Macca316 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I got to thinking about this just before, At what point do you think the WWE decided to officially make it a planned year in year out Streak. I mean i can't imagine that they planned this from day 1. what do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousG Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I'd guess they made it about the streak in 2005, which was when, IIRC, they started having people challenge Undertaker in attempts to break it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefmoon Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I got to thinking about this just before, At what point do you think the WWE decided to officially make it a planned year in year out Streak. I mean i can't imagine that they planned this from day 1. what do you guys think? From what I understand, there was never a plan to make it a year on year thing, it was just that 'Taker deserved the win over whoever he was facing each year until Wrestlemania 17. That was the first time they mentioned "the streak" because the plan was for Shawn Michaels to interfere and cost Undertaker the match (and have Triple H end the Streak) but Shawn Michaels turned up drunk to the event (which led to him becoming born again) so they had to scrap the run in and have Undertaker win again. So from then they had the streak mentioned and it hadn't ended when they planned, so it had grown in stature, so they kept running with it I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca316 Posted January 25, 2010 Author Share Posted January 25, 2010 From what I understand, there was never a plan to make it a year on year thing, it was just that 'Taker deserved the win over whoever he was facing each year until Wrestlemania 17. That was the first time they mentioned "the streak" because the plan was for Shawn Michaels to interfere and cost Undertaker the match (and have Triple H end the Streak) but Shawn Michaels turned up drunk to the event (which led to him becoming born again) so they had to scrap the run in and have Undertaker win again. So from then they had the streak mentioned and it hadn't ended when they planned, so it had grown in stature, so they kept running with it I think. I didn't know that. Wrestlemania 17 vs Triple H is one of my fave streak matches, I dont think i would have enjoyed it as much had that actually happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trypio Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I think he got lucky to be picked as a winner the first 5 times or so. From then on the bookers had to ask themselves the question "Is it worth it to end the streak against this opponent under these circumstances (title or no title,...)?" The only time they could've considered answering "Yes" to this question was against Kane at 14 and against Orton at 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Black Phenom Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 There were several moments where they thought about ending it, IIRC. They seriously thought about giving the nod to Orton at Mania 21 but I.. think Orton himself declined, not wanting to be the one to break it. They also had thoughts about Batista going over him at WM23. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca316 Posted January 25, 2010 Author Share Posted January 25, 2010 Do you guys think it should ever be ended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comradebot Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Do you guys think it should ever be ended? Maybe his very last match, should he be cool enough to find someone who deserves to be put over in a massive way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Black Phenom Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I don't think it should be. At least I hope not, that's the kind of historic feat that may never be repeated again should they keep it intact, or at least it would take a hell of a long while to pull it off with someone else again. But if it had to, it would have to be damn well worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca316 Posted January 25, 2010 Author Share Posted January 25, 2010 I agree I dont ever want to see the streak broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praguepride Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I believe this has grown far larger then "hogan trying to slam andre"...I mean that was a long build and that only lasted a year. Considering all that Undertaker's given to the business, I thin he deserves a cool legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrestlingfan1 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Personally I don't want to see it end, but the way I've always looked at it was like this; the day it does end will be Undertaker's final match/year in the business. Unless he hogan/flair retires comes back and loses in which case it wouldn't be the same thing as beating THE Undertaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Casey Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Right thing for the business - putting over the Next Big Thing in a match that will make him a star. Nice thing to do - Letting him go out on top. Ideally, for the streak to end, it should be the first match between the two of any sort. It should be someone who is a surefire star (insofar as you can tell) and who's grounded enough to cope with the push. The storyline leading up to it should also be pretty epic - a long build, cat and mouse, everything thrown in to make it an unmissable match. I know that there was talk about Ted Dibiase getting the win this year back around last summer, but it seems like he's headed for a match with Orton (and maybe Rhodes) this year. I don't think he's at the point now where he could beat Undertaker and have it mean the same as if it had been building for months. I suppose he could play on the 'My dad created you, now I'll destroy