So was ending The Streak the right call?

[rippo]

Can't believe this poll is so one-sided. My answer is NO.

The match sucked and the initial shock wasn't worth it, long-term. Besides that, Brock was the wrong guy to do it. And the WAY they did it, was also completely wrong. If I remember right, it was one F5? (Taker might have kicked out of 2 a few minutes before hand)... This is a guy who kicked out of 25 chair shots from HHH. Lesnar should have done something more dramatic like... I don't know, Break the ring with an F5 or something.

I get they wanted the shock factor... everyone thought Taker would kick out of such a simple F5 and he didn't. I get that. But this guy is supposed to be invincible. Lesnar should have straight killed him with something more symbolic to end such a long build-up of over 20 years.

[mcstoklasa]

Aug 19, 2015 18:39:26 GMT -5 The Trashman said:

Just seems awful meaningless and they didnt follow up on it in any significant way until now. Lesnar isnt any more over because of it and if they just hadnt had him lose to Cena and HHH he would be undefeated since coming back (which probably would mean more than him beating Taker anyway).

Sorry but I cannot agree with that at all.

Lesnar was becoming just another guy after HHH's ego attempted to ruin him in 2013. Still, Lesnar was still special and had a tremendous match with Punk and then squashed Big Show.

Since he ended the streak though, Lesnar has been THE guy. Every time he's out there it feels important, like a big fight. They did follow up on the streak, Lesnar became the strongest, most dominant guy I can remember in wrestling history. I don't remember Austin, Rock or anyone getting straight up from finishers.

He is definitly more over now since ending the streak. He and HHH were brawling to a symphony of silence at WM 29, now Lesnar gets crazy reactions.

[mcstoklasa]

Aug 19, 2015 18:42:14 GMT -5 rippo said:

Can't believe this poll is so one-sided. My answer is NO.

The match sucked and the initial shock wasn't worth it, long-term. Besides that, Brock was the wrong guy to do it. And the WAY they did it, was also completely wrong. If I remember right, it was one F5? (Taker might have kicked out of 2 a few minutes before hand)... This is a guy who kicked out of 25 chair shots from HHH. Lesnar should have done something more dramatic like... I don't know, Break the ring with an F5 or something.

I get they wanted the shock factor... everyone thought Taker would kick out of such a simple F5 and he didn't. I get that. But this guy is supposed to be invincible. Lesnar should have straight killed him with something more symbolic to end such a long build-up of over 20 years.

He beat the tar out of Taker the whole match more or less, Taker didn't get up for five minutes at one point. It was the gradual accumulation effect. It took three F5's along with the general punishment of the other moves, slams and attacks Brock inflicted on him in the match.

[The Yes Man]

The only bad call regarding it would be Taker not retiring afterwards.

[Starshine]

I was completely against the streak being broken. But they did the right thing. Lesnar needed that after the shitty Triple H matches, it legitimised him like almost nothing else could and made him something special. Without the streak breaking, I don't think we get the Cena squash, or the Reigns match happening like it did. When you consider the alternative was Taker defending the streak against Wyatt, I prefer Lesnar being the guy to beat.

[molson5]

So much of the mainstream media around Lesnar this week has referenced that match and the streak, which is something a lot of casual or former fans are familiar with. It's helped make him even more larger than life. Brock is a bigger deal now than he was then. And he was the right guy to beat Undertaker because he's the only guy the streak wasn't too big for. If a younger guy with less star power broke the streak, I think it would have sunk him. Even a big push after that would have seemed anti-climatic. With Lesnar, there was a higher ceiling after Undertaker - destroying Cena, SportsCenter, semi-mainstream acceptance.

[Mayonnaise]

Aug 19, 2015 18:50:12 GMT -5 molson5 said:

So much of the mainstream media around Lesnar this week has referenced that match and the streak, which is something a lot of casual or former fans are familiar with. It's helped make him even more larger than life. Brock is a bigger deal now than he was then. And he was the right guy to beat Undertaker because he's the only guy the streak wasn't too big for. If a younger guy with less star power broke the streak, I think it would have sunk him. Even a big push after that would have seemed anti-climatic. With Lesnar, there was a higher ceiling after Undertaker - destroying Cena, SportsCenter, semi-mainstream acceptance.

