I see it this way: To get a Taker match at mania, you have to already be a top guy. Beating Taker then would be a very gold star, but it wouldn't affect the legacy of a Cena or a Michaels or a Hunter.
You're not fighting Taker. You're fighting the Streak. When someone ends it -- if if if someone ends it -- it should at least boost the winner's profile. It should be a gimmick booster rocket. And while the WWE seemingly refuses to give outright heels a clean win these days, IF someone's gonna beat Taker and IF that person is an outright heel, then he's gonna have to Cheat To Win, and even then, it's gonna preserve Taker.
I don't want Taker's streak to end. But if it does, it has to go to someone who can benefit from it and the manner in which it happens.
The only guy who seems to fit that right now is Punk. He's established but young and still rising, and he's currently the most heel main eventer they have.
"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
Originally posted by Matt TrackerI see it this way: To get a Taker match at mania, you have to already be a top guy. Beating Taker then would be a very gold star, but it wouldn't affect the legacy of a Cena or a Michaels or a Hunter.
You're not fighting Taker. You're fighting the Streak. When someone ends it -- if if if someone ends it -- it should at least boost the winner's profile. It should be a gimmick booster rocket. And while the WWE seemingly refuses to give outright heels a clean win these days, IF someone's gonna beat Taker and IF that person is an outright heel, then he's gonna have to Cheat To Win, and even then, it's gonna preserve Taker.
I don't want Taker's streak to end. But if it does, it has to go to someone who can benefit from it and the manner in which it happens.
The only guy who seems to fit that right now is Punk. He's established but young and still rising, and he's currently the most heel main eventer they have.
By your own criteria, Punk is the wrong guy. He's arguably the number one guy in the company (by public profile and crowd reaction). He was the longest reigning WWE champion of the last 25 years, and probably the longest reigning for the foreseeable future. He's got nowhere to rise up to. He's at the top. The guy you're advocating for is more of a Dolph Ziggler with a better push behind him, or possibly Mark Henry.
Originally posted by Matt TrackerI see it this way: To get a Taker match at mania, you have to already be a top guy. Beating Taker then would be a very gold star, but it wouldn't affect the legacy of a Cena or a Michaels or a Hunter.
You're not fighting Taker. You're fighting the Streak. When someone ends it -- if if if someone ends it -- it should at least boost the winner's profile. It should be a gimmick booster rocket. And while the WWE seemingly refuses to give outright heels a clean win these days, IF someone's gonna beat Taker and IF that person is an outright heel, then he's gonna have to Cheat To Win, and even then, it's gonna preserve Taker.
I don't want Taker's streak to end. But if it does, it has to go to someone who can benefit from it and the manner in which it happens.
The only guy who seems to fit that right now is Punk. He's established but young and still rising, and he's currently the most heel main eventer they have.
By your own criteria, Punk is the wrong guy. He's arguably the number one guy in the company (by public profile and crowd reaction). He was the longest reigning WWE champion of the last 25 years, and probably the longest reigning for the foreseeable future. He's got nowhere to rise up to. He's at the top. The guy you're advocating for is more of a Dolph Ziggler with a better push behind him, or possibly Mark Henry.
Even with the long run and his rather mainstream rise, Punk is not even close to Cena or Austin or Rock level. Beating Taker fits with his no respect storyline. If he does lose then to some degree the entire year is a waste. He will lose to two part time guys in a row while beating the entire roster for the entire year. Also, Punk beating Taker is something as a fan in that audience is something I can take with me for the rest of my life. There is nothing else on that card as it stands even if Swagger is moved out that will equal that as a Wrestlemania moment.
The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
I'll tell you who should break the Streak. Someone who has a real Streak: Ronda Rousey. Rousey should snap Undertaker's arm at WrestleMania. Streak vs. Streak. 7-0 vs. 20-0.
Otherwise, no one should break the Streak. I refer to both Streaks.
The last time that The Undertaker fought Kane at Wrestlemania, finally returning as The Deadman, I thought it would be an awesome visual to see all of his former streak victims come out at once and attempt to destroy him. It might not work as well now, with HHH, Shawn Michaels, Edge & Ric Flair being included in the mix, though.
Random bit of information, of the 17 men that Undertaker has fought at Wrestlemania, all but 2 are still living. (The other two being Big Bossman and Giant Gonzales, coincidentally two of his worst matches of all time.) I was surprised to learn that King Kong Bundy was actually still alive. I was also going to make a joke about knowing that Jake Roberts was still alive but still being surprised he wasn't dead, but it looks like he's made some awesome progress since DDP took him in. And apparently Scott Hall has now moved in with them as well. If DDP manages to clean up both Jake Roberts and Scott Hall, the WWE really needs to hire DDP to handle the entire roster.
Using Matt Tracker's idea of having Taker accompany someone else to the ring, it might work to have Taker facing off against someone else who's undefeated at Wrestlemania. During the match, have a mass attack such as I described above occur, but have Taker's scheduled opponent start helping him fight off the attackers. Restart the match as a tag match with Taker and his original opponent verses two of the attackers (or hell, maybe the entire group, wouldn't be the first handicap match in The Streak.)
