Wrestlemania without Shawn or Undertaker

[Ferbian]

I had a thought, watching the promo for Shawn Michaels latest DVD release under the WWE banner (yes I know he has no movies in other forms, but don't put your focus on that) and I began thinking, what if there had never been a Shawn Michaels, a Showstopper, a Mr Wrestlemania?

On the other hand, I had the thought, that certainly Undertaker could carry the magnitude of Wrestlemania with him without a Shawn Michaels at each Wrestlemania.

But could the current Wrestlemania, the Wrestlemania we've been seeing in the 00's and now entering the 10's, could it really be of the same magnitude if we didn't know we'd be able to tune in to watch another youngster or established superstar trying to make a name for himself challenging The Phenom The Undertaker's Undefeated streak.
Or Shawn Michaels making a huge entrance only John Cena constantly attempts to either overdo or duplicate (yes I love John Cena's Wrestlemania entrances, WWE puts heart into his entrances alongside Shawn Michaels' entrances, and I bow to that) putting on MOTY candidate matches every year for the past 6 years (Wrestlemania XIX -> XXV) and a no doubt 7th straight candidate and most likely winner.

Certainly I know we're most likely gonna have to face the fact that we won't be seeing that kind of Wrestlemania in what could easily be 1.. 2 years, more is a possibility too, but looking at the physical situation of both Shawn and Undertaker, I have my doubts we'll be seeing both in a fully active role by 2011-2012.

So I ask you, would the current magnitude of Wrestlemania be the same without Shawn Michaels, HBK, and The deadman The Undertaker, the very two people who has put on amazing memorable matches for what this year will become the 3rd decade of their careers.
Or would the current roster, minus HBK and The Undertaker still be able to draw the same way?

lets take the current Wrestlemania 26 card, now remove the Streak Vs the career Undertaker VS Shawn, and look at the card again, did your feeling about the PPV just loose a bit of magnitude and excitement?

Let me hear your thoughts people.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

My excitement will still be the same even if Taker and HBK weren't fighting. In most people's minds the most anticipated match will be Hart/McMahon because of all the history behind it. You have HHH/Sheamus, Cena/Batista, Edge/Jericho, and possibly Punk/Mysterio and the fact that HBK and Taker fought last year, this time it will be just another match to me. I'm worried that it is a bit too stacked and hope that they lay out the card perfectly with filler matches in between since they are going four hours long. If Undertaker and HBK weren't fighting, I wouldn't be less excited than I am now because I'm not looking forward to that match unlike the others.

 

[Ferbian]

It's not mainly about the fact that Undertaker and Shawn is fighting this year, It's just an example for showing a card where the fact that Shawn Michaels, or The Undertaker weren't on it, or both (hence choosing Wrestlemania 26 because they're both in there at the same match, easy to remove quickly then) and then look at the Wrestlemania again, and would you say Kenan that lets say, the highly praised Kurt angle Vs Shawn Michaels, or Shawn Michaels vs Chris Benoit vs Triple H, any of those matches, wouldn't the magnitude have been odd without the Kurt vs Shawn match, or if it was just a Triple H vs Chris Benoit match?

 

[Checkmate]

I think Wrestlemania 26 would lose a little gusto without Shawn vs Taker II, however, it would still be one hell of a card. One could argue that looking at the card with the match then without it taints the opinion a tad, but I'll look past that. Obviously, adding a high profile match that is a sequel to a match of the year is a plus no matter how you look at it, so yes, subtracting said match would be a loss in the eyes of a fan.

As to the "what if" Michaels and/or Taker didn't exist, never got pushed, different gimmicks, etc., I'd have to say that most Manias that featured one or the other would drastically have differed. Wrestlemanias 9 and 11 are often regarded as two of the worst Manias ever, but some others, like Wrestlemania 12 and 25, are salvaged because of the performance of one (if not both) of these men.

Without Michaels, we lose:

vs Ramon (10)
vs Hart (12)
vs Austin (14)
vs Jericho (19)
vs HHH vs Benoit (20)
vs Angle (21)
vs Cena (23)
vs Flair (24)
vs Taker (25)

Think about each Wrestlemania without those matches. Some, like 20 and 21, were really well praised matches that boosted the overall card. Without Michaels, these events may have suffered.

