Why The Undertaker and The Streak SUCKS!!

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

What the fuck are you talking about?

I never said they should job to The Undertaker. In fact, I made it quite clear that Reigns and Bryan should be made to look like STARS against Taker, and showcase everything they are capable of, and by doing this, they look strong in defeat, and get a rub in defeat.

Taker should be using the last 2 victories of his streak to give rubs to the right people, before going out with a bang against Cena personally. Reigns and Bryan don't lose any credibility in losing to the phenomenal power that is the Streak; in fact they'll be made to look great in defeat, as I've said. Don't throw the age argument in, because The Streak has existed as a big thing far longer than Bryan and Reigns have even been in the WWE, hell before Reigns even begun to wrestle.

You've insulted my intelligence to the level which I'm seething with rage quite frankly.

You need to understand the difference between "jobbing / doing the job" and "squashed".

I don't want Bryan or Reigns to lose to a 50 year old man with all due respect.

I would be ok if this year Taker beats Brock, then Taker beats Rock next year then ends his career at WM32 in front of 100K people in Texas against Cena.


But KEEP REIGNS AND BRYAN AWAY FROM TAKER

 

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

I think the real question should be:

What would be more memorable in 10 years, The Undertaker's undefeated streak or the person who defeats the streak?

I think we need to all agree that whoever does it needs to be a young talent with TONS of potential and loyalty. The Rock is not going to do it. It needs to be someone with something to gain. It needs to be someone who is willing to probably be a major heel for the rest of their career. If Randy Orton was 23 today, he would be the guy. It would have worked if his character came in a decade later, as the "legend killer".

And on the flip side, would Undertaker losing at his last Wrestlemania tarnish his legacy? Would it actually tarnish anything? Would we sit back 10 years from now and not think AS highly as him because he lost his last match and began a major career push for a specific talent? I think Undertaker's Wrestlemania career is already legendary and nothing will ever tarnish what he has accomplished, no matter if he wins 6 more or loses next year.

So yes, I think when his time comes and it will be his last match, I think he should lose, but go out with his last bit of an incredible match (like he's done every year). But this will require INCREDIBLE writing from WWE creative. They cannot fuck this up. They cannot let the loss go down as forgetful. They cannot blow it on the wrong talent.

And the bottom line is, in the next few years if they don't think there is another life-long WWE talent willing to do it and master this story, they should not end it for shits and giggles.

I think The Rock ending the streak would be great.

It wouldn't make much sense but it would just be epic.

HBK ending the streak wouldn't do much for him, but it would've been epic if he did end it at WM25 or WM26 same with Rock.

 

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

What about him specifically pisses you off? Personally I think Taker is awesome. I'll admit I am a bit of a Taker mark but seriously what specifically pisses you off about him?

Nothing about him pi$$ me off.

I've always been a huge fan of his.

But I don't want to see him overstaying his welcome like Hogan and Flair.

WWE is beyond horrible and the WM card looks boring and the last thing we need to an already borefest WrestleMania is another predictable match.

Maybe Taker should skip a WrestleMania or something like The Rock did. Make us miss him or something but I'm not really looking forward to Taker's return.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Nothing about him pi$$ me off.

I've always been a huge fan of his.

But I don't want to see him overstaying his welcome like Hogan and Flair.

WWE is beyond horrible and the WM card looks boring and the last thing we need to an already borefest WrestleMania is another predictable match.

Maybe Taker should skip a WrestleMania or something like The Rock did. Make us miss him or something but I'm not really looking forward to Taker's return.

If he doesn't piss you off and you're a huge fan of his why would you make a very wordy thready about how Taker (as you put it not me) flat out sucks? It comes off as 1000 words of blind hate for the guy.

I get you don't want him overstaying his welcome but I don't see how 1 match a year is overstaying his welcome. There is roughly 365 hours of television WWE produces in a year, at most you will have to see Taker for an hour and a half of those 365 hours and that's if you watch literally everything he does in a year.

