Worse booking decision: The End Of The Streak

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

Which was the worse booking decision: Brock Lesnar ending The Undertaker's 21-0 Undefeated WrestleMania Streak or Kevin Nash ending Goldberg's 173-0 Undefeated Streak?

Both of these streaks could've done wonders for a young talent and made him an instant superstar but were wasted on already established stars who also aren't that high on the all-time greats list.


Which was the worse decision?




GOAT Pick:

I say Kevin Nash ending Goldberg's Streak.

WCW were struggling in the Monday Night Wars at the time. They only had one epic or memorable storyline and that's nWo vs WCW.

They had another one in Goldberg's undefeated Streak but instead of making a new superstar (which they really needed at the time) out of the end of his streak, they gave it to a guy who was already featured on the main event scene in the last 2 years.

 

[Steve-O-Matt]

Ooooo... great topic! Definitely something worth thinking about. I'm gonna have to go with Undertaker's streak because how it was built over the course of nearly a quarter of a century and feels like it just... stopped. I don't mind if it wasn't ended by a young guy, but someone far more valued than Brock Lesnar.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Picking between the two, for me, it'd easily be Kevin Nash ending Goldberg's streak.

As far as Lesnar ending Taker's streak at WrestleMania, every report I've read said that it was either Taker's decision or it was a decision that he readily went along with. Nobody expected it to happen, which is why the match will always be viewed as a WrestleMania classic even though the quality of it was FAR less than what the last 6 matches against Edge, Shawn Michaels, Triple H and CM Punk. It's one of these situations where it wasn't necessarily a business decision, but rather a personal one. Taker simply wasn't remotely up to snuff physically this time around, we've known for years that he's body has been rapidly breaking down, but this was the first year that he genuinely seemed as though he simply didn't have it. Some reports have alleged that he'd somehow injured himself a few days prior to the match as a means of explaining why he was much slower than usual. Even so, it was obvious that he wasn't in remotely the physical shape and condition he was 5 years ago. The past few years saw Taker as being less muscular than he'd been, but he was still in great cardiovascular shape. Against Lesnar, he just wasn't in shape at all. I appreciate the effort that he put into it, especially considering he suffered a concussion early on in the bout, but I don't think there can be anymore doubt that age has finally caught up to him. Exactly why Taker allegedly wanted Lesnar to be the one to end the streak back even several years go, I have no idea, but at least Lesnar appreciated it enough that he told him "thank you" after the match was over.

In the case of Goldberg's streak ending, it was just a flat out poor booking decision. Goldberg was the hottest thing going in WCW at the time. He wasn't the most charismatic and he certainly wasn't the best in the ring, but loads of fans simply clicked with the guy and the streak was one of the primary reasons. I think the greatness of Goldberg's streak has been pretty heavily overblown, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that it was working, it was making money and it made Goldberg stand out from the crowd. After the streak, he was just never really the same. Most people believe that there was still a LOT more money that could've been made had they continued to milk the streak. Goldberg had only been in WCW for a little over a year before the streak had ended and it was really only around March or April 1998 that WCW really began pushing the streak as a major deal. To compound the senselessness of Goldberg's streak ending, Kevin Nash dropped the title 8 days later to Hulk Hogan via the infamous Fingerpoke of Doom.

Taker's streak coming to an end simply doesn't damage him because he's almost certainly at the end of his career. Prior to his defeat against Lesnar, Taker had enjoyed a historic career that resulted in 7 World Championships, 7 World Tag Team Championships, winning the 2007 Royal Rumble and a highly original gimmick that he was able to help remain relevant & popular for well over 2 decades. Goldberg was really just only about 1.5 years into his career and while the streak obviously couldn't have gone on forever, it ended much too soon and there seemed to be no logical reason for it.

