Taker vs ???? At Mania

[Loss]

Undertaker at Wrestlemania loses something without the streak, but I don't know that Undertaker at Summerslam or Undertaker at the Royal Rumble or Undertaker in a TV match means appreciably more or less.

[JerryvonKramer]

I still think Taker should have turned heel and gone for some cheap wins to keep streak going. Like count out or DQ.

[fakeplastictrees]

When people talk about the WM 30 match between Lesnar/Taker, I see a lot of people seem to forget/gloss over the fact that people in the arena looked disinterested and the same (based off of message board writings) can be said for the people watching at home. I was watching WM30 with two buddies and sometime during the ending streak we began playing with out phones, etc. waiting for the Taker win, pose with the fireworks going out, and JBL screaming about THE LAST GUNSLINGER. That didn't happen and immediate drew us (and the whole arena) back into the match. WWE needs more moments like that happening at Mania. I would say that the WM30 moment is one in just a handful of TRUE WM moments of the last 10 years. Whether it was going to be Taker's last match or not, having a broken down Taker go over Lesnar, Wyatt, etc. and steam rolling toward the end would have been less eventful and I am sure at times sad to see.

 

Cena is the best guy to keep Taker safe in the ring and bring about that WWE main event formula match. This match also hasn't been done in what 13 years or so? So It feels fresh. Just the video package alone can make this feel epic and neither would have to do much promo work or anything before the match. It pretty much sells itself. How would I book it? Simple.

 

-Cena wins

 

-The two shake hands after the match

 

- Undertaker begins beating up on Cena

 

- Officials try to break it up and fail

 

- Taker manages to Tombstone Cena through a table (or multiple times on a steel chair)

 

- Cena is stretchered out of Mania

 

Cena gets his win. Undertaker keeps his heat. The fans are happy. There is intrigue in the air: is Taker a face or heel? Also, this allows WWE to run Cena/Taker II (and even III ) later that year if the company wants.

[Slasher]

Taker definitely loses something without The Streak. I feel like he does anyway. I think it sort of pushed him over an invisible line between "eternal superstar who is an integral part of Mania" to "old man Taker coming back for another short TV run to no consequence". The Streak gave him meaning, a reason for being there, at least for one major match a year, and lately that's all he'd been doing, so thus everything he did was important. Now his annual Mania match means substantially less, and his sojourns throughout the year feel more like nostalgia runs than him being a member of the active roster.

 

And I say this as a HUGE fan of his work, and with a mother who is always happy to see him. It's not that crowds aren't happy to see him. But it's just that he has no stakes anymore. He's become another touring nostalgia act.

 

The Cena Mania match, for example, has about a hundredth of the importance that it would have if Cena beating the Streak and/or turning heel to do so were on the table. As it is, it could still be done, and still be done well, but it's not what it could have been with those stakes at play.

Yeah definitely. Part of what made Undertaker so important to Wrestlemania and the streak is that everyone was portrayed to be very interested in being the one to end it. That made Taker a bigger attraction than anything he's done in the WWE the other 11 months per year. If people are having matches for the honor of challenging the streak, people pay attention.

[Slasher]

Maybe if Taker is up for wrestling 2 or 3 more years they can start a running angle where Undertaker's career is on the line and he wins the first two of those matches before falling again in his final.

[Parties]

I would say that the WM30 moment is one in just a handful of TRUE WM moments of the last 10 years. Whether it was going to be Taker's last match or not, having a broken down Taker go over Lesnar, Wyatt, etc. and steam rolling toward the end would have been less eventful and I am sure at times sad to see.

 

WM30 is memorable for the wrong reasons. Terrible match. Really bad opponent for Taker in hindsight, selected because it appealed to his MMA fantasies. Crowning example of Vince freaking out and making a rash decision way too late. Taker wearing out his welcome. Continuing on post-streak in impotent fashion. Brock gaining less from it than he did from suplexing Cena a dozen times, or yelling "Suplex City" at Reigns. It today seems remembered not as "Wow, what a moment!" but rather "Yeah, that was mismanaged and awkward." Aside from being something Heyman brought up a lot in promos in the months thereafter, it seems like something Vince would like a re-do on, and which they downplay in their presentation of Taker/Brock/Mania. I truly don't even think it helped Lesnar much. How many fans today think, "Wow, that's the guy who ended the Streak!"? To the extent that it is remembered, it leaves a bad taste in their mouths as something that fans and the company alike wish hadn't happened.