And that right there is another reason they nailed it. If it had to end, and it was, Brock was the only person who could do it and not be dragged down by it. Looking at who fell to the Streak, and some multiple times, someone like Brock with the credentials outside WWE and in it, would not suffer the let down that would come with say Roman or Bryan or anyone else that is a regular roster member. 

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Aug 19, 2015 18:50:11 GMT -5 Starshine said:

I was completely against the streak being broken. But they did the right thing. Lesnar needed that after the shitty Triple H matches, it legitimised him like almost nothing else could and made him something special. Without the streak breaking, I don't think we get the Cena squash, or the Reigns match happening like it did. When you consider the alternative was Taker defending the streak against Wyatt, I prefer Lesnar being the guy to beat.

But all of that stuff is the reason why Reigns got the backlash that he did. Because WWE put all the eggs in the Lesnar basket, it meant that whoever wasn't wrestling Lesnar at WM31 was only getting crumbs. Maybe fans wouldn't have turned against Reigns if he had his title match, and others like Daniel Bryan could still have "main event" level matches.

[The Dark Order Inferno]

Yes, Undertaker needs to retire and there is no-one on the main roster who has been booked well enough to be the man to retire him so Brock was the best Plan B. He's going to be a special attraction, wheeled out at Wrestlemanias for years to come, taking 'Taker's spot as the legend that can still go, unfortunately they're going to give 'taker his win back at Summerslam and have them have a final showdown at Mania to drag this out far longer than it should.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Aug 19, 2015 19:09:02 GMT -5 The Dark Order Inferno said:

Yes, Undertaker needs to retire and there is no-one on the main roster who has been booked well enough to be the man to retire him so Brock was the best Plan B. He's going to be a special attraction, wheeled out at Wrestlemanias for years to come, taking 'Taker's spot as the legend that can still go, unfortunately they're going to give 'taker his win back at Summerslam and have them have a final showdown at Mania to drag this out far longer than it should.

If there was no one good enough to beat the streak, then the streak should've continued with Taker making younger talents look good in defeat,

[Gerard Gerard]

When the ref clipped three it legit felt like a "the world has changed, I'm not sure I like it" moment. Whatever there is to be said for the quality of the match itself, SNK Boss Lesnar has been a consistently redeeming highlight of the product.

[Starshine]

Aug 19, 2015 19:05:36 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Aug 19, 2015 18:50:11 GMT -5 Starshine said:

I was completely against the streak being broken. But they did the right thing. Lesnar needed that after the shitty Triple H matches, it legitimised him like almost nothing else could and made him something special. Without the streak breaking, I don't think we get the Cena squash, or the Reigns match happening like it did. When you consider the alternative was Taker defending the streak against Wyatt, I prefer Lesnar being the guy to beat.

But all of that stuff is the reason why Reigns got the backlash that he did. Because WWE put all the eggs in the Lesnar basket, it meant that whoever wasn't wrestling Lesnar at WM31 was only getting crumbs. Maybe fans wouldn't have turned against Reigns if he had his title match, and others like Daniel Bryan could still have "main event" level matches.

That's not true, they'd put their eggs into the Reigns basket, which is why the fans turned on him so fiercely. They saw through their blatant attempt to shove him down their throats. Simply put it was the wrong time to push him that strongly.

Say if Bryan had won instead, there wouldn't have been a backlash because he was the guy fans were ready to see in that position. It was about how they were using Reigns and then shoving everyone else aside, not that they disliked him all along. Put almost anyone else in that exact situation and you'd get the same result.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Aug 19, 2015 19:15:52 GMT -5 Starshine said:

Aug 19, 2015 19:05:36 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

But all of that stuff is the reason why Reigns got the backlash that he did. Because WWE put all the eggs in the Lesnar basket, it meant that whoever wasn't wrestling Lesnar at WM31 was only getting crumbs. Maybe fans wouldn't have turned against Reigns if he had his title match, and others like Daniel Bryan could still have "main event" level matches.

