the win. Theyre wasnt much storytelling involved in the match. With Michaels it was much more of a process, not just flash impact movies like going through a glass box. I think that both men went into the match not at their 100% and to make that attempt the one that comes out sucessful would've been a disgrace to all of Takers matches before that. Michaels vs Taker was better at everything, build up, in ring competition, and outcome. The rivalry was well done and the match executed in such a way that you really did belive that Shawn could walk away with the victory. I dont think anyone else will get as close as Michaels to beating the streak, especially with the rumor that next Mania will be Taker's last, and the lack of credible opponents in the roster that could pose a threat against him.

 

[Rated-RKO_24]

Like some others have said, Orton at Mania 21 seemed a perfect opportunity for it to happen. He was young as hell, a star for years to come, he was the 'Legend Killer', and when he reversed the chokeslam into the RKO I thought that might be it.

It was a perfect set-up, but I'm glad he didn't win, even though I'm a big Orton fan. For one, Orton became huge without it. Also, we wouldn't have got the great HBK/Taker build-ups/matches, or the Trips match, perhaps, if he lost it back then. So I'm glad how everything has turned out.

Mania 26 I thought it might be over, as I wasn't sure if HBK was legit going to retire yet, and Idk, just thought maybe he could do it.

Mania 27 I thought Trips had no shot, at all. But after the final Raw before Mania though, like others, I had a sneaking suspicion HBK may come out and superkick HHH as he didn't want him ending the streak when he couldn't do it himself. As interesting as the thought was, I'm glad it didn't happen. But when Trips hit the back to back pedigrees, the multiple chair shots, and the tombstone, I finally thought he may actually do it.

 

[xcoN]

Wrestlemania 25 when he faced HBK. The feud leading up to the match was great and made even the biggest Undertaker fans think it could be ended. The match itself made you wonder as well. When 'taker won the match I thought to myself if HBK didn't end it and if Vince didn't want him to end it then it will never be broken. The following year HBK vs 'taker didn't phase me at all, I knew HBK would lose and retire. Every other W.M. though seemed predictable and no major threat to his streak.

 

[The Brain]

The ONLY time I thought the streak was even in a little bit of jeopardy was at WM21 against Randy Orton. As others have said, Orton had the legend killer thing happening at the time and it would have fit his gimmick to beat Taker at mania. Also this was the first time Taker’s streak was used as a storyline at mania. Even though he was already 12-0 the streak hadn’t become a mania draw yet. There’s also Orton’s sudden drop from the main event. Though never officially confirmed it was heavily speculated that Randy Orton was going to beat Triple H in the main event. When Orton’s face turn fell flat the change was made. A win over Taker might have been a way to kind of make it up to Orton and show that the company still had confidence in him. One last thing; at WM21 both Batista and Cena won their first world titles, as we knew they would, ushering in a new generation of main event talent. Orton going over Taker would have fit right in with that night. I still didn’t expect Orton to win, but the reasons I listed above clearly make Orton the biggest threat Taker ever had. No one else is even close.

 

[Mac Attack]

I think the Brain brings up an interesting point however I would disagree. The person who put the streak in most jeoprady was non other than Jimmy Superfly Snuka. This was Undertaker's first match and honeslty it could have gone either way. Snuka was a big draw for the WWE at this point in time and he could have easily been scheduled to win against the new to Wrestlemania Undertaker. This was also the first time Undertaker was in a singles PPV match so he had the inexperience of being in front of a large audience performing. WWE has been very systematic in that it generally does make sure one newcomer does lose at Wrestlemania, almost in a manner that seems to be suggesting that you must earn your place. Undertaker winning this match was sheer luck and honestly had he not won this match their would have been no streak.

 

[The Brain]

I think the Brain brings up an interesting point however I would disagree. The person who put the streak in most jeoprady was non other than Jimmy Superfly Snuka. This was Undertaker's first match and honeslty it could have gone either way. Snuka was a big draw for the WWE at this point in time and he could have easily been scheduled to win against the new to Wrestlemania Undertaker. This was also the first time Undertaker was in a singles PPV match so he had the inexperience of being in front of a large audience performing. WWE has been very systematic in that it generally does make sure one newcomer does lose at Wrestlemania, almost in a manner that seems to be suggesting that you must earn your place. Undertaker winning this match was sheer luck and honestly had he not won this match their would have been no streak.