you' if he wins the Rumble or something, but I don't think he's been shown as being strong enough. For me ending the streak should be the last step to make a star - or the first step to make a monster if Kane had won in 1998, then fair enough. I believe that the first match to be built around the streak was against Flair, incidentally. It may have been mentioned before, but that was the first one where it was the sole stated purpose of the challenger to end the streak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperOwens Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 If it ends, it should be to create a new star. I don't want to see Hunter or Shawn lobbying to take it. If that doesn't happen, he should just keep it intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candyman Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 It's too big to end. There's no reason for a guy like HBK or Triple H to end it, they don't need the rub. But anybody who does need the rub won't have earned it. I may just stop watching WWE if Ted DiBiase (or an equivelant) ends the streak. If Undertaker picks out somebody and feels strongly that they deserve to end his streak, fine, but I'd be more than content if he retires and goes into the Hall of Fame undefeated at Wrestlemania. He deserves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machinesxe Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Whomever gets it should do so in a casket match to finally put Taker and the streak to rest. Any other way would no do it justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 From what I understand, there was never a plan to make it a year on year thing, it was just that 'Taker deserved the win over whoever he was facing each year until Wrestlemania 17. That was the first time they mentioned "the streak" because the plan was for Shawn Michaels to interfere and cost Undertaker the match (and have Triple H end the Streak) but Shawn Michaels turned up drunk to the event (which led to him becoming born again) so they had to scrap the run in and have Undertaker win again. So from then they had the streak mentioned and it hadn't ended when they planned, so it had grown in stature, so they kept running with it I think. Where did you hear this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACCBiggz Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 That was the first time they mentioned "the streak" I'm fairly sure the streak was mentioned on air way before this. Regardless, I think someone should beat him eventually. But it should be a up and comer and have the right program behind it to put them over. If a veteren like Shawn or someone else ended it I'd dislike the move highly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Kane Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I strongly think nobody should take the streak. Its bigger than just Undertaker himself at this point, hell its almost as big of a deal to the fan's as the actual event is at this stage from a prestige point of view his streak is worth both the world titles at the same time... atleast in my book. If it was ever to be taken, it should be by a guy who is under 30 and has payed his due's and realy shows the qualitys to lead the company forward, Ted Dibase comes to mind ... over and over again in my mind. With that said... i still cant bring myself to agree that it should ever be done, long after UT stops been part of WM the streak will be remmbered by fans... i just dont think thats something i would want to mess with. Could it turn a "superstar" into a Mega star? sure... but not just the win... it would take them 12 months... 24 months maybe to do the build up the justice it needed, the "young stud" would almost certainly have to be the central focus of one brands show for the best part of a year leading into his initital match with Taker @ Mania, and he would have to lose in a way that made him look like a real contender to the streak, he would then need a whole other year of the same before he eventualy got the win... and i dont think Taker has 2 more years in him... and i dont think HBK has much longer eaither so if thats what they are doing with him... meh. Note: Taker would almost certainly have to be heel to lose. And even then it would most likely have to also be his retirement match. And even then they are NOT going to want Taker to lose a retirement match as heel... unless its against a BIG name like The Rock who could actualy turn Taker face again at the end of the show... Note's Note: Offtopic.. isnt it depressing that in 2010 im still having to use 'The Rock' as an example of a "big name"... says alot about the state of the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praguepride Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Or you could say that it says a lot about The Rock. I think moreso then even Austin he was the superstar of the Attitude era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capelli King Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Do you guys think it should ever be ended? No, i think this is one thing the Taker deserves, he never got the proper runs for the title, so they should at least leave this to his name. They could however retire him after a loss in WM (maybe next year though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franchise22 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 If it ends, it should be to create a new star. I don't want to see Hunter or Shawn lobbying to take it. If that doesn't happen, he should just keep it intact. i feel the opposite. if it ends, a big name should do it. if the up and comer becomes a bust.... its a HUGE waste of major wwe history. i however believe it should stick. similiar to the 72 dolphins, one undefeated team in history never to be matched!!! But it it does go down, some one of importance needs to do it to add to its historics feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.