The Undertaker's Streak vs. HHH's power

[goc]

WM2000 is not really a WM moment in the sense that the match wasn't memorable at all. That was the year of no singles matches, everyone was just glommed together and so nothing from that show stands out except for the triple threat ladder match. Plus the finish was flat. Vince McMahon turning on The Rock wasn't really all that shocking or interesting.

[tigerpride]

 

What aren't you understanding from that?

 

TEW = Total Extreme Warfare. In the game, workers can refuse jobs/angles *without* having creative control. And unless I am mistaken, if The Undertaker does not possess Creative Control in his contract, he cannot legally refuse to do a job/angle.

It's not going to come to that. We're speaking in hypotheticals that will never happen.

[Matt D]

WM2000 is not really a WM moment in the sense that the match wasn't memorable at all. That was the year of no singles matches, everyone was just glommed together and so nothing from that show stands out except for the triple threat ladder match. Plus the finish was flat. Vince McMahon turning on The Rock wasn't really all that shocking or interesting.

The heel winning at Wrestlemania was a big deal. It just didn't happen.

[MJH]

I've always considered Backlash the real WrestleMania Main Event Finish for 2000. It was also a much hotter and better show. And if HHH winning at Mania bought time until Austin could make his return, all the better. But he's not beating Taker.

[Log]

I don't see a chance in hell that he beats Taker, BUT if it does happen, I just think it's would have to be something UT thought was a good idea.

[Death From Above]

Yeah if the streak ever does end I have a very hard time thinking it could without Taker giving 100% approval. He has more than enough status in the company that if it ever does end (which in this case I doubt very very much, at this point there seems to be no value to ending the streak unless you get some Vader-like figure who can kill Inoki in under 5 minutes and start a riot) it's going to be of his own design.

 

Showing my nerd side here, but it's like when they killed of Data in that last Star Trek film before the reboot and some fans lost their shit at the wrong people. Then you watch the extras and Brent Spiner is all "Yeah, it was pretty much my idea. The character has run it's course, so I said kill him off".

[smkelly]

Last nights promo exchange was fairly decent. Trips was better than Taker, considerably better IMO. I groaned when HBK came out, as predictable as it was. I don't like where this may lead with HBK inserting himself into the equation six days before the PPV.

 

Does HBK get involved at WM?

 

I think if he does he is going to attack Hunter not Taker.

[tomk]

My favorite was probably Trip's big Babyface Comeback From Injury where he'd have his shinning moment of winning the World Title... and no one gave a shit about it and instead treated Rock-Hogan as the main even... I mean, that was great.

To give Hunter fair credit, were I to give him a second moment, it would be the reaction he got on Raw that night when he came back from that injury.

 

And number 3 would be that promo in the ring with Cena where he just demolished him.

 

 

If this is the promo from DC, this was something I saw live and a pretty definitive HHH moment. They were promoting HHH v Cena ( with HHH as heel and Cena face) at same time they were teasing DX face reunion (of HHH saving HBK from Vine's anus) neither of which was getting a pop from crowd. Crowd chanting for Goldberg, Sid and Jarrett and general indiference to both Cena and HHH. Only when HHH mocked Cena's wrestling and Cena had to agree did anyone get a pop and you could see HHH using Cena (sacrificing the Mania main event face) to cement his own DX face turn. It was amazing. Even the drunkest of folks around me (we were all kicked out by secirity by night's end) picked up on it.

 

I kind of was hoping that HHH went over Taker in Mania.

They have really backed themselves into corner at this point. Mania is the definitive WWF show of year and it has become a show associated with one wreslter (it has become the Taker show). And Taker is a guy who while I like in ring a ton, is a guy whose matches kill a crowds heat. It takes a ton to get a crowd to recover from a Taker match.

 

A couple years ago I would have said let him retire with streak intact or just bring him out every year to walk tall with Stagger Lee opposite some bumping heels...at this point I kind of think they need to seperate Mania from Taker. Whoever ends streak will be considered underserving....HHH is better suited to getting undeserving win than anyone else they have on the roster.

[Ditch]

I'm assuming that "Raw when he came back" refers to early 2002.

 

 

very delayed edit: I swear my reading comprehension is uniquely awful for Tom's posts.

[tomk]

I was referring to "promo where demolishes"

[S.L.L.]

I kind of was hoping that HHH went over Taker in Mania.

They have really backed themselves into corner at this point. Mania is the definitive WWF show of year and it has become a show associated with one wreslter (it has become the Taker show). And Taker is a guy who while I like in ring a ton, is a guy whose matches kill a crowds heat. It takes a ton to get a crowd to recover from a Taker match.

