flyonthewall2983 Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 I'm breaking this off from a discussion in the WWE Network thread about Goldberg, but I'll reiterate that I think they are a bad idea. Everybody has to lose eventually, and it's one thing to have a hot streak but to come in from the cold and stay entirely without a L could mean disaster. The one guy who comes to mind for me is Tatanka. He was a mildly popular babyface in 92 and 93, and had some decent matches, and was made on this undefeated streak. They never went anywhere with it until Yokozuna squashed him and he was replaced by The Undertaker at the Survivor Series. When he came back, he steadily went down the card, except for a mildly interesting heel turn and feud with Lex Luger. Anyway, can someone make a better case for them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMJ Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 "Winning streaks" are generally good. Whether you're a newcomer or a veteran or whatever in between, going on a hot streak is a way the company can get behind you and get the fans behind you too. Goldberg's streak wasn't ended very well, but as was discussed in that thread, that was a booking mistake. A clean DDP victory would've put DDP over huge and been a legit shocker. Kevin Nash was over. The finish to their Starrcade match was seriously overbooked, but, in theory, you could've given Nash either the clean win via Jacknife after Goldberg spears the post (which would've been lame) or just had a single, unexpected distraction. It's been forever since I watched 98' WCW, but what if Hogan had come out instead of Disco, Bigelow, and Hall? What if Hogan comes out and the announcers ask aloud what side is he on, distracts Goldberg, and then we find out he's been in kahoots with Nash? You could still even do the Fingerpoke of Doom the next night if you're deadset on putting the belt back on Hulk. In this scenario, you end Starrcade with Goldberg losing - but the bigger story being about Hogan's return (?) and possible nWo reunion. Tatanka, well...as the OP said, he was mildly popular in 92' and 93', but it was a one-note gimmick put on an average-at-best wrestler. They never went anywhere with it because there really wasn't anywhere to go with it. Do you really wanna see Tatanka any higher up the card than he was? So, to me, having him get squashed by Yoko (though I guess I misremembered and always thought Borga ended the streak), made perfect sense. Yoko got a signature win and you're not really losing anything because Tatanka was not good enough to ever be more than a midcard act. More recently, I think Ryback benefitted from coming in, squashing jobbers and working his way up the card with an undefeated streak. When he did eventually lose to CM Punk (?) - by interference, IIRC - he still felt like a guy that could become a legit World Champion one day. Similarly, I don't know if the Ultimate Warrior's first 6-8 months in the WWE were all wins, but I'm guessing they were. Ditto for the Undertaker (who probably went even longer without a pinfall loss). It all comes down to the booking. The opposite of winning streaks is what we have now (wins/losses don't matter, NXT callups being treated like they're "rookies") - and nobody is getting over. They constantly have to rebuild guys. Remember, last year at this time, many of us were eyerolling about the bland, personality-less former Dolph Ziggler henchman rumored to be winning the Rumble after never being portrayed as a top guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 Both Goldy and Tatanka are instances of a winning streak being booked poorly with no follow-up, although the argument for Tatanka is that it gave credibility to Ludvig Borga (he ended the streak, not Yoko) which they were building as the main event foe for Luger (of course they did nothing with Tatanka after that point and he was totally screwed by turning heel). The winning streak gimmick is not the issue, bad booking is. The end of Taker's streak at Mania was also completely botched BTW with the worst built-up shocking pinfall ever. Winning streak is usually a good thing if it does not comes off totally forced and gimmicked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeg Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 Winning streaks are an essential part of somebody getting over or somebody heating up. You can't promote somebody as a legit title contender when they are coming off a loss or string of losses. A wrestler needs to string the right set of wins together to get the fans to find him/her credible. Look at the last wrestler to get over in WWE- Daniel Bryan. He was already well liked, but he wasn't considered a legit title contender. Then he had a year long tag title reign with Kane where he showed he was more than a mechanic. Then in 2013 he won 82% of his matches (according to cagematch). Then he beat Cena at Summer Slam. Then in the fall he traded wins with Randy Orton and won his feud with The Wyatt Family. Then the next spring beat HHH, Orton and Batista in one night at Wrestlemania. He's been a made man ever since. You take somebody who's already liked/respected by the fans, put them on a winning streak for a year or two. Give them big wins against already established stars, and they become a star themselves. Its not rocket science. You see the same formula used in boxing and MMA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 2 hours ago, flyonthewall2983 said: The one guy who comes to mind for me is Tatanka. He was a mildly popular babyface in 92 and 93, and had some decent matches, and was made on this undefeated streak. They never went anywhere with it until Yokozuna squashed him and he was replaced by The Undertaker at the Survivor Series. When he came back, he steadily went down the card, except for