Who do you think should have ended The streak

[Johncena 34]

I have read multiple times online that as far back as Wrestlemania 21, The Undertaker wanted The Streak to come to an end at the hands of Randy Orton, and every year since then he has wanted The Streak to be ended by the person he was facing.

My question is out of all the people Undertaker Wrestled......

WM21- Randy Orton

WM22- Mark Henry

WM23- Batista

WM 24- Edge

WM25-26- Shawn Michaels

WM27-28- Triple H

WM 29- Cm Punk

Who would you have most wanted to see end The Streak?

 

[suleman09]

Looking at it today in 2014 I would have wanted CM Punk to break the streak, he had just came off of an impressive reign with the WWE Championship and beating the streak would have put him in the lime light going forward. Brock Lesnar beating the streak and disappearing I think is downplaying the streak ending because he's not around to remind us and Paul Heyman can only keep saying it for so long before it gets old.

If you had asked me this question a few years ago I would've said Randy Orton at WM 21 because at the time he had just been kicked out of Evolution, after defeating Chris Benoit for the WHC, he had some serious momentum and defeating the streak would've put him in Main Event status way before he eventually claimed his spot in the main event.

 

[Softcore Holly]

Punk would've been a good pick but I'm only saying that with the advantage of retrospect. At the time everyone expected that Taker could still go at a high level for at least 1 more year so there was no real need for Punk to go over, especially since Punk was due for a break to heal from injuries. But if Taker had to go down it would've been nice to end things on a high note, and it definitely would've been better to go out after a great match with Punk than a crappy one against Lesnar.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I thought you meant who should have ended it out of anybody, not just that list.

I will rate who should have done it, from three to one, based on the entire roster.

3) Kane- Now, I know what you will say- "Not Kane again". I know this match has been done to death, but it would be full circle. The Undertaker's greatest rival and ally, the man who was the antagonist in the Undertaker's greatest storylines. It is like the Joker beating Batman, or Lex Luthor beating Superman. Kane is Taker's greatest rival, so it could have been him.

2) Bray Wyatt- Based on it should be a new guy, and Bray, size-wise and philosophically is a good match for the Undertaker, and is the natural successor to the creepy gimmick in the WWE. It would push him, and would be a "passing of the torch" and then Wyatt can carry on with the creepy dark gimmick and even use the Casket Match, Buried Alive and Last Ride Matches Taker used. Bray can bring a new level of fear and darkness into the WWE.

1) NO-ONE! I would have liked best that Taker never loses the Streak, and retires with it. This would have added to the Legend, as no-one could have bettered him.

I personally think he should have ended at WM28. Then he would be 20-0 (a nice round number), involving two of the greatest Legends and rivals ever. To see Taker standing between Triple H and HBK on the stage, with a standing ovation, and walking off, would have been a perfect swansong to a Legendary career.

 

[Tyrant25]

I think Brock Lesnar was the right guy to end it.

No, I'm not a fan of Lesnar, but if anyone had to end the streak, it had to be someone who could believably end it. For years, The Undertaker rummaged through a plethora of opponents, some considered greatest of all time, and at the time of Wrestlemania 30, it wouldn't have been believable for a, say, CM Punk or Daniel Bryan to end it. They're good, great even, but not legitimate enough to end a 20 wins, 0 losses streak.

Brock Lesnar fought in UFC, and is perhaps the most recognized UFC star in history. Everyone knows that Lesnar is tough and could probably kick anyone's ass. Brock Lesnar ending The Undertaker's streak was disappointing, but at least it was believable, and it didn't leave The Undertaker in shame as opposed to if someone like Roman Reigns and Cesaro ended it. It's not really believable, at least to me, that someone like Reigns could end it after The Undertaker had beaten Flair, Edge, Michaels, and others who are light-years more credible than him.

Plus, Lesnar is only around for a few months within the year, so it isn't really about Brock Lesnar ending the streak, it's about The Undertaker losing it. If any active superstar had to end the streak, they'd more than likely be subject to a career of hate from the audience. WWE needed a strong, believable, barely active heel to take The Undertaker's streak. Enter Brock Lesnar.

I think the only other guy who could have believably ended the streak was John Cena, and he would have to live with that as an "accomplishment" for the rest of his life. The audience would've hated it.