 

[TheICChampion]

Great topic, wish I could find out how to create these instead of just hoping that one will come along that I have an opinion about. I'd have to say the Undertaker's streak ending was the worse booking choice. Think about it. Wrestlemania just won't be the same without the streak. Granted, Undertaker can't go on forever, but IF he can go one more time (or even 2, given that 32 is supposed to be in Houston) think of how much bigger those two possible matches could be if the streak were still intact. Especially if one of those two challengers happened to be John Cena. Now, Cena vs. Taker is still a big deal, but if Taker still had the streak, then BAM. Instant sell-out. Just that match alone. Hell, you could have JTG vs. Yoshi Tatsu for the WWE title on that card (or insert 2 other irrelevant wrestlers here) and Mania would still sell out automatically. Now, that's not nearly enough. "We have John Cena vs.........THE UNDERTAKER at Wrestlemania!!!" Great. What else you got? Goldberg's streak was impressive, no doubt, but Goldberg hasn't been around for 24 years in the same company. Goldberg's wins didn't come on the biggest show your company puts on every year. Goldberg's streak wasn't the seller on the biggest ppv of the year. That's why Taker losing was the worse booking decision. Especially to a guy who shows up 3 (if we're lucky) times a year and quits every other week. At least Nash was a full-time guy who didn't disappear for several months after ending Goldberg's streak.

 

[closet_fan]

Both of these streaks could've done wonders for a young talent

And you know this for fact? Just because a younger talent beats Undertaker, it's not going to automatically catapult him to stardom. Yeah maybe it would have lasted for a few weeks. But just because he would have beat him doesn't automatically mean he'll become a star who has lasting power. Eventually people would forget about him.

It's just like people who think putting a belt on someone is going to help. Ummm no. It doesn't work that way. Outside of Cena, there is absolutely no one I could think of who would make the end of the streak seem legitimate outside of Lesnar.

 

[HeymanHustler]

Personally, I say Nash ending Goldberg's streak was worse.

In the case of Brock being the 1 in 21-1, I'm ok with it for a number of reasons. One being that the shock that came from that match reminded me why I enjoy watching wrestling to begin with. The fact that literally anything can happening in the industry and when the shock factor hits you, it hits as hard as the Titanic hitting the iceberg, it reminded me of why I became a fan as a kid. It's what has kept me a fan for all this time (though, admittedly, I stopped watching from 09-11 because the product became lackluster in my eyes, but that's another discussion for another day).

What makes Nash ending Goldberg's streak a bigger mistake is, well for starters, Nash booked himself to do it. The moment itself already felt cheap. Knowing he booked it himself makes it even more cheap and makes him look a little selfish. Also, booking wise, it elevates Nash's character to levels that he should never have been elevated to. By beating Goldberg and doing something not even Hulk Hogan could do, it put Nash on this high pedestal that says he's better than the top guys in WcW by beating this monster that destroyed every other legend but him and by booking himself to do it, it makes Nash look like he's got this big ego that thinks he's better than Hogan, Henning, DDP, The Giant, and all the other top stars who couldn't get the job done. You can't really say the same for Brock beating Taker because Taker was near the end of his career to begin with and no one was gonna believe that a 49 year old guy in eyeliner could beat a monster that has decimated all challengers since he returned (except Cena, but Cena's fucking Superman nowadays so that loss doesn't hurt Brock too badly). Even if I don't agree 100% with Brock winning (mainly because he's a part timer) the fact that it took a former UFC competitor in Brock Lesnar to do something no one else could in 22 years legitimizes The Streak a little bit.

In both cases, I don't agree with everyone saying a young guy should have beat either guy. That's too heavy of a gamble to take. Imagine if Brock ended The Streak at WM 20 or 19. The Streak wasn't as tremendous at that point, but it was still impressive. Imagine if Brock beat taker at WM20 and then he's gone by WM21 with it being questionable that he'll return or not. So much for The Next Big Thing, eh? Remember when a lot of people thought Punk would end The Streak last year? Where's Punk now? I don't know where he is now, but I don't know for sure if he'll be back in WWE before this year's over. You see what I'm talking about? With a Streak that big, an established guy should always get the win if the wrestler with The Streak has to lose. Even TNA, as problematic as that company has been for the last few years, understood that when they had Samoa Joe, who had a one or two year undefeated streak, lose his first match to Kurt Angle. Since Angle is established and Joe took Angle to the limit, they both came out the match looking good. Now, back to the Streaks at hand, I think we'll still be arguing whether or not Nash and Lesnar were the right established stars to end them, but I'm glad they were at least established stars. It's pretty awkward to see a young guy do something dozens of skilled veterans could not do.

 

[tak161]

Goldberg's streak ending ended up being bad booking, but from all reports I have seen, there was a legitimate reason behind it. Obviously, Goldberg was going to have to lose at some point, he couldn't go undefeated forever. So him losing was necessary to keep things interesting, because if he kept winning, who would really care to watch his matches when he never, ever got beat. I also have read and heard that there was indeed a plan for Goldberg after ending his streak, which was to have him run through the reformed NWO members one by one until he got to Hogan, winning the belt back and ending the NWO for good. However, he cut his arm open and was out for months, ending those plans.