Undertaker's big legacy at Mania is his streak. His matches aren't always of the highest caliber, but that is mainly due to his opponents and poorly booked feuds. However, he still had memorable moments, such as:

vs Kane (14)
vs HHH (17)
vs Orton (21)
vs Batista (23)
vs Edge (24)
vs Michaels (25)

Again, some events would just lose some of the big event feel without the Undertaker.

Another major thing that may be missed are the promos and feuds leading up to these matches. Both Michaels and Taker cut amazing (yet different) promos, and both have the credibility to elevate just about anyone. I think this may be missed more than anything else, as it leaves a void to be filled on both RAW and Smackdown to fill the space on the card.

Yes, they will be missed. Yes, things would have been different without them. Yes, if Taker/Michaels somehow got dropped from the WM 26 card, it would be noticed.

 

[Depakote]

I dont even want to think about future Wrestlemanias without the Undertaker. After 17 years of watching this man perform at the same event, its hard for me to imagine a Wrestlemania being the same without him. It just wouldnt feel the same.

And whats this talk about Undertaker's matches not being high caliber? There are only 2 matches out of 17 that were not the best. WM 9 where he faced Giant Gonzales, and WM 22 when he faced Mark Henry. Both of these matches were limited by the Gonzales and Henry's ability or lack thereof. Dont forget how he beat Jimmy Snuka, Jake the Snake, King Kong Bundy, Diesel, Sid, Bossman, HHH, Flair....

I remember HBK losing WM more than winning. The only win that stands out is the Iron Man match at WM 12. Let's not forget about how he faked an injury just to avoid doing the job to Hart at WM 13. He's had more history of only being out for himself than what he has as this born-again Christian we see now. Meanwhile, Undertaker carried the company while HBK was faking injuries, breaking kayfabe to pose for the cameras with his Clique buddies, and generally watching out for himself.

I dont want to take anything away from HBK. He's a great performer, but when it comes to Wrestlemania, the Undertaker's legacy is overall much more prestigious than anything HBK accomplished. (my opinion)

 

[thebrownmenace]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Depakote. I know that the streak will be something that will never again be reproduced, but the matches that taker has had at mania aren't as spectacular as the one's shawn has had. In fact some of his matches(i.e Giant Gonzales, which was just an utter piece.) are closer to being the worst match on the card. Looking at this from a pretty unbiased viewpoint I would have to say that Shawn has made Wrestlemanias far more entertaining than they would have been without him. Maybe the guy was a prick backstage and disrespected a great number of "legends", but the bottom line is that when he is out under the bright lights he shines like very few others can. Give the devil his due, we all know that his matches with Jericho, Angle, Taker, Benoit and HHH, Bret Hart, Razor Ramon, even Ric Freaking Flair have all been match of the year candidates and winners.

Taker is phenomenal, no doubt, but at the grandest stage of them all he has not always performed to the best of his abilities. Lets put it this way, if it were not for the streak, would you really care about him taking on Albert and Big Show or Mark Henry? I pay my 45 dollars year after year to see who thinks they can steal the show and most times it is HBK, so he gets the nod in my book.

 

[ted sheckler]

And whats this talk about Undertaker's matches not being high caliber? There are only 2 matches out of 17 that were not the best. WM 9 where he faced Giant Gonzales, and WM 22 when he faced Mark Henry. Both of these matches were limited by the Gonzales and Henry's ability or lack thereof. Dont forget how he beat Jimmy Snuka, Jake the Snake, King Kong Bundy, Diesel, Sid, Bossman, HHH, Flair....

The way I see it with the undertaker is he's had some great matches but he's had an equal number of stinkers too..

Bad Matches:
Giant Gonzalez
King Kong Bundy
Bossman
A train and Bigshow
Kane WM20
Mark Henry

Great Matches:
HHH
Orton
Batista
Edge
HBK

The rest all fall somewhere around average.

I dont want to take anything away from HBK. He's a great performer, but when it comes to Wrestlemania, the Undertaker's legacy is overall much more prestigious than anything HBK accomplished. (my opinion)

With all respect to the Undertaker I don't see it that way at all. Takers legacy at wrestlemania is based on the fact that the writers of the show booked Taker to win 17 years in a row. Thats like congratulating James Bond because he never loses at Poker in his movies...