When it comes to WWE quality I completely agree with you, WM 30 doesn't look too bad but I'm not itching to see it either so I get that. With Taker vs. Lesnar (I'm assuming that's gonna be the match this year) it will be about 20-30 minutes of building a program over the span of a month, followed by a 20-30 minute match, it really doesn't take up a lot of programming time. You've admitted yourself the match will be great so why does it matter if he beats Lesnar? It doesn't. Taker and Lesnar have a great match, the fans are happy and it makes WWE a buttload of money, that sounds like a win-win situation from where I'm sitting.

I don't want Taker to end up like Flair or Hogan either but once again its apples and oranges. At Takers age Flair and Hogan were working almost every week. Taker hasn't even broke 50 yet and his track record for matches over the last 5 years has been pretty damn good so he can at least put on 1 good performance a year. Chances are this year or next year will be it for Taker, I really don't see him going past WM31 at this point. If he gets to a point where he's embarrassing himself on camera (like Flair and Hogan have done) then I get it but I haven't seen that from him yet. Taker probably has a few good matches left in him so why not as long as Taker can perform?

 

[#1druid]

In my opinion the streak shouldn't end. The boost at this point is too large, meaning it would take someone from lower midcard to main event. Obviously someone who is in the lower mid card either doesn't have much potential or is too new to be trusted with the victory, where as anyone else it would be wasted as they're already over enough where the boost at least partially would be wasted. If it was going to end it should have been orton at 21 now it's too late. However I wouldn't mind if in his absolute last match ever I wouldn't mind a face like Bryan having him beat and then kayfabe realizing that the streak and taker's legacy is more important than him beating the streak and laying down for taker. Therefor the streak is both broken and intact at the same time. Taker cuts a final promo putting over the face the next night on raw says his farewells etc and disappears into the night.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I wouldn't say this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen on the forum, but it's pretty damn close, with some statements in particular standing out as beyond asinine.



Yeah, you're not proving anything here at all. You're just saying that he sucks throughout this passage and insulting him for being out of shape. There's no way anyone at the age of 48 (soon to be 49) is going to be the peak of their physical form, especially if they've been wrestling for 30 years, with nearly 25 of those years in WWF/E, and while he may be more brittle after those 30 years, he's certainly still able to go in that ring and put on 4-5 star quality matches if asked to.

Other than that, you're just saying "he sucks", and telling us to take your word, so I see no need to address this.



Actually, he has a streak to defend that can be used to give up and comers rubs regardless whether they win or lose, or to put on highly anticipated matches with other superstars. Who cares if he has nothing to prove, he's still an incredibly vital asset to the company and a massive draw.




Wrong. The Streak could end at any time, which is what keeps us watching. Even the matches where the streak ending wasn't in the equation could still be considered excellent matches and having great moments. The only one in recent history that sucked on both counts was the Mark Henry match at WM22. Other than that, the matches either had people of the same calibre as Taker, someone that could be given a massive rub by ending the streak, or a compelling storyline that could make you at least question the streak. Who's to say Taker doesn't give Reigns, the ultimate record breaker a rub in the future?



I am in the opinion that the Streak shouldn't end, so I disagree with this point, respectively however (for not being one of your awful points, which we'll get to in a minute)

To call the man that breaks the streak an incredible high risk is an understatement. What if said man decides to jump on board TNA if he feels he has achieved all that he needs to do in WWE? What if he gets critically injured? What if he gets fired? WWE would need to put an unfathomable amount of stock (even more so than John Cena) to have someone break the Streak. That's the only reason Orton didn't break the streak in 2005: WWE didn't want him too. Even Undertaker wanted to put Orton over. If we look now, Orton still has an established career in WWE regardless, but he's also been a hazard, being on the cusp of being fired a few times now. The feud itself turned Orton into a star in 2005, whereas he would have just have very little to do if the Heidenreich/Snitsky match went down (Jesus Christ, that would have been BAD). He didn't have to end the streak to have an established career. The same will go with Roman Reigns and Daniel Bryan.

I wouldn't be vehemently against the streak ending. However, I think it's best that it shouldn't. Taker should defend his streak for quarter of a century, before calling it quits personally. A rub to the guys like Bryan and Reigns would be outstanding for their careers, but a massive, massive risk.

Not to mention, WWE would lose a powerful Wrestlemania draw if they ended it randomly.



Yeah, if it's someone like Ryback who deserves nothing more than a pre-show match this year or a battle royale appearance perhaps.

Now we get to one of the bad ones.