I see where you’re coming from but I’m going to have strongly disagree. I don’t know if you were watching WWF in 1991, but I was and I remember it well. Trust me; Jimmy Snuka posed absolutely zero threat to the Undertaker. The streak developed through luck over time, but hindsight has nothing to do with this. Taker simply was not going to lose to Snuka. At one time Snuka was a top draw for the WWF, but that time was not 1991. Snuka was on about the level Goldust is on now. He was an aging veteran who was being used to put others over. This match was as predictable as they come.

 

[Mac Attack]

I see where you’re coming from but I’m going to have strongly disagree. I don’t know if you were watching WWF in 1991, but I was and I remember it well. Trust me; Jimmy Snuka posed absolutely zero threat to the Undertaker. The streak developed through luck over time, but hindsight has nothing to do with this. Taker simply was not going to lose to Snuka. At one time Snuka was a top draw for the WWF, but that time was not 1991. Snuka was on about the level Goldust is on now. He was an aging veteran who was being used to put others over. This match was as predictable as they come.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but even though it was predicatble they never had to give Taker a win. Yes Snuka may have been not at the level that he was at one point in his career, but still I have seen through the years the WWE/F give veterans the win for no apparent reason.

Like you mention Orton was the new up and coming star who had the gimmick to take down legends but they didn't give him a win. You even mention how this was the first true mention of the streak, which was fabricated just to mkae you feel certain Orton was going to win. However Orton did not win much like Taker could have not won. (Orton is my second choice for the record.)

I totally agree that Snuka was at the point where he was to put guys over, but even take last year's Wrestlemania with Triple H and Sheamus. Many felt with the year Sheamus had it was going to be Sheamus who walked away but we saw Triple H win. I think in your first Mania match it can go either way.

I think it is close between Snuka and Orton, and one could make the argument that the streak was not established when he faced Snuka, however I always will be a believer in the theory just because you get a huge push as a newcomer in the WWe doesn;t mean you will bea the veteran at Mania.

 

[The Brain]

I understand exactly what you are saying, but even though it was predicatble they never had to give Taker a win. Yes Snuka may have been not at the level that he was at one point in his career, but still I have seen through the years the WWE/F give veterans the win for no apparent reason.

Like you mention Orton was the new up and coming star who had the gimmick to take down legends but they didn't give him a win. You even mention how this was the first true mention of the streak, which was fabricated just to mkae you feel certain Orton was going to win. However Orton did not win much like Taker could have not won. (Orton is my second choice for the record.)

I totally agree that Snuka was at the point where he was to put guys over, but even take last year's Wrestlemania with Triple H and Sheamus. Many felt with the year Sheamus had it was going to be Sheamus who walked away but we saw Triple H win. I think in your first Mania match it can go either way.

I think it is close between Snuka and Orton, and one could make the argument that the streak was not established when he faced Snuka, however I always will be a believer in the theory just because you get a huge push as a newcomer in the WWe doesn;t mean you will bea the veteran at Mania.

There’s a big difference here. Undertaker of 2005 and Triple H of 2010 were (and still are) main event stars. At that point in their careers they were miles ahead of where Snuka was in 1991. Taker vs. Orton and HHH vs. Sheamus were well hyped matches that had a story. Taker vs. Snuka had no story and existed for the sole reason of giving the new star a win on the big stage. It was no different than Earthquake vs. Hercules from the year before. Matches like Taker vs. Snuka don’t take place at mania anymore. The early years of mania were full of matches with no hype and predictable outcomes. Hell if this was 20 years ago Sin Cara vs. Primo would have probably been on mania. That's what Taker vs. Snuka was like. If you’re not convinced, just look at how Taker dominated the match. Snuka never stood a chance.

 

[Mac Attack]

There’s a big difference here. Undertaker of 2005 and Triple H of 2010 were (and still are) main event stars. At that point in their careers they were miles ahead of where Snuka was in 1991. Taker vs. Orton and HHH vs. Sheamus were well hyped matches that had a story. Taker vs. Snuka had no story and existed for the sole reason of giving the new star a win on the big stage. It was no different than Earthquake vs. Hercules from the year before. Matches like Taker vs. Snuka don’t take place at mania anymore. The early years of mania were full of matches with no hype and predictable outcomes. Hell if this was 20 years ago Sin Cara vs. Primo would have probably been on mania. That's what Taker vs. Snuka was like. If you’re not convinced, just look at how Taker dominated the match. Snuka never stood a chance.