With Undertaker, sure it did nothing for Brock but Taker just didnt have it anymore, and I guess it was time to end it. I believed the streak should never end, but there is the whole if you're going out, you go out staring at the lights. It's tradition, and if they knew this was going to be it for Taker, then I guess it was the right call to make.

As for which one was worse, it's hard to determine when all the factors are put in place. Goldberg's ended up bad because of the timing of events after it. Taker's is bad because no one really wanted to see it end. So all reconsidered, I'll say the worst booking decision was the end or Undertaker's streak.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I say Brock beating the Undertaker's Streak.

I don't really care about Goldberg, and from I have read about him, it was good to see him lose.

Goldberg's streak needed to end sometime. The belt couldn't stay on him forever. Also, from what I have read about Goldberg, he has little time for most in the industry, but one of his few friends is Kevin Nash. So, Goldberg would probably not go over to many other people other than Kevin Nash. Also, Nash's height and size makes it believable, rather than some small up-and-comer doing it.

Goldberg doesn't care about wrestling, so I don't care about his streak.

The WM Streak going was worse, but it was who it was to that really stinks. I have little respect for Brock Lesnar. Here is a guy who was given everything (RR win, WM main-event, KOTR, two title wins, the No. 1 guy on Smackdown etc), and he repayed the company to leave to pursue a failed football career. He then sold them out again by joining UFC, a rival to professional wrestling. Now, he comes back, gets paid more than most in the company, for less work. Now, he ends the Streak, and still works part-time. I would only let Lesnar beat the streak, if he committed to EVERY Raw, SD, PPVs, house shows, and even Main Event when needed. He is either in or out.

He beat a guy who has been more loyal to WWE than anyone, ever. Over twenty years, never jumped to WCW, has continued to wrestle for years after he needed to , to help out WWE. Undertaker gives back to WWE, Brock just takes and takes.

The only reason I could see Undertaker dropping the Streak is if he were finished, and being the professional that he is, did the age-old custom of going out on his back. If so, it wouldn't matter if it were Brock or even Santino Marella, Taker would do the professional thing.

If Taker lost the Streak, the only logical person to do it would be, IMO, Bray Wyatt. It would be putting over a new guy, who is a similar size. Also, Bray could be booked as Undertaker's equal, and mind games don't work on him. Also, Bray is kinda Undertaker-lite, so Taker could pass the torch to the new creepy, dark character in WWE. Roman Reigns would be second choice, because of his size and potential. But definitely not some meathead who only shows up half the time, and so doesn't respect the Streak he just beat.

 

[IT Factor]

Although a separate case could be argued for Goldberg's streak ending being the worse of the two booking decisions, I have to go with Taker's streak ending being the worse of the two.

I say that for so many reasons, not the least of which is the lack of any real build up or accompanying story. The Undertaker's WrestleMania streak was epic and will never be duplicated again in the history of WWE. It's not that I have a problem with Lesnar being the one to end it, because that part actually makes sense. Lesnar is a freak of nature and has a storied history with Taker from their 2003 feud on Smackdown or even their brief confrontation @ UFC. My whole issue is that there was quite literally no fitting story to why Taker's WM streak was ended at the hands of Brock Lesnar. It was a legit 2-4 week program in which they physically interacted maybe twice. There were no long monologues about why Lesnar wanted to be the one to end Taker's streak or no witty retorts with Taker claiming he'd beaten better men than Lesnar in the past or even no acknowledgement that he'd beaten Lesnar previously. WWE "creative" had all the backstory they needed to make this an epic end run for Taker and one of the best storylines in WWE history. But because they writers aren't remotely creative, they took the path of least resistance and gave us little effort and the end result showed that. I understand that Brock is a part timer and that Taker cannot do much physically but the program we got was nothing short of half-assed at best. Which is pretty much indicative of WWE mediocrity these days with nothing being what it possibly could be because these writers aren't fans of wrestling and don't know its history. It shows in everything they do and WWE are content with mediocre because there are no real competitive threats to them.