So why not make the most of Taker while he is still reasonably fit and can put on matches of excellent quality every year? Taker won't be wrestling forever, or even much longer to be blunt because of his injuries. Why cut it short while he can still go? Why not make the most of him, because that's what a business should do?

This however, takes the cake as one of the most stupid things I have ever read in my life.



Good fucking grief. Good fucking grief.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Undertaker, one of the most successful wrestlers of all time, a man still capable of putting on matches of excellent quality, a man who has the mystique that he had when he debuted, perhaps more than ever, and most importantly, the man who draws a massive share of the Wrestlemania viewers by defending the streak is a CANCER to wrestling?

This point is a cancer to this entire forum to be honest.



No disrespect to Triple H, but do you REALLY want the streak to end with a THIRD rematch with him, after having a previous match with him the previous year?

I also don't see the purpose of ending at Wrestlemania 30. Wrestlemania 30 may be an anniversary show, but if Taker's streak is ending, the show should be focused on an anniversary of Taker's streak, not Wrestlemania in general.



I don't know, maybe because Taker hasn't made it clear that he wants to retire yet to anyone? What's more, yes, Cena and Taker should be the final Taker match imo, but there's a reason WWE are saving it, because they also want it to be the final match.



That's why it works maybe? Hogan and Andre had been built up for an incredibly long time, and that was probably the most well known wrestling match of all time. Taker and Cena could possibly reach that level because of that alone, and has a far greater chance of being a well wrestled match because of it.



Actually, there's a good chance Cena COULD end the streak.

Think about it, Cena's entire gimmick is to rise against the odds and to prove the doubters wrong. Cena has a good chance to end the streak, far more than anyone else personally. If WWE want Cena to be bigger than Hogan (let's face it, Hogan and Austin are both bigger stars than Cena), that would be the icing on the cake. I'd probably be initially pissed if Cena won the match, but I'd eventually accept it and to say the man doesn't deserve it is sheer idiocy.

Also, Cena has a hell of a larger chance to beat the streak than Punk or Lesnar. Don't even try to use that argument.



Another cretinous point. Taker is putting people over just by wrestling them at Wrestlemania. Hell, he gave Ambrose a massive rub by just wrestling him on Smackdown. To suggest that he's burying Lesnar is absolutely absurd.



Your fantasy booking sucks too.



Oh piss off. Taker doesn't have to give these people a match at all. We've established that regardless of who wins, the opponent gets to look good in losing.



You clearly don't understand the concept of the Undertaker character then. Taker doesn't have to say much at all. His presence alone speaks more words than any Punk promo could. What's more, he didn't even have to say much more. Punk and Heyman insulted a man who had passed away recently and a man Taker held dear to him for many years and Taker was pissed off to say the least.

As for the match, it was an excellent match as you said. But to suggest Punk carried it is absurd. Watch the match again more closely, and you'll understand. That is, if you have the perception skills.



Glad to see you have some common sense, little as it may be.





So Hogan and Flair were putting talent over in random matches that will be not be as remembered as an excellent match Undertaker had with X opponent at Wrestlemania? Where the match is more special because Taker tends to fight only once a year?

Even in your own warped logic, you make no sense.



Your sarcasm skills suck too.



If it wasn't one sided like most of Starcade 97's match with Sting, then yeah, it would be a great benefit if those guys got to go all out and have an excellent match.




Depends on the opponent.



Suit yourself. I want to get the most out of the Undertaker while we still can.



I've talked about this already, so scroll up.

In conclusion/Tl;dr, you're an idiot who doesn't understand the concept of a wrestling business and rubs.

I was going to post a response in this thread but you pretty much covered it. Thanks!

 

[H33LTurn]

Who takes a pi$$ break for 30 minutes? Taker is taking 30 minutes of the biggest wrestling event in history for a storyline (The Streak) that has been extremely overdone, extremely predictable and extremely annoying.

Also, Bryan isn't 48 years old and he doesn't look like he's 60 years old like Grampa Taker.

