|
|
Post by Unaffiliated on Dec 28, 2009 22:26:07 GMT -5
Anyone else don't see what is so special about Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak? So he happens to win his match at the same event (albeit the biggest one) every year, but exactly what about that is special? It would be if there was a certain match type or stipulation where he was undefeated in, which is not the case. There is nothing to suggest that a Wrestlemania match is automatically more difficult than any other match. Furthermore, most of the guys Taker has beaten in that streak have themselves beaten Taker on other occasions.
|
|
Zen411
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,746
|
Post by Zen411 on Dec 28, 2009 22:31:05 GMT -5
WrestleMania is the SuperBowl of wrestling. If a team had never lost in the SuperBowl like 17 times, wouldnt that be special?
|
|
|
|
Post by Unaffiliated on Dec 28, 2009 22:35:50 GMT -5
WrestleMania is the SuperBowl of wrestling. If a team had never lost in the SuperBowl like 17 times, wouldnt that be special? But isn't SuperBowl the ultimate match between what's supposed to be the two best teams of the year? In that case, it takes an effort to even play the SuperBowl, while in Undertaker's case, he gets booked for one out of several matches in Wrestlemania each year anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by American Dragon on Dec 28, 2009 22:36:21 GMT -5
WrestleMania is the SuperBowl of wrestling. If a team had never lost in the SuperBowl like 17 times, wouldnt that be special? In a row, at that. |
|
|
|
Post by derrtaysouth95 on Dec 28, 2009 22:37:32 GMT -5
The New York Yankees have 27 championships.
They've lost some along that route too though.
But still....they have 27 championships. The most so far in history.
It's just a winning streak for Taker. Doesn't mean a thing outside of it. But since it is WM....makes the match seem a bit more important and in theory inspires the competitors to try just a little bit harder to win.
You're going to put in more effort in the Superbowl than you will against the lowest ranked team come week 16 if you're at a level for Superbowl contention. Sure you're gonna show up but you aren't gonna blow yourself out because you're saving yourself.
|
|
Zen411
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,746
|
Post by Zen411 on Dec 28, 2009 22:41:10 GMT -5
THe WrestleMania streak began as an accident. THey didnt plan on him winning every WrestleMania until halfway in....then someone realized that Taker had never lost at Mania and started mentioning it. It beccame a marketing tool. They started booking Taker matches as if someone could or couldnt break the streak. It gave the fans something to look forward to.....would Undertaker finally lose?
Pro wrestling is all pre-determined. The bookers decide who wins and who loses. But still....no losses at the biggest event of the year 17 times. ANdre didnt do that. Hogan didnt do that. Austin, the Rock, not even Cena. Taker winning at 17 WrestleManias is special. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by noleafclover1980 on Dec 28, 2009 23:41:00 GMT -5
Wasn't he initially supposed to lose against Sid Justice at one, and they wanted Hogan vs Flair for the main event, but things got screwed up and they ended up w/ Sid vs Hogan?
|
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Dec 29, 2009 2:27:17 GMT -5
WrestleMania is the SuperBowl of wrestling. If a team had never lost in the SuperBowl like 17 times, wouldnt that be special? In a row, at that. Undertaker has NOT won 17 WrestleMania matches in a row. He was not at Mania 10 or 16. Just sayin'. |
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Dec 29, 2009 2:35:57 GMT -5
Must we go thru this ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Dec 29, 2009 6:37:29 GMT -5
For God's sake, end it. The Streak has become bigger than the event that spawned it, and for a lot of those matches, his opponent had no business being there. If all the matches were against credible main eventers, I'd say maybe let him keep it. But, come on. The first four were against midcarders, and he had a match against Big Boss Man halfway through.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto) on Dec 29, 2009 6:54:24 GMT -5
For God's sake, end it. The Streak has become bigger than the event that spawned it, and for a lot of those matches, his opponent had no business being there. If all the matches were against credible main eventers, I'd say maybe let him keep it. But, come on. The first four were against midcarders, and he had a match against Big Boss Man halfway through. Why? If they end it now, who will his opponent be? Someone who has no business being there. He's already beaten the top guys in the company, and in history. Also, in my opinion, the Taker vs. Jake Roberts feud was amazing for its time. |
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by repomark on Dec 29, 2009 8:02:24 GMT -5
I think the streak should never be broken. The only issue I have with the streak, is that he never defeated (until recently) the top guys at Wrestlemania. During the attitude era he didn't face Austin or the Rock at Wrestlemania and he never faced Hogan at a Wrestlemania. Add those three names to the list of victims and the streak would never be questioned at all.
However - with a few exceptions - they have all been big names he has beaten: Jimmy Snuka, Jake Roberts, King Kong Bundy, Kevin Nash, Sid, Kane, Triple H, Ric Flair, Randy Orton, Batista, Edge and Shawn Michaels. They are all legitimate (or already) hall of famers - in fact even the Big Boss Man is in my view although at the time he faced Taker he was a shadow of his former self and the match was hideous.
The streak is an excellent piece of marketing genius even if it did begin by accident. It adds a bit of extra spice to wrestlemania every year - and I do see it as a big deal.
|
|