Say all you want about bad WCW booking but WWE has managed to match and even surpass the bad ideas WCW had, even in the Russo era. Which is saying something. For every Big Vito/Johnny The Bull/stereotypical Italian stable that WCW had, WWE has the stereotypical Los Matadores. For every midget WCW had, WWE has Hornswoggle and El Territo. For every 3 Count WCW had, WWE has 3MB. Point being is that while Goldberg/Nash was awful that Taker/Lesnar was equally bad and even worse when you consider Taker's legacy and history. A guy of his status should have had one hell of a storyline to end his streak, but we see what happened instead.....

 

[Pedigree1]

Picking between the two,it is easily the Nash Vs Goldberg streak..

That decision was just another example of why WCW wrasslin suffered its death.. Terrible booking decision the moment it happened.. Going into the match Goldberg was 173-0 that is amazing even against your local jobbers.. Goldberg destroyed the entire roster and was running laps around everyone at that time.. This decision made no sense,goldberg was still insanely over making hands over fist money wise.. This was simply,nothing more than Kevin flexing his muscles and it was a shit match at that.. Losing to a stun gun you kidding me??

To top that off,he was involved in that finger poke of doom match,what an insult to the WHC and to the wrestlers who held it in years past.. An utter disgrace.

The streak ending was a complete surprise to say the least.. But i can live with it,even if its lesnar.. Taker was just completely beat up,his years of wars in the ring finally caught up with him,it showed.. Taker for the first time ever looked slow,looked his age,and it was very painful to see re-watching the match.. It will forever be a WM moment and a classic moment,although the match was anything far from that

 

[covieo81]

Goldbergs streak ending at that time made no sense. Especially the way it was booked. Undertakers to me is completely fine. It makes the 21-0 he did have feel legit now. In a "fake" sport you need to have some semblence of realism. Lesnar to me anyways was the only legit guy to go with to beat takers streak. Its believable and like i said makes the streak feel more real. Every type of streak has to end. Goldbergs though did nothing for anyone and in the end imo hurt him. It was never the same since.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Goldberg, easily. Physically, Goldberg was in his prime, and popularity wise, Goldberg was white hot. It made no sense what so ever to end his streak with a ridiculous finish (that fucking cattle prod).

Unfortunately, injuries and Father Time caught up with Taker towards the end. Another problem big problem with The Streak: mundane predictability. Sure, everyone was stuck in a state of shock after the 1-2-3 at the Superdome, but pay close attention to that crowd during the match. You got the feeling they were just waiting for the match to be over, so Taker could celebrate 22-0, and move on with the rest of the show.

Myself and others on here dismissed Taker VS Lesnar and 22-0 as a foregone conclusion, because year after year Taker always found a way to survive at Mania. With a few more years tacked on, The Streak would reach a ridiculous point, because you're really stretching suspension of disbelief to believe in a battered Taker walking into Wrestlemania year after year to take out the top guys in WWE.

Wrestlemania XXX is the first time in years, where Taker truly looked beat up, old, and worn out. If you continue The Streak year after year with poor quality matches for the sake of padding Taker's win count, you're devaluing The Streak and The Undertaker's legacy.

 

[JJ15776]

The fact that this is even a question, let alone the fact that it's not unanimous, makes me a very sad panda. I died a little inside when I saw 8 people voted for Undertaker's streak, and I feel like somebody is punching me on every side of my head when I read the replies trying to support that choice.

There's literally nothing about Undertaker's streak ending that makes it worse than Goldberg's streak ending. Every argument you make for Undertaker's streak being worse is also equally applicable to Goldberg's streak ending, and several things that aren't true of Undertaker's streak also apply to Goldberg's streak, none of which are positives.

Goldberg's streak was just as historic as Undertaker's streak. Nash had just as little to gain from ending it as Lesnar. Unlike Goldberg, Undertaker's at the end of his career. Unlike Goldberg, we know for a 100% fact that Undertaker hand chose Lesnar to end his streak. (When they say it was Vince's decision, they mean it was his decision to agree to Undertaker's request.) Unlike Goldberg, this was Undertaker's last match, so the termination of the streak will have no impact whatsoever on Undertaker. Unlike Undertaker, Goldberg's streak was ended in an insanely stupid fashion, not only involving interference but the use of a taser.

Ending Goldberg's streak, and ending it the way they did, is universally regarded as one of the worst booking decisions in the history of professional wrestling. Ending Undertaker's streak is regarded, among intelligent people anyway, as a perfectly acceptable decision. These two decisions are light years apart. This question is like asking who is/was the worse manager, Zeb Coulter or Daivari.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Life goes on, I wish the Taker's Mania streak lasted because I don't think the right guy got it, I mean with Lesnar there might be that eventual payoff with someone like Cesaro beating him. The idea of Cesaro beating the man who beat the man, it has potential, I hope that pays off.