 

[tehblogger]

Mark Henry, Shawn Michaels, and Triple H were never going to break the streak. Henry is a nobody and Michaels and HHH were veterans who would have gained nothing by going over (and of course you want to keep the Streak going for money reasons).

Randy Orton is an obvious pick seeing as he had that whole Legend Killer gimmick going and was on the way towards the main event. But arguably Orton going over at that time would have meant that they missed on all the subsequent years of Mania money matches, and it's not like Orton needed to win since he subsequently solidified himself in the main event anyway. Deservedly so, since he's very good. Again something similar can be said for Batista - would the win really have done anything for him?

Perhaps Punk could and should have gone over. Another decent option is Edge, who was very over at the time anyway but had he gone over at Wrestlemania the heat would have been bonkers. But then again it would have had to be some kind of screwjob interference finish and do you really want the Streak to end that way? It was pretty bad when that happened to Goldberg. Either way Taker and Edge produced a great match that's very underrated.

Maybe when all's said and done the best pick was the man who finally ended it, Brock Lesnar. Brock's a future hall of famer, a man who's done it all in and far beyond wrestling, a terrific worker, and best of all, after so many years of nearfalls and Taker finally emerging triumphant, nobody saw it happening vs a guy who only wrestles 4 times a year and had been booked shamefully weak in the run-up to the match. Had a young guy ended the streak in a pass-the-torch match, the pressure on their career probably would have been far too much. The Streak had become far bigger than any one man. But Brock Lesnar can handle it, because he is bigger than wrestling.

 

[Pedigree1]

The streak was supposed to end at WM21 against Orton,but Orton nixed the idea out of respect to the undertaker at that time.. Looking back i still think it was the right call,as the names mentioned above Orton,would have been the best choice looking back..

What a rub that would have been not that Orton needed it,but still to be the one to have ended the streak at WM21. Orton was just coming into the Legend Killer gimmick and that would have been the ultimate coo for him.. But having Brock end it,its fine with me i suppose

 

[BestWrestlingOpinions]

It is one of those times that we have to choose, right? Well...

Everyone knows I'm a Punk mark, but I will try to be as neutral as I can.

I believe that either HBK the first time or Punk should have. Edge, Batista, Orton and HHH were/are top tier guys, but they shouldn't have broken it basically because they don't quite match Taker's character and history.

HBK and Taker have been around for so long and their feud was so awesome. The angel vs devil thing was so well done, the match itself was just 5+ stars and it would make sense from HBK to break it. He is a legend. Surely he didn't need it to cement his legacy or whatever, but it would be awesome.

I'd have to go with Punk even more. I said it before and I will say it again and I will always say it. PUNK SHOULD HAVE KEPT THE TITLE UNTIL WM29 AND FACE TAKER, STREAK VS STREAK. The outcome could have gone either way, but if Punk broke it, we could be talking about one of the greatest ever, if not the greatest. Putting up his title reign of 550 days at that time (5th longest or something) against Taker's streak. Basically the match would sell itself. It was a 4+ star match and Punk would have gotten such a huge victory to go along his wealthy title reign.


As far as all the other guys go, Batista isn't the top guy that was worth of breaking it. Orton was so young, you couldn't take the risk with him, even though he turned out to be really amazing. Edge didn't really match breaking the streak. The story line wasn't really based around the streak at that time either way. Basically, the whole breaking of the streak became a thing itself when HBK first faced Taker. Afterwards, everyone went after Taker's streak, while prior to that, it was just Taker going after the WHC.

HHH wasn't the guy to break it either. It's the same with Edge, he doesn't really match with Taker, character-wise and I believe he was a part-timer too. He wouldn't need that win and he couldn't use it to its full effect either.

For that same reason, Lesnar might not be the ideal choice, but probably, when we look back at it 10 years later, us and most importantly the new fans will look at the greatest streak ever that was broken by THE MAN, Lesnar. Currently it might not seem the best decision, with Punk being the better one and HBK coming close to second, but in 10 years, Lesnar's victory might in fact be the best. I still go with Punk though, they could have a gold mine in Punk if they capitalized on that. He could be a heel beyond belief. Missed opportunity indeed.

 

[maldonac]

I say someone that is up and coming to really start a push, i say that it should have been Daniel Bryan.