[Childs]

I do think it's a shame Taker got hurt early in the Mania match. I'm not sure if that was inevitable or just unlucky. But he did show in the rematches this year that he could still work effectively with Brock. I was frankly stunned how good he looked at Summerslam, because I thought he was awful in the Bray match.

[Slasher]

I do think it's a shame Taker got hurt early in the Mania match. I'm not sure if that was inevitable or just unlucky. But he did show in the rematches this year that he could still work effectively with Brock. I was frankly stunned how good he looked at Summerslam, because I thought he was awful in the Bray match.

May be wrong here but I feel like I've heard that Bray was not the guy Taker wanted this year. I think his first two or three choices were shot down due to availability or just because they didn't want to go that direction. He just didn't seem to have his heart in the Wyatt match as demonstrated by the fact he never appeared anywhere on TV beforehand.

[Jimmy Redman]

Undertaker at Wrestlemania loses something without the streak, but I don't know that Undertaker at Summerslam or Undertaker at the Royal Rumble or Undertaker in a TV match means appreciably more or less.

 

To me it does. Like I said losing the Streak seemed to move him over the line from "present" to "past". The Streak made him relevant as a top guy in modern WWE, even though he's 100 years old, because The Streak was the biggest title in wrestling. Now that it's gone there's no stakes to his career. He doesn't want titles, he doesn't really have personal feuds, they can't play on his humanity and ageing like other older stars because of his character. He has nothing to fight for anymore. So when they wheel him out it feels like...wheeling him out, if that makes sense. He just comes in, does his shit to keep the crowd happy, and that's it. He feels SO much more like a nostalgia act now than he did pre-WM30.

 

But again, that might just be me. Don't get me wrong I don't think it's a tangible, money losing, "don't use him anymore" thing. I'm still happy to see him, and I legitimately loved his Summerslam performance. But it feels like all the wind has gone out of his sails as an attraction.

[Tawren]

I find it really bizarre that they don't have anyone undefeated at WM now. Even get a few guys at 3-0, 4-0 and see if they end up as bigger stars down the line and work that to matter.

 

The streak is proof that wins and losses, when presented as meaningful end up being meaningful. So often I read people talking about the World title as being inherently important such as when Brock was off TV, but when he was gone none of the wrestlers talked about it or cared so why would I care.

[jcmmnx]

Cena and Reigns are the only interesting options, and Cena makes the most sense for 32.

[Parties]

I find it really bizarre that they don't have anyone undefeated at WM now. Even get a few guys at 3-0, 4-0 and see if they end up as bigger stars down the line and work that to matter.

 

The streak is proof that wins and losses, when presented as meaningful end up being meaningful. So often I read people talking about the World title as being inherently important such as when Brock was off TV, but when he was gone none of the wrestlers talked about it or cared so why would I care.

 

Vince viewed the Streak as a nuisance rather than a marketable asset, which tells you what you need to know. He seems to be currently in a mindset that winning streaks are problematic and offer too much "control" (for lack of a better term) to the worker and audience.

[Ricky Jackson]

Vince booked the Streak. Why would he book something he didn't want?

[Slasher]

To honor one of his most loyal top guys and one that have effectively led the locker room for two decades? I wouldn't be surprised if Vince fell ass backward into having a guy with such a streak. But yeah it was obvious that thry reached a point where they were going "Ok this was cool but enough is enough".

[Jingus]

I still don't see how a Cena/Taker match helps anyone.

 

If Taker loses again, then his Wrestlemania matches mean nothing in the future. Brock winning that night was booked as a once-in-a-lifetime moment, and it definitely had a feeling of "that wasn't supposed to happen" about it. Even post-Streak, Taker at Mania means something: the question is no longer Will He Finally Lose, but instead it's now Can He Still Win? For that narrative to continue onward, he needs to keep winning every year. And a win over Cena is pointless. John's been pinned by practically everyone in the company, and his street cred really doesn't need let another loss in a high-profile environment.

 

Meanwhile, it might be a big deal if Cena beat Taker... ten years ago. Now? Way too late. Cena's already the ace of the promotion, the measuring stick against whom all other top guys must be compared. He's not like Brock, a guy whose part-timer status meant that he still had something to prove. Cena winning would hurt Taker, and it wouldn't help John. Taker winning would hurt Cena (especially since he'll still be around for most of the year, while Taker will inevitably vanish after Mania) and not do anything for Taker's legacy other than keeping the status quo.