I would say that this decision was worse than Goldberg's streak ending, don't get me wrong that could have been done better, but knowing Lesnar's past, I have little faith in how they'll utilize this bragging right. Just my opinion though, Lesnar's a Houdini, in that he's just a natural at disappearing.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I think it's obvious that what The Undertaker represented in the WWE was an entire brand on his own, he WAS a brand, just as the multiplicity of epithets such as The Phenom and The Big Dog in the yard. Contrasting that to the talent and contribution of one Bill Goldberg, his streak, and Kevin Nash, they don't match up or equal the importance The Undertaker has had in pro wrestling, whether it be generally, or in relation to "the streak".

Quite frankly, Goldberg beating N number of enhancement talent on TV doesn't make it as special as a Wrestlemania streak, even though half of The Undertaker's opponents were really not that special. The speciality in the Undertaker's streak comes from his quality, his presence, his reputation, his mere entrance at Wrestlemania and the spectacle that it contained. The Undertaker's speciality was the number of great matches he's had at Wrestlemania, and the calibre of opponents he has won against.

Thus, IMO, Brock Lesnar ending the streak was the worse decision, because it's the wrong guy, and a part-timer at that. Even if it felt special/unthinkable for the time-being, Lesnar having ended the streak is in no way utilizable to enhance Brock's reputation or elevate him in a storyline than a mere mention of an accolade. To be honest, Brock Lesnar already was like a mountain of accolades. Had Punk ended the streak instead and stuck around, it'd have been an entirely different matter....

 

[Dagger Dias]

The worse decision was Kevin Nash ending Goldberg's streak, easily. Neither Nash nor Lesnar needed either of these moments. Both could have been used to give huge pushes to wrestlers who NEEDED the momentum that ending one of these streaks could have given them. Undertaker's in particular could have been used to help fuel a massive heel turn in a top face. That ship has now sailed. While I disagree with Lesnar ending Undertaker's undefeated streak at Wrestlemania, he made more sense in ending that streak than Nash did in ending Goldberg's. That made absolutely no sense and to this day I am still upset at that decision. They ruined the chance to make a huge star, and at the time it would have benefited them greatly to use that opportunity to make a new star by building up someone who NEEDED a win against Goldberg to elevate that wrestler straight to the top. Nash was arguably the last person I would have picked to end Goldberg's streak.

 

[Big Al]

How about neither.

I didn't like the buildup or the actual match but having Brock Lesnar end the streak was not a bad decision at all. The streak had to be broken eventually. It wouldn't make sense for the Undertaker to just walk away from the WWE being 22-0 and leaving his legacy open-ended like that without someone benefitting from beating Taker. There needed to be that jaw dropping moment that we got at WM30. If nothing else, WWE played it perfectly when it came to shock factor. No one expected Taker to lose and I can't help but think they intentionally made the buildup lackluster just so no one would see it coming, and i'll take the big WM moment over a great buildup any day. To say that Undertaker should have lost to an unestablished up and comer is foolish. You really want to take the chance on the person to end the streak not becoming a huge flop? I'm sure WWE didn't. This is a moment they want to show for years to come. What if a few years ago they decided that Mr. Kennedy goes over Taker at WM? How would that look now? What if just a couple years ago they picked the guy who was the #1 heel in the company who was absolutely on fire at the time and seemed destined for superstardom to go over Taker? Yeah, the Miz. You would want that? Lesnar was a fine choice.

Personally I don't think Goldberg's end to his streak was bad either. The finish could have certainly been better but Goldberg already had beaten everyone there was to beat. I guess they could have went with a young guy because I think that could have worked better in this situation as opposed to Taker's, but who though?

 

[oneofakind318]

Goldberg by a mile for reasons that have already been mentioned. He was white hot, in his prime and he was the focus of the product. He was their unquestioned #1 attraction and at that point there was more to lose than gain from ending his streak. Plus, the fingerpoke of doom follow up was just ridiculous. Maybe if they pushed Kevin Nash in a more serious way and let Goldberg chase him they could have turned into something, but the planning and execution was awful.