 

[Dagger Dias]

If we are only talking about the actual streak victims during the years Undertaker actually faced them, very few come to mind who should have ended it. Kane at Wrestlemania 14 could have and it would have been believable. MAYBE Edge, but even in his case the answer remains a maybe. As much as I like Michaels and Trips, no to both of them. Batista and Henry I would disagree on. They would not have been worthy. Punk could have gained more to brag about how he was the best in the world, but I just didn't see it happening with him.

An argument can be made for Randy Orton. He could have used the tidal wave of hatred that ending the streak would have gotten him. He was The Legend Killer and that was a perfect persona to end the streak with. They would have had to trust him and know he would stick around though, he did, but if he didn't get to end the streak then none of the other victims should have. Kane (at 14), Edge, and Orton would all have been better than Lesnar though, he didn't need it and that will always tarnish the streak to me. The streak should have been ended by a wrestler who needed such a victory. Out of the streak victims, Orton would have been the best candidate.

 

[ddn2488]

I actually think Brock was a good idea to end the streak. I kind of think punk should have ended it but since he didn't I think Brock was the right person to end it. Brock has done some stuff in the company but him ending the undertakers streak is like his selling point to get into the hall of fame. I just think the environment and everything was perfect. I mean it was wrestlemania 30 so it needed to be historic and almost nobody thought Brock would end the streak. When I was watching it I was playing in my phone at the same time because I thought I knew the outcome but I didn't and it surprised almost everybody and make that moment so great. Plus it was kind of time, undertaker is getting older and he only came back every year around wrestlemania time, he has already done enough to prove he is one of if not the best in the business. I think it would have been cool for his streak to not have ended but from what I heard is he wanted it to end and not only that but every year everybody would have been wanting him to come back and expecting him to come back. I think it was a good stopping point for his career and it put over Brock even more and proved how good Paul heyman is. I like how it happen and the awesome moment it provided us at wrestlemania 30

 

[Mustang Sally]

None of the guys listed, including Brock. I can't think of a single one I would have considered worthy of ending the most noteworthy streak in the business.

I would have preferred seeing 'Taker retire with the streak intact forever, but the question being asked is whom we would have been able to accept breaking it. The wrestler would have to be huge in today's wrestling world.....and the only two I can think of who measure up are Sting and John Cena.

The Sting-Undertaker match may have taken place while the streak was intact, but even as big an immortal as Sting is, who would buy the idea of him coming into WWE after all the years of playing keep-away.....and ending a chain of victories that no one who toiled in the company for years had been able to do? Not me. I would have looked at the contest with regard for how good a match we'd see, but having the guy take down Mark Calaway's accomplishment would involve WWE having to kiss Steve Borden's ass, which would be repulsive at this late date in the careers of both men.

I pick Cena. Yeah, there are those who hate him, think he can't wrestle, etc etc etc...........Still, he's got the rep and standing in the business to bring it off, would be well capable of wrestling a 4-star match with Undertaker to make the event memorable.......and a hand-off would take place at the end, transferring the baton from one wrestling immortal to another. Entirely right & proper, imo.

 

[Gavschenko]

In my opinion there is only one man that should have beat the streak and that is john cena. He should have done it and turn heel i know there has been a million john cena heel turn's threads but this is the perfect way to turn him heel and what a perfect way to get subscribers for the wwe network as this was it's very first pay per view to be shown on the network. I believe the wwe made a mistake with choosing lesnar as they cant capture on the momentum he got from beating taker as he only appears for three matches a year, I believe using cena to beat the streak and turning heel through some way would be as big as the hogan heel turn.

1.Do you think this was the best way to turn cena heel?
2.What else at mania that year would be as big of a moment as cena turning heel?

 

[mesl]

Cena has reached the summit. History would like to read one legend defeated another legend, but in reality that doesn't help the company. You have storylines to fill, you have tshirts to sell.

Cena doesn't need an actual "heel turn", he is already hated by 50%.. he is already loved by 50%.. you put Austin, Rock, HBK and Cena in a fatal fourway at Wrestlemania.. The crowd is still chanting 'Lets go Cena' 'Cena sucks'... He is a star, he makes money, he sells tickets....

