|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Aug 19, 2015 21:09:41 GMT -5
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. I know Orton turned heel so he could break the streak that's why I said he was the one young guy who could do it considering from that match on the streak has been the focus of Taker every Mania. I disagree, now I don't think he should have had 3 damn matches with HHH at Mania but he's faced a lot of people and putting him against younger guys at Mania would of gotten them eaten alive. Let's not forget Taker did wrestle regularly on Smackdown so Mania wasn't the end all be all. You sell Mania based off dream matches and anticipation. Would there have been anticipation for Taker vs Carlito, Shelton, or Masters?
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Aug 19, 2015 21:10:53 GMT -5
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. Punk's problem was that he wasn't given a main event level payday, which he didn't see as fair. Especially when Vince and Trips tried to convince him that his match with Taker was a co-main event and praised it as the best match of the night. He wanted a part in the main event slot that year, but they were gung-ho on Cena/Rock II.
|
|
Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby
Grimlock
Blanket burrito season is back, and I never left the blankets
Posts: 12,845
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby on Aug 19, 2015 23:17:37 GMT -5
The Streak had ceased to be a draw because all tension had been eliminated, and the result renewed Lesnar's aura. I'd say that is as good a result as could have been gotten out of the Streak.
|
|
edgehead
Dennis Stamp
Not a Poopyhead
Posts: 4,086
|
Post by edgehead on Aug 19, 2015 23:29:31 GMT -5
Yes. I've been a wrestling fan since 1992 and haven't been legit shocked in quite awhile. As cheesy as it may sound, when the ref's hand hit 3, I'll never forget shock I felt. And they managed to not only pull that off, but to build up Lesnar from it for the last few years. At the time, I thought it was a mistake, but I was wrong.
|
|
stealthamo
King Koopa
Something stupid
#AJAll
Posts: 11,247
|
Post by stealthamo on Aug 19, 2015 23:35:41 GMT -5
I've always thought it was the right decision. Because for the last few years, Taker matches had honestly become a bit boring, because it seemed so obvious that he was going to win. It's part of the reason I never got into the Taker/HHH matches, and while Punk/Taker was the best match from Mania 29, I didn't think it was anything special, because A. Basically all of the spots were repeats from previous Taker Mania matches, and B. There was no chance in hell Punk was gonna win. Granted, I thought part B would be true with Brock as well, which is part of the reason why it is so memorable. I was half paying attention to the match, waiting for the Taker comeback/win. And when Brock pinned him, I did a double take, as I'm sure a lot of people did.
As for afterwards, they've basically done everything right with Lesnar (as of right now, we'll see on Sunday if that holds). But breaking the streak was half of how Lesnar has his current aura, the other part being the suplex marathon that was Summerslam last year. That definitely set up Lesnar as the "Big Boss", the ultimate chapter if you want to make it to the top. Which is also the reason that Lesnar was the right choice. I don't think anybody else in the company could've had that aura surrounding them that Lesnar has now. With anyone else (especially an up-and-comer), their career afterwards would be under a huge microscope, and very few would be able to make it work (WWE's likely bad booking of them also would not help). But with Lesnar's part-time schedule, and Heyman being the promo man he is, they made it work.
|
|
|
Post by benstudd on Aug 20, 2015 3:55:38 GMT -5
Seeing what happened since, of course it was the right call. Brock became BROCK.
Back then I still was not convinced cause the whole thing was awkward for everybody mainly cause Brock was seen as a part-timer who was undeserving of the rub. But even if they cannot book anything for this shit these days, give credit where it's due, the WWE took this and milked it like crazy, almost like post Bret-Vince-Montreal where they used the hate people had toward Vince and made him this super-heel and made tons of money off it. Well, in one night Paul Heyman turned all these baffled feelings that people had into gold. And now WWE had something they could build on.
Then we got the brilliant Summerslam Cena-Lesnar booking and the rest is history. (damn I want to watch that again)
Still...the fanboy in me would have wanted to have had Sting do it. Or at least have Taker been undefeated at Mania when Sting come a knockin'.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Aug 20, 2015 4:13:50 GMT -5
Yes
It's made Lesnar the biggest thing in wrestling. Who else could have got the win? Bryan maybe but he's made of glass. Reigns people would have shit over. Rollins it wouldn't fit his character at all. Ambrose isn't that good. Wyatt maybe would be the only other feasible option.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Aug 20, 2015 4:39:38 GMT -5
I still say no.
But, having done it, Brock's one of a tiny group that can at least shoulder the pressure.
Just a shame it was such a poor match, circumstances allowing.
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Aug 20, 2015 7:15:25 GMT -5
The whole buildup was rushed and I'm not sure what to think of the Summerslam match. I personally wanted to see Undertaker keep the streak intact until he retired-maybe it would have been a better match for him to win if it had been several years ago
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Aug 20, 2015 7:51:05 GMT -5
if taker didn't retire with the streak intact having brock do it was probably the best option. there wasn't really anyone else around that looked to be any kind of threat to "the streak that HBK and HHH tried for 4 years to break but couldn't" Taker besides brock and cena (I mean look at how people reacted to Bray being the WM opponent this year. no one gave him much of a shot).