As for the Undertaker, while I personally would have preferred to see the streak continue, it doesn't hurt a guy the company is selling week in and week out. Will Wrestlemania be the same without the streak? Of course not. But how many more Wrestlemania do people legitimately believe the Undertaker has in him? If he's not on the show defending the streak, then the streak isn't relevant to the show, so it doesn't mean much at that point anyway.

By the same token, it gives Brock Lesnar some credibility and perhaps more importantly it gives Paul Heyman credibility as a mastermind. In many ways the streak could live on (or at least be relevant to the show) if Lesnar is committed to working future Wrestlemanias. It can also live on through Heyman and future wrestlers he's paired with if the follow up is executed well. Time will tell on that, of course.

 

[baufan2025]

Kevin Nash... prime example of why an active wrestler should never be the head booker.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

And you know this for fact? Just because a younger talent beats Undertaker, it's not going to automatically catapult him to stardom. Yeah maybe it would have lasted for a few weeks. But just because he would have beat him doesn't automatically mean he'll become a star who has lasting power. Eventually people would forget about him.

Agreed if reports some years ago was right Vince McMahon was penciling in for Ted Debiase to end Undertaker's streak. This was the time WWE was super high on young Ted and he was being groomed as the next Randy Orton. Imagine if Ted Debiase did end the streak, would that have made Ted Debiase? What I am thinking is that it could give him a temporary boost but he would have ended up where he was now. So yeah giving a younger guy, especially if unproven, to end the streak does not guarantee it will help him.

At least for Brock Lesnar ending it's believable that he was able to end the streak because of his legit credentials. Add that to the fact that his does not only help Lesnar's credibility but also Paul Heyman as the "go to" manager and being associated with him helps almost every talent.

As for Goldberg's streak, that was the bigger and only mistake of the two. Looking at the guys Goldberg defended the title against and how he was usually not the main event in PPV there was more time to milk him as an undefeated Champion. Goldberg's streak was special, Goldberg was special back in 1998, at the time it was obvious WWF was gaining ground against WCW fast. WCW's only weapon to counter WWF's popularity was Goldberg sure WCW had Bret Hart, Nash, etc. but Goldberg was and his streak was something WCW could build a long term angle or plan on.

I still don't get why Hogan wasn't just included at the Starcade card. They should have had just Nash vs. Goldberg vs. Hogan as a Three Way Dance at Starcade, representing The Wolf Pack, WCW, and Black and White respectively. Goldberg would win of course and keep his streak. Though with this angle I can see Goldberg's streak ending to continue (and finally end) the nWo angle.

 

[Aquaman6686]

Brock Lesnar ending Undertaker's Streak, not a shadow of a doubt. It is THE worst booking decision in wrestling history in my eyes. Not because The Streak ended, but because of who ended it. Lesnar was the absolute wrong choice to do it. Having a part-timer who left WWE on bad terms to compete in other sports be given the biggest accolade in wrestling history was an insult to the entire roster and the entire industry of sports-entertainment. The only person who benefits from Lesnar ending The Streak is Paul Heyman. Undertaker's legacy was destroyed for no reason, Lesnar gains nothing from it because he's only around a few times a year, so he gains no increase in his marketability or image, it was just an absolute waste.

 

[HatchetMan84]

Brock Lesnar ending Undertaker's Streak, not a shadow of a doubt. It is THE worst booking decision in wrestling history in my eyes. Not because The Streak ended, but because of who ended it. Lesnar was the absolute wrong choice to do it. Having a part-timer who left WWE on bad terms to compete in other sports be given the biggest accolade in wrestling history was an insult to the entire roster and the entire industry of sports-entertainment. The only person who benefits from Lesnar ending The Streak is Paul Heyman. Undertaker's legacy was destroyed for no reason, Lesnar gains nothing from it because he's only around a few times a year, so he gains no increase in his marketability or image, it was just an absolute waste.

It seems even dumber now in hindsight because WWE unexplainably has went away from Lesnar again. You would think he would be in the hunt right away for a title or something, but as others pointed out, Lesnar is only wrestling a few times a year, and some rumors say he won't be back until Summerslam or Survivor Series...

 

[lil steroid meat]

I'd definitely say Kevin Nash ending the Goldberg streak. Didn't he beat him with a taser or some shit lol? It was a ridiculous moment and like you said they needed the new star.