 

A couple years ago I would have said let him retire with streak intact or just bring him out every year to walk tall with Stagger Lee opposite some bumping heels...at this point I kind of think they need to seperate Mania from Taker. Whoever ends streak will be considered underserving....HHH is better suited to getting undeserving win than anyone else they have on the roster.

The real screwing of the pooch on this was dropping Money in the Bank from Mania because they're dead set on making their five gajillion gimmick PPVs work instead of cutting their losses.

 

I've written this elsewhere, but I don't think I've ever trotted it out here...ending Taker's streak has become the "revealing Maris' face" of pro wrestling. The writers of Frasier had initially planned to eventually reveal what Maris actually looked like for a special occasion, but before they could, they realized that they had built up how big that reveal would be so much that there was nothing they could actually deliver that would live up to the hype, so they just never did it.

 

Beating Taker at Mania has become such a huge task - moreso than ever after this show - that no one could possibly end the streak under traditional means without it falling flat. So I theorized that their only way out was to take it in the complete opposite direction: cowardly heel wins Money in the Bank, Taker then wins a grueling title bout later in the night to keep the streak alive, only for the cowardly heel to bum rush him afterwords, cash in Money in the Bank, and beat him to win the belt and end the streak in the cheapest way possible, and become the most hated heel in the company in the process. It's still "disappointing", but unlike HHH winning here, it would be disappointing in a way that would actually useful in the long run.

 

But that out is gone now. I think. I don't know how the MITB PPV stuff works. I know at Mania, you had until the next Mania to cash it in. I guess now you have until the next MITB PPV to cash it in? So maybe it's still possible, though I think it loses a bit of punch.

[Dooley]

I've written this elsewhere, but I don't think I've ever trotted it out here...ending Taker's streak has become the "revealing Maris' face" of pro wrestling. The writers of Frasier had initially planned to eventually reveal what Maris actually looked like for a special occasion, but before they could, they realized that they had built up how big that reveal would be so much that there was nothing they could actually deliver that would live up to the hype, so they just never did it.

Interesting comparison, and I'll add that I felt not revealing Maris' face was a mistake on the Frasier finale. Even moreso on the original joke with Norm's wife Vera on Cheers. I always thought the perfect way to go out of the Cheers finale would be while Norm and Sam are having their little moment together at the end, Vera walks into the bar to drag Norm out and she's an absolute bombshell. Norm begrudgingly goes with her while Sam has his jaw on the floor and looking around like "no one else is going to believe this".

 

To apply it to the Streak, when Taker's ready to retire, be it next year 2 years or whenever then he really should lose and end the streak. Vince and the writers shouldn't be so afraid of living up to the hype or mystique or what have you of the streak that it intimidates them from writing the final chapter. There's a "Lost" comparison in there somewhere but I'm not of the right mind to see it through.

[smkelly]

Beating Taker at Mania has become such a huge task - moreso than ever after this show - that no one could possibly end the streak under traditional means without it falling flat. So I theorized that their only way out was to take it in the complete opposite direction: cowardly heel wins Money in the Bank, Taker then wins a grueling title bout later in the night to keep the streak alive, only for the cowardly heel to bum rush him afterwords, cash in Money in the Bank, and beat him to win the belt and end the streak in the cheapest way possible, and become the most hated heel in the company in the process. It's still "disappointing", but unlike HHH winning here, it would be disappointing in a way that would actually useful in the long run.

Though you and I have gone rounds before, I have always respected you and that is an example of why. That is the best idea of ending The Streak~! that I have ever heard. Amazing. If this board had a reputation option you'd get mad rep, man.

 

By the way, what heel did you have in mind? Personally, I'd go with Del Rio. The dude is talented. The downside is his age.

[S.L.L.]

Beating Taker at Mania has become such a huge task - moreso than ever after this show - that no one could possibly end the streak under traditional means without it falling flat. So I theorized that their only way out was to take it in the complete opposite direction: cowardly heel wins Money in the Bank, Taker then wins a grueling title bout later in the night to keep the streak alive, only for the cowardly heel to bum rush him afterwords, cash in Money in the Bank, and beat him to win the belt and end the streak in the cheapest way possible, and become the most hated heel in the company in the process. It's still "disappointing", but unlike HHH winning here, it would be disappointing in a way that would actually useful in the long run.

Though you and I have gone rounds before, I have always respected you and that is an example of why. That is the best idea of ending The Streak~! that I have ever heard. Amazing. If this board had a reputation option you'd get mad rep, man.

 

By the way, what heel did you have in mind? Personally, I'd go with Del Rio. The dude is talented. The downside is his age.