Taker and whoever else win the match, a new streak is born. Taker accompanies the guy to the ring next year and passes the torch without ever breaking his own streak. Give the new guy a decade of wins and then let someone beat him once he's 10-0 or so and then a second star is made, all without breaking the original streak.
Originally posted by lotjx. Beating Taker fits with his no respect storyline. If he does lose then to some degree the entire year is a waste.
Well, the year built him into a position to be in these two highest profile matches of his career. I do think it'll be tricky to frame him as a serious challenge to the streak after two losses (three to Cena?), even with the two visual pins of the Rock (and probably one on Cena). It'll be up to Punk and Heyman to do promos with real conviction where they heavily imply it's Taker's last match and say without saying that Punk is going to win because he's the new top man and it's the changing of the guard.
something as a fan in that audience is something I can take with me for the rest of my life
I forget, dr. jx, which Manias have you been to? The one in Detroit?
Originally posted by InVerseUsing Matt Tracker's idea of having Taker accompany someone else to the ring, it might work to have Taker facing off against someone else who's undefeated at Wrestlemania. During the match, have a mass attack such as I described above occur, but have Taker's scheduled opponent start helping him fight off the attackers. Restart the match as a tag match with Taker and his original opponent verses two of the attackers (or hell, maybe the entire group, wouldn't be the first handicap match in The Streak.)
Taker and whoever else win the match, a new streak is born. Taker accompanies the guy to the ring next year and passes the torch without ever breaking his own streak. Give the new guy a decade of wins and then let someone beat him once he's 10-0 or so and then a second star is made, all without breaking the original streak.
That first thrown-out match would be a No Contest, however. So Undertaker's record after this scenario would be 21-0-1, which counts as the Streak being broken in my book. The mystique is UT wins every year, not just that he avoids defeat.
I am totally in favour of another 'Streak' getting going, perhaps a heel Streak where he keeps getting cheap of B.S. victories every year. Miz is 3-0 and he's a face now, but you could easily spin that around in future years until he's insufferable. Of course, if Miz beats Cesaro this year I might cry.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
Originally posted by Big BadThat first thrown-out match would be a No Contest, however. So Undertaker's record after this scenario would be 21-0-1, which counts as the Streak being broken in my book. The mystique is UT wins every year, not just that he avoids defeat.
So how does that factor in Wrestlemania IX, where Undertaker won via DQ because Giant Gonzales chloroformed him? The streak is a complete fabrication, only existing because the announcers and opponents play it up as a big deal. If they did the restart into a tag match and the announcers/opponents played it up as the streak continuing, then the streak continues.
Originally posted by Big BadThat first thrown-out match would be a No Contest, however. So Undertaker's record after this scenario would be 21-0-1, which counts as the Streak being broken in my book. The mystique is UT wins every year, not just that he avoids defeat.
So how does that factor in Wrestlemania IX, where Undertaker won via DQ because Giant Gonzales chloroformed him? The streak is a complete fabrication, only existing because the announcers and opponents play it up as a big deal. If they did the restart into a tag match and the announcers/opponents played it up as the streak continuing, then the streak continues.
Where's the argument? UT won the match since Gonzalez clearly cheated. Taker was getting the better of him so Harvey had to try to cheat. A win is a win.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
Originally posted by lotjx. Beating Taker fits with his no respect storyline. If he does lose then to some degree the entire year is a waste.
Well, the year built him into a position to be in these two highest profile matches of his career. I do think it'll be tricky to frame him as a serious challenge to the streak after two losses (three to Cena?), even with the two visual pins of the Rock (and probably one on Cena). It'll be up to Punk and Heyman to do promos with real conviction where they heavily imply it's Taker's last match and say without saying that Punk is going to win because he's the new top man and it's the changing of the guard.
something as a fan in that audience is something I can take with me for the rest of my life
I forget, dr. jx, which Manias have you been to? The one in Detroit?
This will be my one and probably, so I want to be at something memorable.
The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
Originally posted by Big Bad Where's the argument? UT won the match since Gonzalez clearly cheated. Taker was getting the better of him so Harvey had to try to cheat. A win is a win.
The streak also didn't exist at his third WM. Wasn't it at around 10-0 or later that anyone even cared about "The Streak"?
The booking of his early WM matches cannot be used as a basis for booking his matches now that he's gone 20 years without losing.
Thread ahead: On This Day: WCW Prime - March 4, 1996 Next thread: WWE Smackdown #706 3/1/2013 Previous thread: CM Punk vs. John Cena (full match) (RAW, 2/25/13)
I was on WWE.com checking if Kidman's profile was still on their site (it is) and noticed that Scotty Too-Hotty was misssing. Has he been let go? It wouldn't surprise me. It would be unfortunate, I suppose.
Thread rated: 5.51
#
#