a mildly interesting heel turn and feud with Lex Luger. Ludvig Borga ended Tatanka's streak, not Yokozuna. Which would've been fine, except Borga got fired in short order. After that, you're right, Tatanka kind of floundered until the heel turn. Goldberg beat Hogan, only to have his streak ended by Hogan's bitch, after Hogan's other bitch cosplayed as The Mountie and gave us an awful comedy finish that was the shits, followed by the entire match being further cheapened via the Fingerpoke of Doom. Atrocious booking all around. Asuka's streak was a victim of being an NXT idea that no one in control of main roster WWE was interested in. Brock was the absolute wrong person to end Taker's streak, which never should've been ended IMO, and was completely different from the other streaks we're talking about here anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 1 minute ago, C.S. said: Which would've been fine, except Borga got fired in short order. Imagine that, these days he would be such a great fit in the PC. 2 minutes ago, C.S. said: Brock was the absolute wrong person to end Taker's streak, which never should've been ended IMO, and was completely different from the other streaks we're talking about here anyway. Totally agree. Brock did not need the win, the match sucked, the pinfall totally sucked (the lack of reaction was astonishing, people were just shocked the match ended like that). Taker's streak was too big for anyone to gain from it, it was just something that should have remained mythical. All the Mania Taker matches after that point felt like they fucked it up and knew it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 It's interesting to debate the pros and cons of Brock ending Taker's streak now that we have some distance. It was definitely shocking in the moment, something you never thought was going to happen. Was it ended the "right way" by the "right guy"? Hindsight says no based on the well documented twists and turns that made the moment meaningless beyond remembering the initial shock and the mileage they've gotten from "eyes bulging out guy". The idea was supposedly to make Brock as strong as possible in order for Roman's win over him at the next Mania to be a huge star-making moment. Just writing that sentence and not bursting out laughing at the absurdity of it knowing how history played out was difficult. I think, in theory, they could've ended the streak the "right way" but because WWE is WWE it would only have been possible in an alternate universe where Vince didnt run away from booking like a wrestling promoter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 Lesnar was the perfect choice to end The Streak. In fact, it's probably the only well-booked ending to a winning streak in wrestling history. As is often the case in wrestling, it was the follow-up (WWE getting cold feet on Roman's coronation along with Taker continuing to wrestle to diminishing returns) that ruined it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 21 minutes ago, Ricky Jackson said: It's interesting to debate the pros and cons of Brock ending Taker's streak now that we have some distance. It was definitely shocking in the moment, something you never thought was going to happen. And that's why it absolutely sucked. The reaction in the crowd tells it all. Yeah, it was a "shock", it was a "surprise". Which is truly the dumbest way you could end that Streak if you ever needed to. They had absolutely built no tension whatsoever during the match at this point, no one bought that pinfall attempt as even an early nearfall because of the way big WWE Mania match are worked. Yet it was not a nearfall, it was the pinfall that ended up the Streak. They did not bring the crowd up to a boiling point of *believing it could happen* before doing the killshot, which could have been awesome if executed right. They could not have fucked this up worse than they did. Worst execution ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 Oh I agree. I remember I was only half watching at the end, glancing up thinking "Taker's going to kick out of a 3rd F-5? Really?". And then he didnt. But as you said, formulaic WWE booking usually gets in the way of good storytelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Hats 4.0 Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 Wasn’t Taker knocked out and doesn’t remember that match? Has anyone written about what the original ending would have looked like? Well, maybe it still would have been three F-5s, but a better structure leading to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirEdger Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 Taker got knocked out early in the match and if you watched The Last Ride, he stated that he doesn't remember from the match at Wrestlemania 30 from around 3 PM the afternoon of the show until when he was rushed to the hospital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 On 1/10/2021 at 2:10 PM, NintendoLogic said: Lesnar was the perfect choice to end The Streak. In fact, it's probably the only well-booked ending to a winning streak in wrestling history. As is often the case in wrestling, it was the follow-up (WWE getting cold feet on Roman's coronation along with Taker continuing to wrestle to diminishing returns) that ruined it. This is an interesting take. I would like to hear more about why you feel this way. If the goal was for Brock to win to give more of a rub to Roman... why not just have Roman be the one to beat 'Taker, like they ended up doing anyway? Maybe they feared it would give Roman backlash & make him a heel? Which... he currently is & is showing that it was probably the thing they should have done a long time ago. Brock didn't need the streak. He already had credibility. And if they wanted to make him the huge megamonster they did, why did they have him lose to John Cena in his first match back? WWE constantly shoots themselves in the foot. And sometimes still manage to limp to the right direction by accident anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 The problem was that the streak had gotten TOO big to make a new star, weirdly enough - if they'd tried with anyone newer, it would've felt forced and the backlash probably would've made Reigns look like the Rock. IMO their only choices were to have an established guy like Brock/Cena end it, or never end it (my preference). