Was ending the streak the right move?

[papagiorgio]

Feb 28, 2022 9:16:42 GMT -5 Vice honcho room temperature said:

No cause they wasted it on Ludvig Borga.... what streak are we talking about?

Tatanka was never the same.

Had Brock not lost to Cena and Triple H since his return, I don't think Brock would have needed that win over Taker. The win did definitely help Brock's career and he has stayed around long enough, even if at a part time capacity, that it didn't go to waste.

[anglarite]

I'm sure they regretted giving it to Brock once Roman became their pet project.

[A Platypus Rave]

Feb 28, 2022 18:02:52 GMT -5 anglarite said:

I'm sure they regretted giving it to Brock once Roman became their pet project.

Roman already was their pet project by that point.

He'd already was the runner up in the Royal Rumble, and had the most eliminations in a single Rumble... AND the most eliminations in a survivor series match.

[Tiffany Stratton's Daddy]

I say it should've, and have Reigns break it.

The only thing that would've been difficult to navigate is Reigns was hated immensely when he defeated Undertaker at Mania, and it only would've been worse if Reigns had ended The Streak. I stand by it being Roman, but damn... the WWE Universe would have turned quickly.

[The Thread Barbi]

Nah. You don't get a streak that long in anything and kill it off for anyone either.

I liked the idea of a wraith turning up once a year to battle the latest pretender. The two decade plus streak outlasted Hulkamania, Attitude Era and beyond. Giving it up to anyone, let alone the next top attraction didn't feel right.

Some Mania's I would watch just for the Taker match. Since then, Wrestlemania has lost some of it's appeal.


I would rather have had Sting vs Taker at WM31, with match being 2 of 3 falls, with Sting pinning the Undertaker for one fall but ultimately losing the match. Streak stays intact, but Taker gets pinned.

[ChitownKnight]

Feb 28, 2022 10:41:49 GMT -5 Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story said:

I think Brock was the right guy. I might have made Taker's matches *after* that Mania into a multi-year story leading to Taker's retirement, though.

Mania 30 - Brock beats Taker and goes on his God Mode run for the year.
Mania 31 - Taker beats somebody - maybe Bray, maybe somebody else, but the heart of the story is that Taker's being taunted for not having it anymore.
Mania 32 in Texas - The old gunslinger in Taker beats Brock clean by the skin of his teeth and then retires to a hero's ovation in AT&T Stadium.

Yeah, we don't get the Boneyard Match, but Brock still gets the rub from ending the streak, we avoid the shitty Ambrose/Lesnar match from 32 and we don't have to watch 4 or 5 years of bad Taker matches. I don't think Brock's aura would suffer from a loss to Taker, as we saw during that SummerSlam match.

I agree with that concept and I think that is what they were going for with Taker beating Bray the next year, his series of matches with Brock and then lost to Cena at Mania 32 at his home state in Texas. They could of still wrote that wrong the next year by having Cena vs Taker which I still think would of been better than Roman vs Taker. But I think the way taker should of gone out is losing a second match at mania, and Cena should of been the second guy to beat him

[DZ: WF Legacy]

If Roman wound up being the guy to end The Streak, and it lead to his current persona a few years earlier than when we got it, then absolutely it should have been Roman. I will always hate that super over mega star fully established Brock Lesnar was the one to get the rub.

I would've liked something like this:

WM30: Brock/Taker (fine, whatever)
WM31: Sting/Taker
WM32: Bray/Taker
WM33: Seth/Taker
WM34: Roman/Taker (L and retirement)

Basically, do the Sting match, push Bray/Taker by a year and actually have Taker bother to show up to the build, add in Seth/Taker since we only got them in a 6-man tag once and working with more agile and less heavy guys would have benefited his last run TREMENDOUSLY, and then do Roman/Taker a year later than they did at WM34. Taker looked good in that brief encounter with Cena at 34, and since that match was just a squash basically, you'd inverse it - Roman would've had his number. Toss in AJ/Taker at one of the Saudi shows, maybe some kind of tag match with Strowman just to get them to interact more than they briefly did, and that last ride could've ended differently.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Yeah might as well have. They didn't even really start making a big deal out of it till what, 12 or 13 years in?

[Bo Rida]

Feb 28, 2022 18:02:52 GMT -5 anglarite said:

I'm sure they regretted giving it to Brock once Roman became their pet project.

I can get the idea that whoever broke the streak will have a lot of feelings and expectations projected onto them. It makes sense for Brock to do it, he can take it.

Then they doubled down by having him squash Cena, Orton, Ambrose etc. After also beating Hhh and Punk. Anything meaningful sacrificed to Brock.

Whoever cleanly and decisively beats Brock after all that is clearly the made top guy.

It should have been Roman but they chickened out, losing to 'Taker was ok but he then had the unstoppable mystique broken by young up and comer Goldberg squashing him. Who then lost back again so nobody benefited from beating him either.

Essentially ending the streak, squashing Cena, Lesnar, Orton or Goldberg are things only really effective once, after that it's diminishing returns. Each could have been an accolade someone could have lived off for ages but they were all wasted.

Timeline might be out but basically no, only makes sense with the right follow up and they squandered it. Should have been somebody else.

[Jedi-El of Tomorrow]

Mar 1, 2022 23:44:30 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

Yeah might as well have. They didn't even really start making a big deal out of it till what, 12 or 13 years in?

If I'm not mistaken 18 is when they started talking about Taker being undefeated at Mania.

[Mozenrath]

Brock made sense. He's arguably THE most credibly presented monster heel in wrestling history.