That's not true, they'd put their eggs into the Reigns basket, which is why the fans turned on him so fiercely. They saw through their blatant attempt to shove him down their throats. Simply put it was the wrong time to push him that strongly.

Say if Bryan had won instead, there wouldn't have been a backlash because he was the guy fans were ready to see in that position. It was about how they were using Reigns and then shoving everyone else aside, not that they disliked him all along. Put almost anyone else in that exact situation and you'd get the same result.

Yeah. I didn't like the Reigns megapush. But part of the problem with that was that they gave Lesnar the Streak, they had him squash Cena for the title, and made him the Final Boss for the explicit purpose of feeding to Reigns. Had they not done that, then maybe BOTH Bryan and Reigns could have high profile matches. WWE could've had their chosen one megaface and the fans could've had Bryan if they hadn't stupidly chosen to make Brock Lesnar the only big time program that only one wrestler could have.

[The Dark Order Inferno]

Aug 19, 2015 19:10:51 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Aug 19, 2015 19:09:02 GMT -5 The Dark Order Inferno said:

Yes, Undertaker needs to retire and there is no-one on the main roster who has been booked well enough to be the man to retire him so Brock was the best Plan B. He's going to be a special attraction, wheeled out at Wrestlemanias for years to come, taking 'Taker's spot as the legend that can still go, unfortunately they're going to give 'taker his win back at Summerslam and have them have a final showdown at Mania to drag this out far longer than it should.

If there was no one good enough to beat the streak, then the streak should've continued with Taker making younger talents look good in defeat,

He's lost a step because of his countless injuries, the days of making people look good in defeat are behind him, just look at his encounter with Bray. He was basically left feuding with himself for most of it, not something that gives you much of a rub.

[Starshine]

Aug 19, 2015 19:18:58 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Aug 19, 2015 19:15:52 GMT -5 Starshine said:

That's not true, they'd put their eggs into the Reigns basket, which is why the fans turned on him so fiercely. They saw through their blatant attempt to shove him down their throats. Simply put it was the wrong time to push him that strongly.

Say if Bryan had won instead, there wouldn't have been a backlash because he was the guy fans were ready to see in that position. It was about how they were using Reigns and then shoving everyone else aside, not that they disliked him all along. Put almost anyone else in that exact situation and you'd get the same result.

Yeah. I didn't like the Reigns megapush. But part of the problem with that was that they gave Lesnar the Streak, they had him squash Cena for the title, and made him the Final Boss for the explicit purpose of feeding to Reigns. Had they not done that, then maybe BOTH Bryan and Reigns could have high profile matches. WWE could've had their chosen one megaface and the fans could've had Bryan if they hadn't stupidly chosen to make Brock Lesnar the only big time program that only one wrestler could have.

But look on the bright side, instead of Lesnar being used to feed Reigns push, he's now a very unique and special attraction. Also Reigns is doing okay for himself, that match probably did more for him than holding the belt could right now. It's important to have one or two guys at Lesnar's stature on the shows because it create more intrigue than your typical Randy Orton or Sheamus match can on it's own.

Yes, it might not be fair that he's pushed far harder than guys who travel everyday, but he's got everything to back it up, and the fans buy into it. A lot of that is because of how strongly they have built him up over the past year and a half, you can't get that from the vast majority of guys on the roster. If lightning metaphorically strikes you have to ride it out. We're not going to see someone like him ever again.

[Deleted]

I think if you have a guy who can shoulder the burden of being the guy who beat the streak you almost have to do it. The build to Brock/Taker stunk and the match was disappointing (how much of it was due to the concussion and how much was due to Undertaker's age I guess we'll find out Sunday) but still, Brock beating 'Taker will be a moment that lives through decades. Hogan vs. Andre wasn't a stellar match by any means but it still created a moment that resonates. It's cool and all if Undertaker could have retired with it, but the streak is still something to marvel at whether it was beaten or not. It's one of the things that makes wrestling pretty fascinating that a story could literally be building for 21 years, so Brock beating it doesn't really take much away. Once you reach the absurd stat of a 21 year undefeated streak, it doesn't really matter whether the next one is 22-0 or 21-1 does it?