IF a turn ever comes from Cena, it needs to be heartbreaking, it needs to be a kick to the cutest puppy dog the company has ever seen.. It has to be on someone like a Daniel Bryan, and it needs to tie in with the gold at Wrestlemania. The payoff and the reward would have to be unlike anything we've ever seen before, turning on a washed up part time legend doesn't really achieve anything going forward.. Yes, it's poetic.. No, it's not required

Hogan turned heel, it created the nWo.. It almost put the WWE out of business... That's the kind of impact in professional wrestling a Cena heel turn would need to create.

The Undertaker legend may be over.. or, perhaps there may be greater plans for The Undertaker at Wrestlemania 31 to come.. Career vs. Career, gold on the line, Lesnar vs. Undertaker closing the show?, suddenly "The Streak" doesn't interfere in "The Main Event of Wrestlemania". Or who knows, maybe Lesnar will launch someone like a Roman Reigns on the back of him conquering the streak at Wrestlemania 31.

 

[L@RISANO]

IF a turn ever comes from Cena, it needs to be heartbreaking, it needs to be a kick to the cutest puppy dog the company has ever seen.. It has to be on someone like a Daniel Bryan, and it needs to tie in with the gold at Wrestlemania. The payoff and the reward would have to be unlike anything we've ever seen before, turning on a washed up part time legend doesn't really achieve anything going forward.. Yes, it's poetic.. No, it's not required

Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume the 'washed up part time legend' you are talking about is the Undertaker.

If it is so, then I disagree with the notion above, that turning Cena heel vs the Undertaker wouldn't be heartbreaking. The reactions when Taker lost the streak amongst even casuals I spoke to showed how revered and loved the Taker still is amongst WWE hardcore and casual fans alike.

Cena turning heel against Taker at Mania, is I am sure, a plan that WWE would have looked forward to doing once they found the next Face/(s) of the Company, and doing such a turn vs Taker in addition to breaking the Streak would have been one of the most iconic moments in the history of the WWE,lMO.

However, I think that WWE and probably Taker himself accepted that his physical condition is not as good as it once was, and therefore the decision for Lesnar to break it was taken late. Yet, even against Lesnar, people were truly taken aback by what happened and virtually no one expected Taker to lose...even the Ref held back the 3 count because he was in the dark about Taker losing...

 

[lil steroid meat]

Of the people you listed, I'd say Randy Orton.

It would have the same effect that Brock had, except the beneficiary of the streak would have had a decade left in the industry, and not be on his way out, with limited appearances at that.

But if I could choose ANYONE, I'd say John Cena. Could have him end the streak, turn heel, dye his hair black, letting him grow facial hair, and call himself "The New Phenom" and how he's carried the company on his back for a decade. How he ""IS the WWE in 2014". Wrestlemania 30 was the perfect opportunity to turn him heel by beating Taker dirty. Would have freshened up the character for another 5 years, would have been a big enough event to warrant the end of the streak, and it would have really cemented the passing of the guard theme that Wrestlemania and the couple of weeks after it had. It would have been shocking, iconic and the reactions would have been 10x better than they were. That would have been a great moment.

 

[Alabama Slam]

I agree that no one should have ended the Undertaker's streak, especially a part-time player like Brock Lesner; it weakens the strength and mythos of the Undertaker and his impressive streak. It was legendary and almost mystical and should have remained that way. He faced down and overcome some of the biggest names in wrestling history. They should have the streak intact and the Undertaker retiring with it; it would have been the biggest part of his legacy.

 

[Mudlup50]

Ok get comfortable because I have quite a bit to say!

Taker had to lose for his career to end, he's of the old school mindset, like Flair or Michaels, superstars who believe you have to lose to go out. One big match that seals your career. Taker only wrestled once a year so it had to happen at Wrestlemania.

That being said, Lesnar was the perfect guy. As others have mentioned literally nobody expected Taker to lose, I remember I looked up results and was absolutely shocked. To put into perspective how surprised I was, I looked on multiple sites figuring the site I was on was playing some trick on me!

Back to the subject, Lesnar was booked so weakly up to Wrestlemania that it seems obvious in hindsight! But we all ignored the signs, we as wrestling fans would have seen it coming but it was the streak and we assumed Taker would retain it! Quite stupidly I might add.

Now for why Lesnar was the right choice, he's a part time talent. I know personally I was mad that they let the streak end and mad at Lesnar for the stupidity of allowing it to happen, think about how the entire audience treated Lesnar afterwards! They hated him so much! And think about the past few years, it's been debatable! Shawn Michaels the second match it was debatable, HHH the second time when the odds were stacked against Taker it seemed plausible. Even Punk it seems like he might be able to beat Taker...then Lesnar shows up and we all assume there's no reason.