Regardless of his age, Taker can still get it done with the best of them. His age shouldn't be a factor because he's more than likely to retire soon. The piss break thing was metaphorical. I know when a match comes on that I dont like my friends get some food, stretch our legs (if we've been sitting through all of WM), and chat. There isn't a wrestling fan that can avoid at least one match they consider boring on WM night. Your rage towards Taker makes little to no sense. He's 48 years old, hasn't wrestled a match in a year, yet has the best match on the WM card to date. Like I said, deal with it.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

Also, Bryan isn't 48 years old and he doesn't look like he's 60 years old like Grampa Taker.

He may not look like he's 60 years old but he looks like a homeless bum that was begging for money outside the arena and they just threw some trunks on him and told him to come down to the ring.

Also, "jobbing" to the Undertaker is a "right of passage" so to speak. Look at all the legendary wrestlers that have fought Taker at WM. Orton, Batista, Edge, HBK, Triple H, etc. Undertaker's match is a MAIN EVENT and many times THE MAIN EVENT at Wrestlemania. Wouldn't you rather have Bryan fighting in the main event, even if it means losing, than fighting say Sheamus or some scrub?

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

It shouldn't be Bryan it should be Reigns. Bryan's already over.

Actually if they give it to anyone (don't think they will) it should be Bryan because he is so over. The streak is huge no matter what the OP says, and the fact of the matter is this could spur something great. When Hogan beat Andre he was already more over than anyone in wrestling. That was just the icing on the cake which is what the streak could be for Bryan. The Rock didn't need put over by Austin, Hogan, or Cena still did. And I don't see anyone on the roster who won't be boo'd and hated forever beside Bryan, and I think it's better if the streak does end for it to be someone like Bryan who gives respect to Taker as a good guy, as opposed to someone like Cena turning or Reigns beating him.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I can always tell when it's WrestleMania season for the forum. 1. The tournament starts up. 2. People start bitching about the WrestleMania card. 3. The 'Taker and Streak threads start.

Every year it's the same old same old around these parts. 'Taker should retire, 'Taker shouldn't retire, the Streak should end, the Streak shouldn't end. blah blah blah fucking blah. Let's just get this one over with.

TheOneandOnlyGOAT, I admire your honesty and respect your opinion. Even though it's a completely asinine and idiotic opinion, I still respect it. People have already tried to explain it to you but either you're not reading it right or you're just incapable of understanding. I'm probably just going to echo what has already been said but here it goes.

1. 'Taker doesn't suck. His matches over the past many years at WrestleMania have routinely been the best matches on the card. Hell, even last year's match was the match of the night and it was nowhere near the calibre of match we have become accustom to seeing with 'Taker at WrestleMania.

2. 'Taker is still a huge draw for WrestleMania. So why should he retire? He can still perform at a high level and people still want to see him. You asked what makes him different from Flair and Hogan; it's those two facts. Also, 'Taker has the complete respect and admiration of all of his peers and fans. That's another difference that he has from Flair and Hogan.

3. 'Taker doesn't bury anyone. Obviously you don't know the difference between burying and simply losing. Burying someone would be completely taking away all of their momentum. That's what HHH did to Randy Orton in 2004 when Orton won his first World Heavyweight Championship. However, after Orton was buried by Trips, he feuded with 'Taker and gained every bit of his momentum back. So even though 'Taker bested Orton in the story line; Orton was, at the same time, put over by 'Taker. See, that's the beauty of 'Taker's character. A superstar can go into a 'Taker feud, have a strong showing, and lose and arguably be better off then they were before the 'Taker feud. 'Taker put over the Shield just by wrestling with them the few times that he did. He even went the extra mile and allowed the Shield to triple power-bomb him through the announce table. That made the Shield look more unstoppable then they ever had and what did JBL say after that went down? "It's their yard now Michael."

So, while you may not enjoy 'Taker for whatever reason, the majority of wrestling fans do and until 'Taker routinely can't put on the calibre of match that we have become accustom to seeing from him at WrestleMania every year he should continue to show up for WrestleMania. As long as he's making the WWE the almighty dollar, they will continue to allow him to wrestle every year. Why you can't understand that concept is beyond me.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I've been a fan of Taker since his earliest days in WWE and, personally, I want him to stay around as long as he's physically able. The way I look at it is simple: Taker's a big star that's now only still relevant, but still helps draw big numbers for WrestleMania. Why? Because he's still able to get it done inside the ring. Taker's matches have arguably been the brightest points of WrestleMania at times, especially the past 5 years.