Michaels is called Mr Wrestlemania for a reason.. Whether he's booked to win..or get pinned or tap he goes out there and steals the show almost every wrestlemania he's ever performed in. The Ladder Match..The Iron Man Match... vs Jericho.. vs HHH and Benoit.. vs Angle... vs Flair.. vs Taker...The guy produces classics.

 

[Depakote]

I do agree that Michaels is one hell of a performer and makes the best out of any booking. Although, whispering in McMahon's ear all these years couldnt have hurt at all as far has how one gets booked. I wonder what an Iron Man match with HBK vs the Giant Gonzales wouldve been like. Would he have stolen the show? What about if he fought Mark Henry at WM? Would he steal the show then? Nope because he would be wrestling against craptastic wrestlers who dont belong on the card in the first place. Granted, HBK would still come out looking good just like 'Taker did against those guys, but not great. Two great wrestlers make each other look better than a great wrestler paired with a bad one. This is why last year's WM match between 'Taker and HBk was so good was because both are great. Its one of the reasons why we're seeing it again this year. The other reason being that creative didnt know what to do with either of them this year so they went with whats already been proven to be money.

Undertaker goes out every year and does his job. The Streak wasnt his idea and he doesnt care how it ends. He never suggested it or pitched the idea to Vince. Years ago, he didnt convince McMahon that McMahon was old and needed to listen to a younger man's ideas in order to keep the show fresh, like how HBK did. Undertaker has stayed out of the backstage politics and has busted his ass for the company and has no qualms with doing whats best for business, even if that means going 17-1. This is why he deserves to keep the Streak. Beyond that, here is why he will keep the streak: its McMahon's creation. The Undertaker is by far the most successful of Vince's creations just by sheer staying power alone.(Hogan wasnt made by VKM, but rather VJM, Vince's dad) HBK is a self-made man, but thats not a good thing. Yes he's at the top now, but the way he got there was less than honorable, and he himself has since admitted it.

Now dont get me wrong; I dont think HBK is the same d-bag that he used to be. I believe people can change. I believe he is sincere in his convictions. However I dont think that atones for everything that he's done enough to merit ending the streak this late in his career. Its too high of an honor to pin the Undertaker at Wrestlemania and it shouldnt go to someone who's hair is thining and is on the verge of retirement.

I dont care if the Undertaker has been booked to win the last 17 matches and thats the only reason why he won. Duh. Thats how wrestling works. If you dont like the booking, blame the booker. Thats why I dont hold it against Undertaker that his match with Gonzales was bad. I'd love to see HBK do better against that giant ******. Do you know who HBK wrestled the same night at WM 9? He LOST to TATANKA. But I wont say that HBK is bad because of it. That's how he was booked. So lets not devalue the Undertaker's streak just because VKM booked it. But 'Taker hasnt been kissing the boss's ass all these years so he can have a say in how he's booked. The Undertaker has earned that right. Its something HBK didnt do and thats why HBK has said the one guy he respects the most in the locker room is the Undertaker.

Undertaker isnt a 16 time world champ. He didnt put the Iron Man match and the Ladder match on the map. He wont even be remembered for his time spent holding a belt. The only thing he has is the Streak. HBK has tons of accolades that he will be remembered for. He doesnt need to end the streak. He's called Mr. Wrestlemania because he puts on a great match whether he wins or loses. So if he loses this time around, he'll still be Mr.Wrestlemania, just like last year.

To stay on topic with the thread though, I think its interesting to note that both the Undertaker and HBK are the only two wrestlers left that were on the first episode of Raw. Both of these guys will go down as two of the greats whether you like them or not. They will put on one hell of a match this year, just like they did last year. No matter who wins, the night will belong to both of them. Wrestlemania's success has been built on the backs of these men and I just cant imagine what Wrestlemania would be like today if neither of the two had ever stepped into the squared circle.

 

[Ferbian]

Undertaker goes out every year and does his job.

So is Shawn Michaels, certainly he had his problems doing some matches back in the 90's but that doesn't mean he didn't do it, just look at the Montreal Screwjob, he did it for Vince and the business.
Besides I have my doubts Shawn has complained about going out to do a match with anybody in the past few years, except for Hulk Hogan, but I really can't blame him on that one.