Well I just got proven wrong by one of WrestleZone's wisest...

Anyway I think you are correct after actually rewatching the match. At least in Orton's match you felt like he was going to win after the RKO. If there had not been other major stars then he would have probaly won, so congrats for persuading me the other way.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

nonkayfabe it was in jeopardy before it became a marketing tool. Now they NEED to keep the streak alive at least until he's for sure retiring because the match sells itself and is arguably a bigger draw than the title matches. You have the WWE Title match, the World Title match, and you have the streak match. 3 guaranteed draws that you just need to plug in new names.

kayfabe-wise it was this year. Triple H is the only guy booked to be as much of an evil badass as Taker. Triple and Taker ARE Hell in a Cell. Both are known for being badasses.

 

[KoC417]

But it wasn't "The Streak" yet then ... so it really was not in any danger.

Obviously, any of the early matches are what were in the most danger, because it was not an angle yet.

Once it became an angle, did it ever really become in danger of ending?

The streak had to start somewhere. from 1-19 all count towards the streak. That'd be like saying a players incredible hit streaks first few hits don't count. Every part of the streak counts because if you take away the first one then the others are irrelevant. So if this thread discounts even Undertakers VERY FIRST WM win then this thread is invalid and useless. If you aren't including all of the "streak" then you can't include any of it. Because WWE counts EVERY SINGLE match as part of the streak

Big Daddy Cool for the win.

 

[TheRock_says]

Orton at wm21 coz he was young and the wwe was right behind him at the time as the legend killer, however after watching wm27 i reckon HHH was, i really thought taker was going to lose after the tombstone.

 

[Shadowbladez]

I have to say HBK vs. Taker at Wrestlemania 26. The buildup for the match was one of the best in a long time. They really captured the intensity and Michaels' drive to win it or go down trying. Even the match itself was so back and forth with so many awesome kickouts. From a fan's perspective, it seemed like the most legitimate chance for Taker to lose. I really did not expect Michaels to retire last year though.

 

[xxxdaniel_ariesxxx]

I'd have to Say that the last time i seriously thought his streak was in trouble was against Ric flair at WrestleMania X8. Flair was the Babyface, making his WrestleMania return after 10 years, and the Undertaker was the Big, Mean, Bully Heel, and we all know how much Vince likes to have Babyface underdogs pull out the victory. Even the storyline leading up to it screamed a Flair upset victory. The Undertaker wanted the mach so bad that he did everything he could to goad Flair into the match and it wasn't until Taker attacked Flair's son, David that he accepted the challenge. It just screamed that flair was going to avenge himself and his family against Taker.

 

[hollowpoint]

I would have to say WM27. HHH, for all intents and purposes, dominated the match and hit him with everything AND the kitchen sink. Once he hit the Tombstone and covered him in UnderTaker fashion, I just knew that was it. However, I was wrong, dead wrong. The others I would mention would be WM25 the first match with HBK and WM21(i think) the match with Randy Orton.

 

[The Rob]

Undertaker v.s Triple H, WrestleMania XXVII.

I'll quickly say this, before each match where the streak is on the line, I'm always convinced that the streak ain't gonna end. It's what happens during the match itself that makes my opinion swing back and forth like a pendulum. Before Trips/Taker II I was fully convinced that the streak was safe, but there was several points during their match at 'Mania where I thought... 'hmm, perhaps I was wrong'. And when Trips hit the tombstone, did the whole tongue thing and crossing Taker's arms on his chest, THAT is the only time I ever thought the streak was actually over. Sure, there were moments during both HBK/Taker matches when I wasn't sure about the streak staying intact (mostly after Shawn hit Taker with Sweet Chin Music) but when Trips hit that tombstone, I held my head in my hands out of legitimate shock and disbelief. That was the most important kick-out of Taker's career because, despite getting hit with three of more Pedigrees, taking around about a dozen chair shots (including one to the head), and then a tombstone, he STILL kicked out god-damn it! He took so much and didn't stay down. In my eyes that proves that the only way the streak ends is if Taker legitimately dies in the ring.

 

[blockanWo]

I thought it was most likely to end with Randy Orton. He was a young guy getting a huge push and the Legend Killer gimmick was really getting some steam.

I dont think hes ever going to end it to someone as established as HBK and HHH.