[goodhelmet]

The reality is... it doesn't matter if he wins or loses. The WWE has proven that nothing matters. They can take a year of horrible booking and change it around in 2 nights (Roman Reigns). They can take great moments (Punk's MITB, Bryan's path to the title) and turn it into shit. If they want Cena-Taker to work, it will work. As a match, it is the only Taker match that remotely appeals to me, win or lose.

[Matt D]

The reality is... it doesn't matter if he wins or loses. The WWE has proven that nothing matters. They can take a year of horrible booking and change it around in 2 nights (Roman Reigns). They can take great moments (Punk's MITB, Bryan's path to the title) and turn it into shit. If they want Cena-Taker to work, it will work. As a match, it is the only Taker match that remotely appeals to me, win or lose.

 

Their plans don't always work out. Rock was supposed to be the insurance policy to make sure that Reigns' rumble win went well. That didn't work. If they tried to do it five more times, I'd be surprised if it worked three out of those five.

[joeg]

Streak or no streak, Cena vs Undertaker at WM is still the biggest possible match WWE could make. Tell me, did Mayweather vs Paquiao stop being a huge draw just because Paquiao lost twice and was over the hill?

[Coffey]

I certainly think that it made the fight not as big of a deal as it could have been, although it certainly still made ridiculous bank.

 

I don't know what the biggest possible match WWE could make nowadays is but I know it doesn't involve The Undertaker. The biggest possible match for The Undertaker, at this point, might be John Cena, but like Will said, I just don't think it matters.

 

Brock Vs. Daniel Bryan

Brock Vs. Roman II

Roman Vs. John Cena

 

I think those are the top three matches WWE could realistically do that I would be interested in & I doubt WWE would ever consider Bryan Vs. Brock.

[Sidebottom]

A couple of years back I was really hoping for Daniel Bryan vs Brock Lesnar... Didn't Daniel Bryan recently say that's the match he wants or am I imagining this?

[Jmare007]

A couple of years back I was really hoping for Daniel Bryan vs Brock Lesnar... Didn't Daniel Bryan recently say that's the match he wants or am I imagining this?

 

It was unlikely he would ever get it even before his injuries (forgone conclusion it's ever happening now), but he's been pushing for that match since Brock came back.

[cpst]

 

A couple of years back I was really hoping for Daniel Bryan vs Brock Lesnar... Didn't Daniel Bryan recently say that's the match he wants or am I imagining this?

 

It was unlikely he would ever get it even before his injuries (forgone conclusion it's ever happening now), but he's been pushing for that match since Brock came back.

Wasn't Bryan supposed to be in the Summerslam match instead of Cena?

[Matt D]

Yep.

 

Bryan was to build up Orton as unified champ for Batista. When that didn't work, Bryan was meant to build up Brock for Reigns.

[Russellmania]

even if they clear Bryan and bring him back, it's unlikely they'll ever have enough faith in his health to let him go with Brock. In their minds if Undertaker got injured working with Brock then Bryan will have no chance of surviving a match with him.

[Parties]

Taker winning would not hurt Cena. It didn’t hurt Hunter, probably didn’t hurt Wyatt, wouldn’t have hurt Sting, and Cena is more bulletproof than all of them combined. The weird Summerslam match didn’t seem to mess with Brock much. Taker should beat whoever he faces at Mania. Which is why Cena - one of the last remaining guys who wouldn't be hurt by it - is the right choice.

 

The only other option that interests me - and they really, really shouldn't do this - would be Ambrose, as I think they could have a very fun match. But it would be the wrong booking for all parties involved. Ambrose vs. Taker could be quite a Summerslam or Survivor Series match this year or next though, and one Ambrose could win. Taker-Owens feels like a snooze for the same reasons that Taker-Wyatt turned out to be one. Taker vs. anyone in the League of Nations feels too small for his Cowboys Stadium homecoming/potential last hurrah.

 

But the state of affairs - in which every heel in the company is currently too weak to lose to Taker - speaks volumes about their booking. In some ways Rollins post-title loss actually would have been awesome, as he could pinball around for Taker and still be a credible main eventer in defeat.