Brock beating 'Taker prolongs the effects of the streak, I know Brock is liable to leave on a whim but I think it's safe to say Brock will outlast Undertaker by now. So now when Undertaker is gone, the phenomenon of the streak still carries on through Brock, and even if not, the way I see it, if Undertaker has more 'Mania matches left, the stakes to those will now be higher because we'll know that Undertaker now can be beaten and his matches won't just be novelty acts. To me there's no better person on Earth to beat the streak but Brock Lesnar, he's got a larger than life presence, Heyman's promos sell the weight of the moment and raises Brock to mythical status.

[Kevin Hamilton]

It honestly sort of depends on what happens on Sunday.

If Taker wins, nope.

[Kevin Hamilton]

It definitely went to the right guy though. Brock is all sorts of believable and can carry the load of ending the streak just on sheer presence and aura.

A young guy wouldn't have fit that at all. Brock was A#1 there.

[Captain Stud Muffin (BLM)]

Aug 19, 2015 18:34:50 GMT -5 BrianZane said:

I will always maintain that Lesnar was the right guy (or at least in the category of other "right guys") to end the streak. People always said a young up-and-comer should have been the one to beat Undertaker and while that's a nice sentiment to have, the problem with young, unproven guys is that you have no idea how they're going to end up. Everyone wanted CM Punk to win at WM29 but how silly would that have looked since he quit WWE less than a year later? Out of all the people Taker has fought at WM in the last ten years, Orton was the best choice for a "young guy" to do it, but then all the internet got up and said, "Well, I don't want THAT young guy to do it!"

It had to be someone established, someone like Lesnar or Triple H or Shawn Michaels to do it...sure, none of them NEEDED the win, but any one of them would have benefited from being the guy to do it, and it would have been believable.

I've grown to hate the "young guy" excuse because he's never a young guy to do it but the young guy that fan wants to do it. Orton was the only guy young guy that could have ended the streak but he didn't and that ended the young guy conversation.

Lesnar was the right guy to do it and now the aura around him is crazy and even if he does lose Sunday he was still have an air about him that screams no normal guy can take me down. There is a reason Taker had multiple matches with guys like Shawn and HHH over the years because the fans can buy into them ending the streak.

Also, wasn't Punk "upset" about his consolation match with the Undertaker. Even if he thought about giving him the nod i'm pretty sure that didn't endear himself to the higher ups. 

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Aug 19, 2015 20:52:17 GMT -5 Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) said:

Aug 19, 2015 18:34:50 GMT -5 BrianZane said:

I will always maintain that Lesnar was the right guy (or at least in the category of other "right guys") to end the streak. People always said a young up-and-comer should have been the one to beat Undertaker and while that's a nice sentiment to have, the problem with young, unproven guys is that you have no idea how they're going to end up. Everyone wanted CM Punk to win at WM29 but how silly would that have looked since he quit WWE less than a year later? Out of all the people Taker has fought at WM in the last ten years, Orton was the best choice for a "young guy" to do it, but then all the internet got up and said, "Well, I don't want THAT young guy to do it!"

It had to be someone established, someone like Lesnar or Triple H or Shawn Michaels to do it...sure, none of them NEEDED the win, but any one of them would have benefited from being the guy to do it, and it would have been believable.

I've grown to hate the "young guy" excuse because he's never a young guy to do it but the young guy that fan wants to do it. Orton was the only guy young guy that could have ended the streak but he didn't and that ended the young guy conversation.

Lesnar was the right guy to do it and now the aura around him is crazy and even if he does lose Sunday he was still have an air about him that screams no normal guy can take me down. There is a reason Taker had multiple matches with guys like Shawn and HHH over the years because the fans can buy into them ending the streak.

Also, wasn't Punk "upset" about his consolation match with the Undertaker. Even if he thought about giving him the nod i'm pretty sure that didn't endear himself to the higher ups. 

The Streak didn't become a "thing" UNTIL Orton faced Taker.

Taker being wasted on multiple matches with HHH and HBK is part of why the roster is how it is. WWE have been so fixated on dream matches with older stars that they neglected building up younger talents for too long.

Punk was upset because his match with Taker wasn't considered a "main event" match by the higher ups until after the fact.