I wouldn't say the Undertaker's streak should have went to a new star, it just should have went to someone that they could use more frequently than Brock Lesnar (not to mention his contract is done after WM31). I think it was the perfect time to turn Cena heel and rejuvenate his character.

I somewhat see the logic in Brock being the guy kayfabe-wise (a former UFC champion was the ONLY person capable of doing it) and the WWE can still salvage and benefit off of Brock beating Taker. The next person to beat Lesnar is a made man. The same couldn't be said for the guy who beat Nash after ending Goldberg's streak.

 

[toon126]

As time has passed I actually love how Taker's streak ended. I was one of those "it should never be broken" guys and was as stunned as everyone when it happened. But... That moment was something that took 21 years to create. To get to THAT moment where an entire audience was jaw dropped, the raw emotion of it all, it really was one of TV's finest moments in my eyes.

The whole argument of 'Brock is never there, he doesn't benefit from it' is irrelevant to me. Lesnar is the single biggest legitimate threat to that streak and indeed anyone he faces. Fact is if he couldn't break the streak, then who could? Whether Taker wanted it to end, or whatever was going on that day, Lesnar was the best person to do it because of his background and character.

WWE achieved something at WM30 that would be the envy to all TV studios, they created a real moment of pure emotion that so many other companies and shows can only dream of. Taker doesn't have a career after the loss like Goldberg did. Taker is not hurt by the loss, Brock is elevated by it without any risk of it all being for nothing as he will always be an established mega star.

Ending Taker's streak was a 21 year build up (albeit unintentional to begin with) that was perfectly executed. Will we ever feel that emotion again? Goldberg's loss was very short sighted. They wanted to shock, but the who/who/when was very poorly thought out.

 

[d_henderson1810]

As time has passed I actually love how Taker's streak ended. I was one of those "it should never be broken" guys and was as stunned as everyone when it happened. But... That moment was something that took 21 years to create. To get to THAT moment where an entire audience was jaw dropped, the raw emotion of it all, it really was one of TV's finest moments in my eyes.

The whole argument of 'Brock is never there, he doesn't benefit from it' is irrelevant to me. Lesnar is the single biggest legitimate threat to that streak and indeed anyone he faces. Fact is if he couldn't break the streak, then who could? Whether Taker wanted it to end, or whatever was going on that day, Lesnar was the best person to do it because of his background and character.

WWE achieved something at WM30 that would be the envy to all TV studios, they created a real moment of pure emotion that so many other companies and shows can only dream of. Taker doesn't have a career after the loss like Goldberg did. Taker is not hurt by the loss, Brock is elevated by it without any risk of it all being for nothing as he will always be an established mega star.

Ending Taker's streak was a 21 year build up (albeit unintentional to begin with) that was perfectly executed. Will we ever feel that emotion again? Goldberg's loss was very short sighted. They wanted to shock, but the who/who/when was very poorly thought out.

But unless Brock Lesnar appears EVERY week, and is being primed to be the most dominant man in WWE, leading to an eventual WWE Title reign, then what is the point?

I heard that Brock's contract was up around WMXXX, and he signed for another two years. When he beat the Streak, I thought that maybe he was going to be full-time, and this was a way of launching him for a major push, but his pushes are stop-start, because he doesn't care about wrestling, only the Wrestlemania and Summerslam paydays.

If a new guy hadn't beaten the Streak, then I can think of one guy who it would have been fitting to do it- KANE!

I know that UT-Kane has been done at both WM14 and WMXXX, but they had Austin-Rock three times.

Kane would have been more suitable, since he was a character based around the Undertaker's origins. Being his storyline brother, and one of his greatest opponents, it made sense. Also, it would have made sense for Kane to don the mask again.

Maybe Undertaker should have come on Raw pre-WMXXX, and confronted Corporate Kane, and chastised him for what he has become- no longer the "Devil's favourite Demon", but a man wearing a suit- Triple H's bitch. Undertaker should ask where the Kane he used to fight was? This should anger Kane, and force him into donning the mask and going on the warpath. He would then defeat the Undertaker at WM, which would bring a fitting ending to the UT-Kane feud once and for all, and then it would give Kane more credibility in his feud with DB over the WWE Title (as Bryan has to beat the guy who ended the Streak to keep his title, making the threat bigger). But all having Brock Lesnar do it achieves is giving Heyman bragging rights.

For me, I would have had someone like Kane or Bray Wyatt do it, or have had HBK do it as WM26, and keep his career going.