Personally the only person listed I could see ending it was Punk in complete seriousness but think about it. Punk would be a heel forever after that...he would've left in January regardless! So we'd be in the same boat as now!
I don't know if this site frowns on this but there's a really great discussion posted from last year about why Punk should end it
http://www.cagesideseats.com/wrestl...ak-year-it-ends-cm-punk-streak-vs-streak-wm29

It's a good read, I found it the day Taker lost it and I like having some reasoning why it had to end, check it out

 

[dd23beatlesfan1]

My personal viewpoint is that unless they were going to make John Cena the biggest heel in wrestling history by ending the streak, than Taker should've retired undefeated. A close runner-up maybe having Bray Wyatt as he is this generation's more supernatural-orientated character. But other than those two, I don't feel Taker's streak should've ended.

But if the Streak had to end at some point from 2005 to 2013 at one of his Wrestlemania matches, and with the perspective of what all of his opponents would become and what their careers and legacies turned out to be, not to mention the level his opponents were in the company at the time, the only two viable options to me are Randy Orton at Wrestlemania 21 (2005) or Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania 25 (2009).

Of all his opponents from 2005 on, Randy Orton would go on to accomplish the most. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not talking about all time or saying that Randy Orton has accomplished more than say Triple H or Shawn Michaels. I am saying from 2005 on though, Orton accomplished the most and had the longest career. As of 2014 HBK has been retired for four years; Triple H wrestles part-time, while Randy Orton is still a major focal point in the company if not the top heel that's an active wrestler. While Orton was in a career slump in 2005 when he fought Taker, ending the streak would've been the ultimate victory for his "Legend Killer" gimmick and would've brought his career renaissance on much sooner than it did. Orton was not a guy that fizzled out or retired soon after or quit (in CM Punk's case which I'll get to later), he became bigger and bigger, which would've made a victory over Taker that much more worthwhile.


Mark Henry is an interesting choice as he would go on to become one of the best heels in the company for a number of years. However that 2-3 years away from the Taker match at Wrestlemania 22. At the time, Henry was a puzzling choice as he was still a guy stuck in the mid-card with no direction, which had been how his career had been going since the peak of the Attitude Era (say what you will about how ridiculous his storylines with Chyna and Mae Young were, at least he was a focal point and had direction as a character). So it just wasn't viable for Mark Henry to win at the time, as he was basically a mid-carder that wasn't a real threat. Having Mark Henry end the Streak out of nowhere, would've been like JBL ending the streak when he was still Bradshaw in the APA. At the time it would've been seen as a horrible choice. Now if WWE had had a Taker/Henry match in 2010/2011 right in the middle of the "Hall of Pain" era Mark Henry, then we're talking.


Batista was a huge star and one of the focal points for WWE, but he would be gone within three years of his WM match with Taker to pursue a movie career. He obviously wasn't dedicated enough to wrestling to really be worthy of ending it in my view. And before anyone tries to counter and say that Brock Lesnar did the same thing and is a part-timer now as well, exactly. I don't think Brock Lesnar should've ended the streak either.


Edge, would've been a great choice at the time. He was pretty much the top heel in the company at the time, especially on Smackdown. He was a veteran that was loyal to the company and had proven his worth. However the way fate played out, it's a good thing he didn't end the Streak. As he would be retired in three years due to neck injuries. So while Edge was a good choice, it was a good thing he didn't end it as he wouldn't have had long to capitalize on ending the streak.


Then we get to Shawn Michaels. Shawn Michaels did not need to end the streak. His legacy was already set. However, Shawn is one of the greatest wrestlers of all-time (not the greatest like WWE and many like to act, but he is definitely someone in the discussion), and if you want to go purely kayfabe, HBK was picked as the greatest wrestler in history by WWE. In theory that should mean he should be able to beat anybody, including Taker at Wrestlemania. So from a kayfabe standpoint, it would make logical sense for HBK to end the streak. Hence why he's the only other opponent in my view besides Randy Orton that I could see being a good choice to end it.