He never suggested it or pitched the idea to Vince. Years ago, he didnt convince McMahon that McMahon was old and needed to listen to a younger man's ideas in order to keep the show fresh, like how HBK did.

Perhaps because Undertaker didn't do that, he didn't get the chance to be a part of putting over the younger talents as much as Shawn Michaels has, certainly you can argue "oh but Undertaker put over Batista and Randy Orton at Wrestlemania" well lets look who Shawn put over at Wrestlemania.
Stone Cold Steve Austin
Chris Jericho (yes I consider Chris being put over in that match)
John Cena (he didn't need it, but he sure as hell hasn't looked that golden in the ring as he did wrestling Shawn)
And then there's also the amount of wrestlers he's put over without facing them at Wrestlemania, but I won't get into that list right now.

Undertaker has stayed out of the backstage politics and has busted his ass for the company and has no qualms with doing whats best for business, even if that means going 17-1.

How do you know Undertaker stayed out of backstage politics?
And as I mentioned earlier, Shawn didn't have any qualms in doing what's best for the business neither, reference again to the Montreal Screwjob.
I've heard Shawn Michaels talking in his DVD Heartbreak and Triumph about how he had arguments with Vince backstage and how either one of them would always end up going "Fine I'll do it, but I don't like it" and that was Shawn, certainly he was rebellious back then and had his problems with doing certain things, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he did that.
In case you forgot, Shawn Wrestled from Royal Rumble 98 -> Wrestlemania 14 with a broken back?
And yes you can argue "oh but Austin wrestled with a broken neck, so did Kurt Angle, and Undertaker is wrestling with nagging injuries" Well so is Shawn, or well I don't know how nagging his injuries is, but I have my doubts he's wrestling with a 100% fine body.

(Hogan wasnt made by VKM, but rather VJM, Vince's dad)

No he wasn't made by Vincent Kennedy McMahon, but VKM certainly put Hogan on the map so much more than VJM ever did.
I mean come on, VJM had Hogan run a heel run, only to eventually be out of the company over wrestling in Japan and later AWA, thats when VKM brought him in and made him what he is today, so I would give VKM more credit than VJM.

 

[Marko Markovic]

Well,in my opinion if it wasnt Shawn or Undertaker,it would be somebody else.Somebody wrote on this forum that if Owen Hart didnt die he would be "the game" , not HHH.I know it sounds silly but my opinion is that if Shawn wasnt "the showstoper" or Undertaker "phenom" it would be somebody else

They both had/have the crucial impact on wrestlemania history but Undertaker has more simply because of "streak" thing.Shawn is "Mr.wrestlemania" because of his great matches(arguable even greater than Undertakers) but when you say wrestlemania I think Taker.Shawn will retire soon but I can see Undertaker on wrestlemania 30 as regular,prehaps even after his retirement he can do some wrestlemania match to some future star

As for Undertaker influence:Michelle Mccool anyone? Yes,I know that divas suck anyway in wrestling matches and that it doesnt mather who is champion but still her push was probably(you never know for sure) because her relationship with Undertaker.I agree that Shawn probably has more influence(they dont reffer Drew Mcintyre as young Shawn Michaels for nothing) but both of them are influental in company

 

[MizMark]

WM 26 would lose something, of course it would, but it would still be an awesome show. Just look at the other matches
Hart v. McMahon - So much history there, a lot of old school fans will be marking the fuck out for this.
Cena v. Batista - It will top their match at Summerslam and I thought it was a really good match.
Edge v. Jericho - Will this steal the show? On any other card this would hands down be the best match of the night.
Punk v. Rey - This will be pure awesome. The best heel in WWE right now against their biggest underdog.
MITB - Spotfest that as always is awesome.

The other couple of matches, Legacy's triple threat match, Sheamus v. HHH and the tag title one will all bring something to the table too. I new ME star will be born in Sheamus, we'll see the conclusion to the Legacy storyline and we'll have the Miz, who is hot at the moment defending the tag titles. I'd have prefered Miz v. Morrison, but that leaves alot of singles matches, so this will do me just fine.

 

[mister_b1LL]

I'm gonna take the latter two of your questions as only a couple people have answered them.