If Taker was so broken down that he could barely move, like Hulk Hogan, I'd be all for him hanging up his boots. That time is probably coming really soon considering that he's getting awfully close to being 50 years old. I've read reports over the years alleging that Taker will step down if he feels he's dead weight rather than someone who can contribute. Based on everything I've read about him over the years, he doesn't come off as a hugely macho minded guy who doesn't know when to say when, such as Kurt Angle, nor is he someone that absolutely has to have the spotlight, such as Hogan. When Taker reaches a time in his life where he can't pull his own weight in these matches, I have a feeling he'll call it quits rather than linger on and embarrass himself like we've seen other legends do.

If you're not into Taker, more power to you. But the fact of the matter is that Taker wrestling at WrestleMania draws, he's physically healthy enough to compete, his matches are extremely high quality, most fans are highly entertained by them and he wants to do it. Until that changes, especially the ones regarding him both wanting to and being physically healthy enough to do it, Taker's not going anywhere nor should he.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

The Undertaker's legendary entrance alone is worth the price of admission. I love it on TV but it is absolutely incredible live.

 

[Cena's #1 In My Heart]

I agree with the OP, it just is starting to make the roster look bad when they lose to the noticeably aging and aged Undertaker.

I've always liked Taker, but it is getting to the point where I just want it to be over already, because even though The Streak is a phenomenon, it will be that much bigger when that right person finally does end it.

I think when Taker does get beat it should be by a guy like Roman Reigns(and I borderline hate him because he overshadows Seth Rollins), and that person should literally dominate the crap out of The Undertaker. They should man handle and rag doll The Undertaker all over the ring and the outside and just leave the audience in shock and awe of what they did to the old yet MYSTICAL geezer.

 

[Brocktagon]

taker is going down as the greatest of all time. haven't seen a 'hater' since this thread.

I said greatest, that means better than Hogan, flair, hart, michaels, austin, andre, edge, Damien damento or whoever you think was better. undertaker had a better run for over 2 decades with better, innovative matches. book it.

 

[ianreedwwestar]

i see were u coming from but you dont see wat mark [ undertaker ] dose backstage and at training grounds he helps out training people he has put people before before and as for the streak yeah i wish to see him more but vince is protecting him mark still wants to get in there and fight more and for real threats i see 1 way the streak in jepody that mark vs cena in a i quit match now think bout that 1 :]

 

[John Cena's Sweatbands]

I dont really have a problem with it anymore, it is what it is.

What i do wish they would do it try and do something different, for example, turn Taker heel for the match and subsequently the build up for the match.

He hasnt been heel since returning in 2004, so change it up and let him be the bad guy.

 

[Dedamn666]

Jesus, hes a novelty these days. Its that simple. Hes not hurting or ruining anyones careers. The old man beating young folk stuff not been believable is stupid, the mans meant to be a zombie. At the end of the day wrestlings pre determined. People will remember the character. Whats wrong with him coming back once a year for some nostalgia and outstanding wrestling?

 

[Best in the World 79]

Undertaker mark speaking:

The Undertaker does not suck. The streak doesn't suck. His entrances don't suck. His matches don't suck. His character doesn't suck. Nothing about the Undertaker sucks minus the fact that he's at a "sucky" age to be wrestling. Have you ever seen a fucking Undertaker match? Not to mention one of his yearly wrestlemania classics that started in 2007 with Batista.

You're a moron dude. He comes back to win and that's annoying?

I'm pretty sure Batista came back to win. Just like Rock. Hell, aside from Brock and Taker, when's the last time HHH lost?

Dude, I've heard that everyone from Ryback to Wade Barrett should end the streak. He's still undefeated.

Undefeated at WrestleMania is a thank you from all the wrestling fans and from the company that Undertaker wrestled with a broken orbital bone in his face all the way to the classic hell in a cell with Foley with a broken ankle.

He's earned that status. He isn't mainstream. Isn't in movies. None of that shit. He's a wrestler. Wrestling fans live him and they pay to watch him win that one match per year.

Re-think your assessment of how much the Undertaker sucks when there's 80,000 people chanting his name for his one match.