 

I think I first came up with this around Mania 24, and very much had MVP in mind when I thought of it. The Miz probably could've done it as well, though he hadn't quite been established enough that you could just put the belt on him yet. Today, Del Rio would probably be the guy, as he's already safely inserted in the main event scene, and has the whole "smarmy douchebag" thing with just enough cowardice to pull it off. The only downside with him is that he's already already a main eventer, and this feels like a spot you'd want to fill with an upper midcarder who you're just about to pull the trigger on to create a new top heel while maximizing the "he didn't deserve to end the streak" aspect of it. Don't think you can do that after you've already won the Royal Rumble, but I don't see anyone else on the roster right now who fits the bill. At this point, I'd just as soon hold off on it.

[jdw]

I don't think they've forvever blow a chance at someone coming along who can break the streak and have it be a positive. Perhaps we've seen such a lack of true The Next Big Thing guys come along in the last few years, but go back to Austin getting big (let's say 1997/98), and then move forward and tick off the big guys. Granted none of them got as over as Rock or Austin did, but the company did kick out a string: Austin, Rock, Foley, Trip, Angle, Brock, Batista, Cena. Eight in how many years?

 

I'm not advocating a Foley or Batista type being Taker, but they were relatively big stars. Angle is someone who had his knees cut off, and still got over rather large. Brock also got his knees cut off ("Trip... let me hand you think world title" -Eric), but still got over. This a guy that Hogan and Rock put over strongly as he was on his way up. The equiv of that couldn't be the one built towards breaking The Streak, and in a fashion that doesn't help him and the company in a positive way?

 

The problem is that they haven't had someone since Cena, and even there they kind of fluked into it rather than focused effort like Trip (over and over again until it took), Brock and Batista. On the other hand... Austin and Foley were flukes, and Rock was to a degree as he quickly did a 180 in the NOD.

 

I think the reason SLL's comment looks attractive is because that's all we can see right now: a semi-screwed up WWE that will only kick out a cowardly heel who could only get over by screwing Taker in a way that pisses everyone off because the Streak got shat on to end it.

 

I don't disagree with that in general: the WWE is pretty screwed up, and that creative core of Vince, Steph and Trip don't seem likely to un-screw any time soon. But I also think that if they find another flukey lightening in a bottle, they really should act on it rather than try to talk themselves out of it.

 

In a way, I don't mind Taker pulling a Londos/Mascaras and taking equiv of a title to his grave. Especially if he beats a few guys that I don't like such as Shawn and Trip along the way.

 

John

[Death From Above]

I'm not convinced that The Streak hasn't gotten so big in the last handful of years that breaking it wouldn't produce some sort of legit backlash from the fans.

 

I don't see many fans actually calling for Undertaker's undefeated run to end, most talk about it with a sense of dread "fuck, don't let THAT GUY be the one that ends it". Fans seem to love it. Fans love talking about it, people buy Wrestlemania just to see it carry on one more year, hating the idea it will end.

 

To be honest I have a feeling killing The Streak could end similarly to WCW ending Goldberg's streak for no reason. The fans really didn't want to see it happen yet, it didn't get anyone over, and it cost you people who would pay just to see The Streak go on.

 

I don't think it should be killed just because it can be. If him going undefeated at Wrestlemania keeps being seen as a huge deal that gets people interested in watching, don't end it. If the fans tell you "screw the streak" you end it, but I don't ever see that happening barring something totally bizarre in the next couple years.

[El-P]

I agee with DFA, at this point, I don't see the point of ending the streak. Really, Taker winning was the only real WM great feel good moment this year. And they really have no-one at this point to break the streak, especially after HHH nearly killed Taker and still failed. No-one has the credibility anymore, only The Rock, Austin or Hogan in their prime could do it without seeming forced. And it's not like Taker will work many matches at this point, he could realistically retire after the 20-0 next year. Quite frankly, you wnat a big match, make it Taker's last match and HHH retires if he can't break the streak. And have both retire at the same time. Add to that Rock vs Cena and you get a huge WM.

[smkelly]

Cena is credible enough to end the streak. I also think Brock would be a legit streak snapper too.

[El-P]

Cena ending the streak would be godawful. Cena would actually be the worst candidate to end the streak. Even HHH would be less offensive at this point.

[JerryvonKramer]

Not saying this would ever happen, but how's this for a pair of ideas:

 

1. Undertaker nearing his 50s, or even after he is 50, changes his character significantly. Now being old, he can no longer dominate opponents as he once did, but instread had to rely on more classic heel tactics. He starts getting really cheap wins on DQs and countouts. Maybe he has an outside of the ring enforcer to help him out.