As far as the current roster keeping up when Undertaker and Michaels retire, I think they can still draw without them. In the short term, viewership my drop a little bit, but our generation and younger are pretty good at moving on and just accepting the fact that they are gone. Michaels and Undertaker haven't really been putting themselves in high profile feuds for a long while. Sure Taker has won a couple titles recently, but his reigns have been far from stellar, and he has been dropping it to either the current future leaders of the WWE. As for Michaels, he hasn't had the title in years and the biggest feud he has had was with Jericho, and that was about two years ago. They've been pretty good at keeping themselves out of the spotlight while still maintaining awesome matches and great moments. And because of this I still feel that the current roster can still move on without them.

When it comes to WrestleMania 26. If Michaels/Undertaker wasn't on the card, I wouldn't cry over it. The card, on paper, still looks very good, miles and miles better than last year's card. We got Cena/Batista II, which is the match I'm most looking forward to seeing due to the great buildup, Edge/Jericho, which could be a great Title match even if we already know who's gonna win that one, Hart/McMahon, which is the match I'm sure a lot of y'all want to see, a really good looking Money In The Bank cast, HHH/Sheamus which is one I'm pulling for Sheamus to win, and Mysterio/Punk which has the potential to make a great match. Even without Michaels/Undertaker, WWE has more than compensated for it. I'm pumped for WM26.

 

[Depakote]

So is Shawn Michaels, certainly he had his problems doing some matches back in the 90's but that doesn't mean he didn't do it, just look at the Montreal Screwjob, he did it for Vince and the business.

Oh if he really had a problem with someone, he didnt do the match. He was supposed to do the job to Hart at WM 13, but he faked a knee injury. He let his pride and ego come before the business, not that he was the first or the last to do that. I'm just saying that the Undertaker has earned a reputation all these years that has even HBK admiring him and respecting him more than anyone else in the locker room.

How do you know Undertaker stayed out of backstage politics?
And as I mentioned earlier, Shawn didn't have any qualms in doing what's best for the business neither, reference again to the Montreal Screwjob.

I have yet to hear a former WWE employee shoot on the Undertaker and say anything but positive things about him. They always shoot on HBK, HHH, and their Kliq buddies when it comes to backstage politics. 'Oh and dont use the Screwjob as an example of HBK doing whats best for the business because there is a conflict of interest there for HBK. It was another chance for him to get one over on Hart. I bet Vince didnt even get to finish his sentence before HBK agreed to do it.

No he wasn't made by Vincent Kennedy McMahon, but VKM certainly put Hogan on the map so much more than VJM ever did.
I mean come on, VJM had Hogan run a heel run, only to eventually be out of the company over wrestling in Japan and later AWA, thats when VKM brought him in and made him what he is today, so I would give VKM more credit than VJM.

You dont understand. There was this thing between VKM and his dad. It doesnt matter how much of a success Hogan became because of VKM; its the fact that Hogan wasnt originally his idea. Its silly but thats how VKM is when it comes to trying to prove himself to his dad. Its why VKM was so high on the Ultimate Warrior because it was VKM's idea. As soon as the Warrior was even remotely over with the fans, Vince was already envisioning replacing Hogan with Warrior.

The list is very, very short when it comes to wrestlers who have made it big and werent one of Vince's ideas. Most guys get buried by Vince's creations. Thats why Sting never went over to WWE. If given the chance, Vince will make his own creations look better than anyone else in the business.

Michael Hickenbottom has been going by Shawn since he was a kid. The Shawn Michaels ring name was his idea. "The Heartbreak Kid" nickname was Curt Hennig's idea. The direction of the HBK character has been guided by Shawn throughout most of his career in the WWE. The character is just as much his as it is VKM's. But the Undertaker is 100% Vince's.

For me, this upcoming match is the highlight of the card. I know both performers will put on another show stealing performance. They are two of the best story tellers in that ring and I'm looking forward to seeing it. I'm not that pumped for Edge/Jericho. Seems too rushed. Cena vs. Batista? Its a no-brainer. Creative has run out of people to have these two feud with and they havent really feuded with each other all that much. Just because its not as beaten to death as all the other programs they put Cena in isnt enough to make me want to see the match. Money in the Bank will be a spotfest clusterfuck but should be enjoyable regardless. Mysterio vs. Punk will be a good match, but the build up feels too weak, like half the other build up's. It feels like the card was just pulled out of creative's ass on the fly. The only match that has any epic feel to it is HBK/Taker.