 

[jameyt2003]

If Taker decides to wrestle at WM for another five years, then yea that streak should end. I mean, his intimidation factor is dwindling. I give him props for putting his best effort against great talents in the last five WM.

It will boil down to him walking away from the ring, or just admitting he is too old to have the same aura that he has carried, and earned, throughout the years. If the latter is the case, then that is when the streak should end, Taker ends on the big stage, and hopefully, a new star is born.

Either way, to the OP, Taker does not suck. Your a troll. A really determined troll. But its cool, cause I do that shit too.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Ok, first of all I know I'm going to get a lot of hate for this but here it goes:

The Undertaker sucks.

While that old washed up has been bald fat@$$ has yet to show up this year but in my opinion I think that he absolutely sucks.

He flat out sucks.

The thing that is really iritating is that he has NOTHING left to prove, he is 48 years old, he should retire.

I'm not particularly feeling your sentiments on this, yes Taker is old, he's beaten up and isn't what he was, but the man is still an iconic figure in this business. So it's safe to say I'm a fan, and I'm not going to give you any hate over this, but man I disagree with you big time.

I dig The Undertaker, and have to say that I don't agree with him sucking or his streak sucking? Do I think it should end? Well, that all depends, if there is a really good storyline for it, and there's a great payoff for whomever ends the streak, then yeah I could possibly see where it could work. And well, I'd have no choice but to accept it if WWE and The Undertaker decide to do such a thing. It's been said time and again, that The Taker has volunteered to have the streak end at the hands of guys like Kane and Randy Orton, I'm not sure how true these things that are said really are. However, a decision like this is one that if I were in the position to determine so, I would be biased and say I wouldn't want it to end. Taker is a personal top ten favorite of mine, and even those that rank slightly higher on the list, I'd want them to NEVER beat him at Mania should I have a say.

I'm a fan who still comes back from time to time solely to see how the Taker will keep his streak, it's like Batman and Superman or any other epic character, you know they will 99.9 percent likely come out on top, but sometimes it's not about if they will win, it's about how they will win. Take for instance, Taker's match against Triple H at WrestleMania 28, with Shawn Michaels as the referee, I was wondering the whole time how they would play this out. Shawn has been a dubious official in the past, had major history with the man that ended his career two years prior at WrestleMania XXVI and of course that same man was facing his on again off again best friend, a man who also tried to end his career before he could even restart it, go back to 2002 and watch SummerSlam the HHH/Shawn Michaels street fight was BEYOND epic! I should know, I was there to see it live. WrestleMania 21 provided a similar suspense and intrigue because Randy Orton was good at dispatching legends, and he had gotten some major drops on the Undertaker throughout the time preceding the event, not to mention he had his father Bob on his side. So to me, I can't help but get into the streak over and over again. It's one of my favorite things in wrestling, one of the few things I give a rat's ass about.

But like I said, and I know you've more or less acknowledged this as well, but I think that the way you stated your opinion on this matter and the thread title is going to only invite vitriol and backlash, I'm not going to contribute to that. And we'll just agree to disagree about The Undertaker. However, I have to say this is a subject that deserves a good constructive pattern of discussion and not the hate fest you created in your opening post. With that said, you'll get nothing but the opposite due to the nature of your statement.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

taker is going down as the greatest of all time. haven't seen a 'hater' since this thread.

I said greatest, that means better than Hogan, flair, hart, michaels, austin, andre, edge, Damien damento or whoever you think was better. undertaker had a better run for over 2 decades with better, innovative matches. book it.

No he really won't, and I'd so like to disagree with the better run over two decades. Hogan changed the wrestling world TWICE in his career over two decades. Hogan was a cross over star that made wrestling popular and then popular again.

 

[pyrusane]

I'm going to address just a couple of the points you made here, because the rest have all been covered fairly well.

Ok, first of all I know I'm going to get a lot of hate for this but here it goes:

This right here shows that the whole point of this thread was to troll. Well done, you accomplished your goal of getting a bunch of people to call you stupid on the Internet. Not sure why that was a goal, but there you go...

While that old washed up has been bald fat@$$ has yet to show up this year but in my opinion I think that he absolutely sucks.