But only for their first match at Wrestlemania 25. As for the second at Wrestlemania 26, HBK wanted to retire, so clearly him losing in his last match was the right call. Because unlike Taker, HBK's Wrestlemania legacy isn't based on winning every match, it on having the best match, win or lose. So HBK didn't need to win near as much as Taker. Which would be my argument as well for the WM 25 match in why HBK shouldn't have ended. Again I don't think anyone should've ended the streak. I'm just merely playing Devil's Advocate so to speak for a few of his opponents.


As for Triple H, unlike HBK, he was not picked and hyped as the greatest wrestler of all-time, so from a kayfabe standpoint it would make complete sense for Triple H to not be able to beat Taker. From a real life standpoint, Triple H, just like HBK did not need to beat Taker. His legacy is also already set.


Last, we get to CM Punk. More than any other wrestler that he wrestled from Wrestlemania 21 on, I am so glad that CM Punk didn't end the streak. I'm a CM Punk fan for the record. I think he was the best overall wrestler in the company from about 2010 until he left earlier this year, even though WWE didn't see him as such. But CM Punk basically quit. He was tired of wrestling and didn't want to do it anymore. I don't condemn him for it or hate it. I think everyone in this world has the right to do whatever will make them feel the most fulfilled and the happiest, as long as they're not physically harming other people. I don't think CM Punk "owes the fans" anymore than what he has given. He had a great run. However, how much would it have sucked for CM Punk to be the one to end the Streak, only for him to say screw it and quit less than a year later? That would've been a huge slap in the face to Taker, Vince McMahon, WWE, and the fans. And I don't think ending the Streak would've been enough to keep CM Punk around. I don't think even main eventing Wrestlemania would've been enough. CM Punk I feel is done, at least for a good while. Whomever ends the Streak should be someone that is gonna be around for a good while and be a focal point for the company. CM Punk obviously chose that he didn't want to go that route anymore, so I'm really glad it wasn't him.


Again, I think Taker should've retired undefeated unless he lost to Cena so Cena could go on a Hollywood Hogan esque heel run, or possibly to "pass the torch" to Bray Wyatt.


But if I had to choose a Taker opponent from 2005 on to be the one to end it, I would've chosen Randy Orton at Wrestlemania 21. HBK at Wrestlemania 25 as a runner up choice.

 

[Shark Boy]

Having Brock end the streak at WM 30 was a great play on WWE's part.

The streak HAD to end. In my opinion. Taker retiring with the streak Intact would have cheapened it. Every great book has a final chapter. Every great television series has a final episode. The streak itself was an epic storyline and in my mind it wasn't about the destination. It was about the journey itself.

Losing to Brock at WM 30 instead of Cena, Punk, HBK, or HHH was a good call in the aspect that it made the streak about The Undertaker. If one of the above mentioned names did end the streak it would have taken the Limelight off of taker. Allowing Brock to take that spot did elevate his persona, along with Heyman's ofcourse. Brock is a big star, Don't get me wrong. But he is no where near the level of familiarity (within the WWE universe) that those group of guys are/where.

Losing to Brock also allows Taker to save face. Seeing that Lesner is a legitimate bad ass.

(Hope I got my point across. I was hoping to do so withing 3 paragraphs, trying to stay away from a HUGE WALL OF OPINIONATED DOOM)

 

[capnwillie]

The right guy ended it. As many have said, it was the most believable way to end the streak cleanly and without controversy other than the fact that it actually happened. Add to that, Lesnar can handle the heat... say what you will about his love and respect (or lack thereof) for the business, but one common bond Taker and Brock share is that they stay out of the public eye and protect their characters. Hell, Brock stayed in character through his UFC run. Lesnar wants the hate. I don't think he gets enough credit for that.

Lesnar's part-time schedule shouldn't be an issue either, as far as I'm concerned. Beating Taker secures Brock as a special attraction, in a way that match was a torch passing. Not in the sense of launching a new career or rocketing a hot young talent to the top, but in cementing Brock as a solid monster for big PPV matches. Don't expect Brock to run up a 22-0 streak but don't expect him to lose much, especially at any Wrestlemania for the next 5 years.

Now, if Brock signs up for a heavier schedule, the landscape changes dramatically. Personally I'd love to see that happen (and the impotent rage of the fans because of it) and Heyman holding WWE "hostage" after a Lesnar title win, but we can't always get what we want!