 

[Ferbian]

Oh if he really had a problem with someone, he didnt do the match. He was supposed to do the job to Hart at WM 13, but he faked a knee injury. He let his pride and ego come before the business, not that he was the first or the last to do that. I'm just saying that the Undertaker has earned a reputation all these years that has even HBK admiring him and respecting him more than anyone else in the locker room.

Well on the other hand Shawn Michaels had a problem with Bret Hart as much as Bret had a problem with Shawn, they both had their immaturities around the ring, if you ask me, Shawn more because of his drug problems and attitude, Bret because he had an stubbornness that didn't want him to come off in a wrong way all the time.
I even believe Bret holds a grudge against Hogan for not wanting to drop the belt to him in 92 or 93, can't remember the year, but that just shows Shawn Michaels isn't the only immature personality to ever step inside that locker room and he won't be the last.
So to some degree I can't blame Shawn for being a little annoyed with having to job to Bret Hart, but then again it wouldn't be the first time Shawn was suggested to job to someone he didn't feel good about jobbing to *cough* Hogan *cough*

I have yet to hear a former WWE employee shoot on the Undertaker and say anything but positive things about him. They always shoot on HBK, HHH, and their Kliq buddies when it comes to backstage politics. 'Oh and dont use the Screwjob as an example of HBK doing whats best for the business because there is a conflict of interest there for HBK. It was another chance for him to get one over on Hart. I bet Vince didnt even get to finish his sentence before HBK agreed to do it.

I have my doubts anybody would go as far as to ever shoot on Undertaker because of the respect he got backstage certainly, but I still have my doubts that he stuck his nose out of the backstage business, after all he was the one who dragged Vince out of his office at Survivor Series 97, so I have my doubts it was the first, or the last time he got involved.

Michael Hickenbottom has been going by Shawn since he was a kid. The Shawn Michaels ring name was his idea. "The Heartbreak Kid" nickname was Curt Hennig's idea. The direction of the HBK character has been guided by Shawn throughout most of his career in the WWE. The character is just as much his as it is VKM's. But the Undertaker is 100% Vince's.

Ofcourse Michael Hickenbottom has gone by the name Shawn since he was a kid, it's his middle name, Michael Shawn Hickenbottom, rather easy to move around on the name and make it a wrestler name without taking away its legitimacy of sounding like a real name, as opposed to a guy like "The Undertaker" cause trust me, I will be one of the first people to point my finger in laughter if some poor kid is named "The Undertaker" in real life.
And yes Undertaker is solely Vince's creation (or well I'm taking your word on that, cause I don't know the true background of the Undertaker character to be quite honest, I just know of his career) but on the other hand we got Vince's all time favourite wrestler as so many times stated.

But that's not really what this thread is about now is it

 

[ted sheckler]

He never suggested it or pitched the idea to Vince. Years ago, he didnt convince McMahon that McMahon was old and needed to listen to a younger man's ideas in order to keep the show fresh, like how HBK did.

Oh are we talking about the idea and direction that ended up saving Vinces company from going under??? that idea??

Its too high of an honor to pin the Undertaker at Wrestlemania and it shouldnt go to someone who's hair is thining and is on the verge of retirement.

LOL... Who would you prefer? The Miz?? Maybe John Morrsion?? DO you think if the Undtertaker is going to have his streak broken at wrestlemania he wants to have some up and comer who will get 3 weeks of extra heat over it.. or does Undertaker want to get beaten by the best? If Im the Undertaker and I want the streak to end in a blaze of glory I want to lose to the best ever.. I want the match to be EPIC..an instant classic.legendary. and the only person I can trust to help me do this is Mr Wrestlemania... Face facts there is NO ONE who can give Taker a better buildup or match right now... and quite frankly Taker might feel that he's just returning the favor... Shawn and him had the match of the year 2009.. Taker can't just go out there and do that with anyone...

I dont care if the Undertaker has been booked to win the last 17 matches and thats the only reason why he won. Duh. Thats how wrestling works.