Personal attacks for the sake of trying to enrage hardcore fans. Immature, and more evidence of trolling. Invalidates everything that follows it, too, so you wasted a lot of time writing pointless bullshit after this sentence. Also, if you're going to be insulting, have the balls to spell out the word ass. The forums aren't censored, man. Nut up or shut up.

Every year it's the same boring story with Taker, there is 0 predictability to his matches, we all know that the streak will NEVER end.

Are you aware that the middle clause in this sentence contradicts the other two statements? If it's the "same boring story" and "we all know the streak will NEVER end" then how does that equate to 0 predictability? This is sloppy and lazy.

A lot of people say that the streak should never be broken, I disagree.

Records are meant to be broken,

More sloppiness/laziness. There is a difference between a streak and a record. Breaking the Streak simply requires Taker to lose. Breaking his record would require someone else to go 23-0, or 24-0, or whatever number is 1 higher than his final total. Since you seem to like to argue about minute differences in semantics, you should be more careful with your own phrasing.

We all know that The Undertaker will retire by defeating John Cena.

It's inevitable and extremely and annoyingly predictable.

Actually, it's pure speculation.

I guess for Taker marks, it's ok for Taker to come back and bury everyone,

Who exactly has he "buried"? What young talent has been fed to Undertaker? Let's look at the last 12 years, which is around the time the Streak started being acknowledged as such. Who did he beat?

Ric Flair - Well, he was certainly younger than he is now. He was only in his fifties, a thirty year veteran, and already 16-time World Champion. Too bad that Undertaker match kept him from living up to his potential.

Big Show and A-Train - Big Show did alright for himself after that match, A-Train honestly didn't deserve to even be in it.

Kane - Really? Without Undertaker there is no Kane.

Randy Orton - This could have been your best argument, except back then Taker was still wrestling a full-time schedule, was a top guy, and that feud didn't bury Randy, it made him.

Mark Henry - meh, someone had to be in the match that year

Batista - Looked great in the feud, and Taker was the top guy on Smackdown at the time, still wrestling a full-time schedule

Edge - see Batista

Shawn Michaels - Oh no, this might have kept HBK from ever reaching his---wait, he retired as one of the most respected and loved stars of the business after the second match? Nevermind...

HHH - Are you going to argue that Taker came back to bury his new boss now?

CM Punk - Fresh off of a historic title reign, CM punk is given the only match that could rival Rock/Cena on the Wrestlemania card. Would you rather Punk wrestle Del Rio, or Ziggler, or Ryback?

The fact is, since he dropped to a part-time schedule, Taker has wrestled three opponents over the last five Wrestlemanias, and two of those three have been in the business since the 90s. Taker isn't coming back to bury anyone. If you don't personally like him, that's fine, you aren't required to. But if you think that your opinion (if it even is your real opinion and not just your flame-bait) outweighs the tens of thousands who wait in anticipation to find out who Taker will face each year, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

It is not a problem. Taker still wants to wrestle. Taker can still work a good match, and his fans still love to see him. From Vince's POV, he still draws. That's all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.

That. In a fucking nutshell.

Undertaker doesn't want to retire= He still wrestles.
He still wrestles to a very high standed = The fans still want to see him and the Streak.
The Streak sells tickets = Vince McMahon makes money.

It's nothing like Hogan and Flair who continued to wrestle far past their prime in horrible matches that pissed on their legacy. 'Taker can still go once or twice a year, and deserves to have the opportunity to do so.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Undertaker has been boring for a while now. His last really interesting and memorable feud and WM match was against Michaels. After that, it simply stopped being special IMO. The two matches with HHH simply failed to get me invested. At this point, there is nothing more disinteresting, overrated and hyped than Undertaker's wrestlemania streak. Oh wait, there's John Cena. There's also the rock. Hope he doesn't return. Could they not do better to Punk?

 

[BestWrestlingOpinions]

Knowing who you are, I am not surprised that you hate Undertaker.

Undertaker has been a legend. I will like him and accept him back any time, for the sole reason that every time he shows up at WM, he puts on classics. At the end of the day, this is what us fans want to see. Classics. Sorry, the Rock didn't produce classics, and probably Batista won't either. Lesnar had awesome matches with Cena and Punk. Jericho had awesome matches too. Taker too.

I'll take Taker over any other part timer any day.