 

One Wrestlemania he continues his streak CHEAPLY. By DQ or countout. And it's obviously cheap. This cheap, old Undertaker gimmick lasts a whole year. Fans do not like him at all.

 

Then you can book WHOEVER to beat him because everyone will want to see him beat.

 

Is that unreastically old school?

 

2. Flip it. Instead someone like a Jericho is playing more of a classic chicken-shit and one year, instead of going for a big finish or something, he ends the The Streak with a CHEAP win. DQ, countout, something horrible. IWC would explode. Fans would riot. Next week Jericho (or whoever) starts bragging about the fact he ended The Streak (despite it being the cheapest win ever): Feud of the Decade follows.

 

[Bob Morris]

I'm not certain if I would compare the Taker WM streak to Goldberg's streak. Goldberg's streak was more about a guy who was clearly the top draw and needed to be treated as such... when his drawing power wanes, that's the time to end his winning streak, but instead, his streak was ended when he was still a hot property.

 

Taker is no longer the hot property he once was, although fans still like him.

 

Really, the best way for the streak to end, IMO, is for Taker to win one of the top titles at a Royal Rumble, then defend it against a guy you want to push at the following Wrestlemania. Then it's more of a case of you wanting to make somebody truly look like the "next big thing" as not only does he break the streak, he goes on to defend a top title.

 

But I don't really have much faith in WWE Creative to book that properly.

[jdw]

Meltzer has Taker and HHH retiring in the next year. So the streak is either going to end next year, or Taker is going to Londos/Mil it, or in 2-5 years after retirement Vince will drop a load of cash on him to come back for Mania... in which case the Streak would likely get extended.

 

John

[smkelly]

Cena ending the streak would be godawful. Cena would actually be the worst candidate to end the streak. Even HHH would be less offensive at this point.

I never said I wanted him to win. But he is the face of the WWE after all. 2007 Cena was awesome though, especially against Umaga.

 

1. Undertaker nearing his 50s, or even after he is 50, changes his character significantly. Now being old, he can no longer dominate opponents as he once did, but instread had to rely on more classic heel tactics. He starts getting really cheap wins on DQs and countouts. Maybe he has an outside of the ring enforcer to help him out.

That is a big if. Taker is 46 right now. One match every year nearly ends his career, and at the rate of his post-WrestleMania recovery, it is possible for him to make it to age 50. But I find it extremely unlikely. Furthermore, if the streak is broken, Taker will be gone.

 

Taker's 2010

 

1. 1-16-10

2. 1-17-10

3. 1-26-10

4. 1-31-10

5. 2-2-10

6. 2-9-10 (two matches)

7. 2-11-10

8. 2-12-10

9. 2-13-10

10. 2-14-10

11. 2-19-10

12. 2-20-10

13. 2-21-10

14. 3-13-10

15. 3-14-10

16. 3-16-10

17. 3-21-10

18. 3-28-10 (WrestleMania)

19. 3-30-10

20. 4-19-10 (two matches)

21. 5-6-10

22. 5-7-10

23. 5-8-10

24. 5-9-10

25. 5-17-10

26. 5-25-10

27. 8-30-10 (vs. Hart, no actual match)

28. 8-30-10

29. 8-31-10

30. 9-7-10

31. 9-14-10

32. 9-18-10

33. 9-19-10

34. 9-21-10

35. 9-25-10

36. 9-26-10

37. 10-1-10 (two matches)

38. 10-3-10

39. 10-8-10

40. 10-9-10

41. 10-17-10

42. 10-24-10

 

His next match was on 4-3-10, WrestleMania 27. Injuries have been keeping him from working. It seems that he is one of the more injury prone wrestlers the WWE has. It is worth noting that most of Taker's matches from 2010 were six-eight man tags.

[tomk]

My sense used to be keep the streak going, wheel him out every year for a walking tall match.

 

Problems with that as I see it are:

 

-Mania is the premier name WWE PPV show. It becoming too associated with Undertaker is a problem. Mania becoming the Taker PPV feels like something that needs to be separated. Ideally promotion is building Mania around their main storylines and not around Taker.

 

-If you give Taker a big showcase match, it means that the shortcuts which could be used in the main event for the guys you are building the promotion around are denied them.

 

-Taker is a guy who I like a lot but his matches often kill crowd heat. Even in an undercard match (something like Taker v Muhamad Hassan), the crowd is emotionally drained post match and it takes a ton for the crowd to get back into a show.

[Resident Evil]

I don't see there being any problems with Wrestlemania being showcased heavily on Taker. It's a great thing, not a bad thing. If Taker wants to do Mania than let it be that way.