Thats fine but i don't seem to get why you view it as a big achievment.. Its a storyline.. A way to make people interested in the Undertaker match every year... DO you really think Taker needs the streak to make his matches interesting?? I for one am tired of the streak because the outcome is way too predictable.

Do you know who HBK wrestled the same night at WM 9? He LOST to TATANKA. But I wont say that HBK is bad because of it. That's how he was booked.

Who cares if he lost he had the best match on the card... Wins and loses don't matter in wrestling its simply how you perform when the cameras on and in front of that crowd.

So lets not devalue the Undertaker's streak just because VKM booked it.

Buddy... ITS MAKEBELIEVE... the streak isn't real!! Its as real as Harry Potters record of playing that game on brooms.. Please explain to me the difference..

 

[Ferbian]

LOL... Who would you prefer? The Miz?? Maybe John Morrsion?? DO you think if the Undtertaker is going to have his streak broken at wrestlemania he wants to have some up and comer who will get 3 weeks of extra heat over it.. or does Undertaker want to get beaten by the best? If Im the Undertaker and I want the streak to end in a blaze of glory I want to lose to the best ever.. I want the match to be EPIC..an instant classic.legendary. and the only person I can trust to help me do this is Mr Wrestlemania... Face facts there is NO ONE who can give Taker a better buildup or match right now... and quite frankly Taker might feel that he's just returning the favor... Shawn and him had the match of the year 2009.. Taker can't just go out there and do that with anyone...

I think a big problem about choosing a young up and coming superstar is certainly he gets the acknowledgment for ending the streak, but it doesn't put him in a title picture instantly, and it doesn't make him an instant main eventer, just because he was seen fit to end the streak, doesn't mean he's seen fit to carry the company.
An other problem is that certainly you could have a guy who's been with the company for 1-2 years who's on the mid card end the streak and elevate the shit out of him, but the chances will be there that because of his short time with WWE he could eventually become dumped because they realize "oh shit it was a mistake pushing this guy" he could become another Kennedy.
Or even worse, he could become another Jeff Hardy, a guy who became huge in WWE, only to leave it, be gone for a few months, then slingshot himself into popularity at the competition.
Besides, I don't think the streak should be ended at all, I say let it remain, that way it's also safe that you don't have a mistake of a winner, because it's been proved time and time again that enlarging the length of the streak is a great success, but we don't know if ending the streak will be as much of a success.

Its as real as Harry Potters record of playing that game on brooms.. Please explain to me the difference..

The difference is the broom

 

[Phoenix]

Funny thing is, we've had a gap of four Wrestlemanias without Shawn Michaels, so we have experienced that before and only one Wrestlemania (excluding ones before they debuted) didn't feature neither HBK or Undertaker on the card due to the injuries they had, and that was Wrestlemania 2000 (16). When you look at that card you had the first big multiman ladder match which effectively started the trend of that being a stable at Wrestlemania. You had one great triple threat of Angle vs. Benoit vs. Jericho, it's weird how their paths have all differed ten years on but you had a big gimmick hardcore battle royale but you had a decent main event with a McMahon in each corner.

Now this granted was not the greatest Wrestlemania of all time, but it provided a decent show with what they had at the time, no Austin, HBK or Undertaker and they still managed to pull out an alright show. The biggest element that show lacked was a one on one encounter which was a first at a Mania PPV. So we have experienced it before.

That said, many have said to say that Wrestlemania X-Seven (2001) was the greatest Wrestlemania and wrestling PPV of all time, again this was a Wrestlemania that lacked the presence of Shawn Michaels but DAMN it delivered! Even the matches that weren't expected to be good were better than what we hoped for, this was just a brilliant put together show, granted most of the roster that featured aren't even wrestling anymore. Let's see who was there but not now...Jericho, Regal, Kane, Big Show, Vince McMahon, Edge, Christian, Matt Hardy, Undertaker, Triple H. And all of them bar one is actually on the Wrestlemania card again this year, nine years on.

So in a nutshell, we have experienced Wrestlemania without Taker or HBK but yet the one people name as the greatest was a Wrestlemania that lacked Shawn Michaels' presence and also the streak of the Undertaker wasn't placed as an important element to his character. So Wrestlemania can be great without either, but their presence of late at Mania is just so sublime that you can't deny how great these two legends really are.