|
|
Post by psychokiller on Mar 4, 2008 22:40:13 GMT -5
Did they plan to have Taker undefeated at Wrestlemania back in the day, or did they just happen to book him to win every year without thinking about him being undefeated until a few years ago?
|
|
|
|
Post by Main Event Mark on Mar 4, 2008 22:41:47 GMT -5
I don't remember them really mentioning it until he was about to go 10-0..which was at Mania X8 against Flair I think.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,352 
|
Post by The Ichi on Mar 4, 2008 22:42:35 GMT -5
Well, they couldn't have planned it from the very beginning because they couldn't have possibly known he'd stay with them for so long. My guess is it was just a coincidence at first until maybe the late 90s/early 00s when they decided to capatalize on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by saggyboyflair on Mar 4, 2008 22:43:07 GMT -5
Giant Gonzales beat taker as far as im concerned  .. Ross: ITS CLOROFOR!!! ITS CLOROFOR.. WHAT A STENCH!!! BY GAWD!!!! Savage: You could kill a guy with that!! Im THINKING THINKING THINKING OHH YEAAA |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Mar 4, 2008 22:44:14 GMT -5
The earliest I remember it being mentioned is vs. Kane at WM XIV. And even then it was just a quick "Undertaker has never lost at WrestleMania". But I think the poster above me is right. I don't recall them really making a big deal out of it until X-7 vs. Triple H.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 4, 2008 22:47:44 GMT -5
I doubt it, someone probably just noticed and realized what a neat lil marketing/story tool it could be.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,996
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Mar 4, 2008 22:51:48 GMT -5
No way they planned it. It just happened. I believe the IWC was really the first to pick up on the streak and go with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by WWE Trademarked My Name on Mar 4, 2008 23:38:42 GMT -5
Yeah I agree that it really wasn't planned out until prolly X-Seven against Triple H.
|
|
|
|
Post by xcv on Mar 4, 2008 23:42:27 GMT -5
Compared with Hulk Hogan, who lost at 4, 6, and 18, it's amazing they managed to let Undertaker do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sumbody Gon' Get Dey Kneelift on Mar 4, 2008 23:44:13 GMT -5
I wish this was a poll so I could help the majority with X-7.
|
|
odor31
Unicron
The Stunner Collector
Posts: 3,240
|
Post by odor31 on Mar 5, 2008 0:41:53 GMT -5
Yeah, this definitely is a question of when was it planned and not was.
|
|
TheKillShot
Don Corleone
The man with the flan.
Posts: 1,952
|
Post by TheKillShot on Mar 5, 2008 1:18:26 GMT -5
In the beggining, it was more of a push thing, I think. His fight with Giant Gonzales could have gone either way back then, but lucky for Mark, he got the nod to win that match. It could have been that the WWE has given him so many wins at WM that they have now no clue on how to end it.
|
|
|
|
Post by springwater on Mar 5, 2008 1:21:50 GMT -5
Nah, he just faced a bunch of jobbers and/or guys who were leaving the company for many years in a row
|
|
|
|
Post by James McCloud IS John Godot on Mar 5, 2008 1:23:33 GMT -5
Gonzalez was the only one he could have lost. Everything else was either obvious and was always going to favour 'Taker or since about '99, designed to feed the legend.
|
|
Marvelously Mediocre
Fry's dog Seymour
Beggin' for a little SWAGGAH!
Haha. What a story Mark.
Posts: 21,224
|
Post by Marvelously Mediocre on Mar 5, 2008 2:13:54 GMT -5
I remember being mentioned at 13. am i wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by saggyboyflair on Mar 5, 2008 2:25:33 GMT -5
I was actually suprised Taker beat Kane in 98. I didnt think they would job Kane out so quickly since they were building his character. The best incarnation of the character as far as Im concerned. That loss IMO damaged Kane's "invincibility"a bit.
|
|
Lt. Palumbo
Hank Scorpio
On again off again watcher of a wrestling TV show
Posts: 6,067
|
Post by Lt. Palumbo on Mar 5, 2008 2:25:55 GMT -5
I've been thinking about this recently too and I'd say almost definitely not, but when do you think they realized that he'd never been beaten? First time I remember it mentioned was at 18. Do you think they realized that year? the year before?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mister Yummy on Mar 5, 2008 2:54:25 GMT -5
I've heard random crap about how "it's in his contract that he never lose at Wrestlemania", but I think that's bogus. It just happened that way at first, and now they keep it going, because it adds to his legend.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,996
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Mar 5, 2008 3:05:50 GMT -5
I was actually suprised Taker beat Kane in 98. I didnt think they would job Kane out so quickly since they were building his character. The best incarnation of the character as far as Im concerned. That loss IMO damaged Kane's "invincibility"a bit. Once Taker beat him, I stopped caring about Kane. That was what, 10 years ago? As far as I'm concerned, the character was done after that loss. Why the blue hell did Kane hang around? So far as I can tell, he came to get revenge on Taker, not wrestle.... Yeah, was never into Kane at all, ever, ever, ever after that loss. |
|
|
|
Post by cactusrob on Mar 5, 2008 3:17:12 GMT -5
Giant Gonzales beat taker as far as im concerned By getting DQ'd?!? Sometimes I'm convinced you say stuff just to wind people up.... |
|
..