Cena couldn't be the one because that would probably turn half of the half of the crowd that actually liked him against him- not to mention who would be the heel since the crowd wouldn't boo Taker against cena and they won't turn cena. so if they did meet taker would have to win just to ensure cena wouldn't get dumped on even worse and possibly even force a heel turn if the crowds got loud enough.
brock would be believable for what he's done in his career- couldn't care less if he was a face or heel, would remove the pressure if they did try to end the streak with someone they didn't trust to be able to handle the burden and expectations from being the streak breaker. and it also allowed them to do the nigh-squash of cena last year- after all brock ended the streak- not even cena can stop him.
then in WWE's eyes, this would work perfectly for the soon to be crowned bestest, face-iest, face of super cheerablity they were creating to become the next cena level big babyface (shh that Bryan guy doesn't count, he's short, looks like a goat and gets hurt a lot- who cares if everyone likes him) when Roman Reigns saved the WWE from the conquerer Brock lesnar...except they bungled that so badly people were more pro-Brock when Mania came around.
in theory this should have worked to make Reigns the new cena level main event face to give cena a bit of a break (of something other than his nose). and it wouldn't have had the same effect if brock didn't break the streak to get the ball rolling. so IMO the streak was sacrificed to make Reigns the Man and slayer of the unslayable until the crowd backlash killed that idea.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Aug 20, 2015 9:05:42 GMT -5
Seeing what happened since, of course it was the right call. Brock became BROCK. Back then I still was not convinced cause the whole thing was awkward for everybody mainly cause Brock was seen as a part-timer who was undeserving of the rub. But even if they cannot book anything for this shit these days, give credit where it's due, the WWE took this and milked it like crazy, almost like post Bret-Vince-Montreal where they used the hate people had toward Vince and made him this super-heel and made tons of money off it. Well, in one night Paul Heyman turned all these baffled feelings that people had into gold. And now WWE had something they could build on. Then we got the brilliant Summerslam Cena-Lesnar booking and the rest is history. (damn I want to watch that again) Still...the fanboy in me would have wanted to have had Sting do it. Or at least have Taker been undefeated at Mania when Sting come a knockin'. I hear this a lot or used to so I tend to ask this question. Why does Brock being a part timer hold him back from being deserving? He couldn't bolt after the win because he was still under contract another year. Sting vs. Taker wouldn't have been a barn burner and still wouldn't be now but the main purpose of that match is the entrances and the atmosphere around the match. If 50 something year old Sting came off the TNA boat to beat Taker people would of lost their shit and if he lost to Taker it would of been same old same old. At least now if they do matchup(which is still possible) the match will have a different air about it since no more undefeated streak. Make it a career vs career match if you really want to raise the stakes as neither don't really need to wrestle anymore and are fine doing special appearances and signature spots.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 20, 2015 10:21:22 GMT -5
No
Taker should have always remained unbeaten at Mania.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 10:27:06 GMT -5
I'm glad it's over, because it's made Taker less relevant, and I really want him to go away.
As far as Brock breaking it...he needed it. But he shouldn't have needed it.
Perfect world, they take a chance by giving a newer heel the hugest rub possible. But they ended up working themselves by building it up too much, so they went with the sure thing.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Aug 20, 2015 10:54:53 GMT -5
Yes, because one person is not bigger than the industry. Taker knew this. He wanted Kane to end The Streak, but Kane wouldn't do it.
As far as who should have done it, it would be a question of whom would make the most of the rub. Roman Reigns wouldn't have been the right choice, because they were still trying to get his push started, and the crowd wasn't completely behind him yet. Cena wouldn't have been right, because half the crowd hates him. Orton wouldn't have been right, because he's boring. HHH wouldn't have been right, because he had just tried twice, and was no longer an in-ring performer. Really, for something like this, you want someone that the crowd more or less feels one way about. That leaves The Rock and Brock Lesnar. Rock wasn't going to do it, so that leaves Brock.
|
|
|
Post by MrElijah on Aug 20, 2015 11:15:48 GMT -5
Didn't Orton say no to the streak?
Because outside of the legend killer, honestly only Cena had a shot and the only way for Cena to do it was for him to go full heel the next night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 11:26:24 GMT -5
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. The streak became a thing during Wrestlemania X-Seven when it was constantly brought up by HHH and the announcers for the build. In fact the original plan was for HHH to win the match to get a bunch of heat and brag about it until Shawn Michaels showed up drunk backstage which forced WWE to think of a new finish and they realized they needed Undertaker to feud with a newly heel Austin and Taker needed some momentum. But they brought up the shit constantly during X8, XIX, and 20
|
|
barelybeastmode
Trap-Jaw
I don't have haterz, only fans and deniers...
Posts: 494
|
Post by barelybeastmode on Aug 20, 2015 11:45:35 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure how to answer this question. I didn't give a shit about the streak but a lot of people seemed to care so ending it was an epic moment. BUT, now it doesn't make sense to me that 'Taker's back because the streak, his legacy is broken. He should have retired with it intact or after it was broken. All of that to say I just want him to go away forever now.
|
|
|
Post by PTBartman on Aug 20, 2015 11:54:58 GMT -5
In a word...
|
|
efarns
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,273
|
Post by efarns on Aug 20, 2015 12:30:32 GMT -5
It was epic and it was the right call. Brock's win put the final nail in the coffin of The WWE's past. The Undertaker was the last hero of The New Generation and Attitude Era, and Brock destroyed him. Shortly afterwards, The WWE gathered the greatest legends of the 80's and 90's in the ring "for a birthday party," and they all put him over without taking a bump. WWE decided that their future does not lie in their past, and Brock's win pushed them over the precipice into the new New Generation.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Aug 20, 2015 12:34:55 GMT -5
Yes.
It's actually one of the few things I think WWE has executed perfectly over the last 5 years.
|
|