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 14 hours ago, Coffey said: This is an interesting take. I would like to hear more about why you feel this way. If the goal was for Brock to win to give more of a rub to Roman... why not just have Roman be the one to beat 'Taker, like they ended up doing anyway? Maybe they feared it would give Roman backlash & make him a heel? Which... he currently is & is showing that it was probably the thing they should have done a long time ago. WWE surely realized that whoever ended the streak would be the target of a massive fan backlash (which is why our old friend Dylan Waco always suggested having Cena end it by cheating and turn heel in the process). That's why the heel transitional champion exists-to put over the new top guy without alienating fans of the old top guy. Roman was still overwhelmingly popular among the fans in 2014 (they legitimately voted him Superstar of the Year), so they clearly never anticipated that they might turn on him the way they did after he won the 2015 Rumble. Also, the streak had to end while Taker still had something left in the tank for it to mean anything. If Roman had ended it at WM33, it would have come across as a sad mercy killing rather than a genuine accomplishment. Quote Brock didn't need the streak. He already had credibility. And if they wanted to make him the huge megamonster they did, why did they have him lose to John Cena in his first match back? Brock losing to Cena in his first match back is precisely why he needed the streak. WWE had largely squandered his comeback with the Cena loss and the interminable HHH feud. He needed something huge to restore him to what he should have been all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeg Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 A question for this thread, has anybody ever gotten over as a legit main event babyface without a big winning streak? If somebody can come up with an example I would love to hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 Well, Austin lost the match that made him a babyface superstar, and several matches in the months leading up to it. Face turns in general dont come from winning streaks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 It would be interesting to see Austin's record leading to WM XIV. To be over as a babyface, even when you're doing the underdog gimmick, you gotta win and win more often than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 1 hour ago, joeg said: A question for this thread, has anybody ever gotten over as a legit main event babyface without a big winning streak? If somebody can come up with an example I would love to hear it. Daniel Bryan? Getting squashed in 18 seconds by Sheamus was the spark that got fans rallying behind him to the point they nearly rioted that he didn't win a Rumble he wasn't even in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 It's funny. I saw this topic and thought, "Yeah, they're good. When they're booked well!" Then I tried to think of a winning streak that was well-booked and I couldn't. I can't think of a single win streak that ended well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 It's the Superman paradox. You try to make an unbeatable superhero, but you end up having to create so many macguffins to make beating him seem plausible it makes everyone look silly in the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 Also lest you think this is a new(er) problem, it took Andre the Giant and two Hebners for someone to finally beat Hogan after 4+ years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 26 minutes ago, Log said: It's funny. I saw this topic and thought, "Yeah, they're good. When they're booked well!" Then I tried to think of a winning streak that was well-booked and I couldn't. I can't think of a single win streak that ended well. Well, the ending matters less than the streak itself. Goldberg became a huge star thanks to the winning streak. The Taker Mania streak was a big time part of the appeal of Mania during the years where it became a huge event out of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 13 minutes ago, El-P said: Well, the ending matters less than the streak itself. Goldberg became a huge star thanks to the winning streak. The Taker Mania streak was a big time part of the appeal of Mania during the years where it became a huge event out of itself. True, but when you look back on a streak, people tend to (right or wrong) judge it by the ending. People think of Goldberg's streak and they think cattle prod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco Posted January 12, 2021 Report Share Posted January 12, 2021 1 hour ago, El-P said: It would be interesting to see Austin's record leading to WM XIV. To be over as a babyface, even when you're doing the underdog gimmick, you gotta win and win more often than not. I was curious so I looked on Cagematch. Starting with SS 96 where he loses to Bret, Austin was never pinned on TV and only once on PPV where he lost to Undertaker the month after WM13. Any losses he had on TV were DQs, he lost at the Final Four PPV but that was getting thrown over the top rope and of course famously to Bret at WM13 where he passed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.