The "Streak"

[CT LFC Fan]

Hi! I noticed a lack of polls on this board ( ;D) and thought I'd create another.

Which "streak" is less likely to be broken, Goldberg's or Undertaker's?

To break Goldberg's streak a wrestler would have to go 174-0. Just like the original "funky math" is allowable- the WWE merely has to acknowledge 174 consecutive wins to start a new superstar's WWE career.

There are two conditions that I would accept as breaking Undertaker's streak. The first is for a wrestler to have an undefeated streak at Wrestlemania that lasts longer than Undertaker's. For now, this would mean 19-0. By the end of Taker's career, this may be increased by a win or two. The second condition that would qualify as "breaking" this streak would be for Undertaker to lose at Wrestlemania.

I vote Goldberg- I think there is an outside chance Taker' may decide to put someone over in his last WM match. On the other hand, I feel it's unlikely the WWE will ever have enough patience to allow someone to win 174 in a row.

[the5thhorseman]

I say Takers will never be approached by anyone else. Edge had a nice record until his got broken by Taker and I see them putting Taker as the only guy capable of doing it this long and successfully. I could see them putting someone over as unbeatable someday. Maybe not very likely but more likely.

[bob]

there's no way they'll push anyone as hard or undefeated as Goldberg was

[randomranter]

Undertaker is a selling point of Wrestlemania. Plus, there's money to be made in a future "Undertaker 20-0" DVD, and I think that's what they're going to go for. I really don't see UT ever losing at wrestlemania, and I really don't see the WWE ever having someone go that long undefeated ever again.

I don't really see them breaking Goldberg's streak either. But at the same time, they could if they wanted to without having to make a 20+ year investment. There's not only TV and PPVs, there's also house shows and "fuzzy math". Goldberg's streak could be broken inside of eight months if the WWE really wanted to.

[dh03grad]

WWE didnt even let Cena's WM streak last, so no one will match Taker's

[Captain2]

When was it that they noticed Taker had a streak? I ask because I figure they one day just looked at his record and figured "Hmm, you know he's never lost a match at wrestlemania?" but I've never been able to pinpoint it.

["Hollywood" Cactus Matt]

I don't think they'll break either streak; the only difference is that they'll keep 'Taker's streak alive intentionally. Nobody will ever be pushed that hard by WWE without losing at least once.

[stealthamo]

Dec 31, 2010 19:23:33 GMT -5 Captain2 said:

When was it that they noticed Taker had a streak? I ask because I figure they one day just looked at his record and figured "Hmm, you know he's never lost a match at wrestlemania?" but I've never been able to pinpoint it.

I think it was first acknowledged leading up to WM 21 against Orton, but I'm not sure on that. I know it wasn't mentioned before 20 for sure sure.

[anglarite]

I didn't even know Goldberg HAD a streak.

[fw91]

taker

[Nuke is Good]

Dec 31, 2010 19:44:46 GMT -5 stealthamo said:

Dec 31, 2010 19:23:33 GMT -5 Captain2 said:

When was it that they noticed Taker had a streak? I ask because I figure they one day just looked at his record and figured "Hmm, you know he's never lost a match at wrestlemania?" but I've never been able to pinpoint it.

I think it was first acknowledged leading up to WM 21 against Orton, but I'm not sure on that. I know it wasn't mentioned before 20 for sure sure.

I do vaguely remember Taker counting his victories at WMX8 after beating Flair.

[crimsonwolf]

Honestly, neither seems likely to duplicate. Undertaker is especially a rarity because not only do you have to be supported backstage, and you have to continue to be active all those years.

A Goldberg streak isn't likely to happen again either. WWE has a habit of "Future Endeavoring" their Jobbers/Mid-Card wrestlers, so there's a lack of fodder for someone to build up their streak.

[Celgress]

'Taker's Streak, imho.

[nate5054]

Does anyone know the actual number of Goldberg's streak, and if it even was one (like did he lose at a house show or something)? I do know the number seemed to grow almost exponentially after each Nitro.

[Mayonnaise]

Dec 31, 2010 21:39:43 GMT -5 nate5054 said:

Does anyone know the actual number of Goldberg's streak, and if it even was one (like did he lose at a house show or something)? I do know the number seemed to grow almost exponentially after each Nitro.

He lost at a house show early on as a test to see how he'd handle losing according to his book. I forget who it was though.

[CM Dazz]

Dec 31, 2010 19:44:46 GMT -5 stealthamo said:

Dec 31, 2010 19:23:33 GMT -5 Captain2 said:

When was it that they noticed Taker had a streak? I ask because I figure they one day just looked at his record and figured "Hmm, you know he's never lost a match at wrestlemania?" but I've never been able to pinpoint it.

I think it was first acknowledged leading up to WM 21 against Orton, but I'm not sure on that. I know it wasn't mentioned before 20 for sure sure.

WM XI according to Lance Storm. He's been reviewing all the Wrestlemanias in order on his website:

www.stormwrestling.com/120510.html

The Undertaker – King Kong Bundy: This was the first mention of “The Streak”. They didn’t call it the streak but they did acknowledge for the first time that The Undertaker was undefeated at WrestleMania, so it looks like after just 3 wins they realized they would be building a streak for Taker. At this point it was also pretty much a streak of poor matches; completely the fault of the gimmick and quality of opponents and tonight was no exception. There was nothing to this match except doing the angle where Taker gets his Urn back from Ted Dibiase (managing the Million Dollar Team) to only have it taken away again by Kama the Supreme Fighting Machine. Kama got the urn and said he would melt it down and make a chain to wear around his neck. Taker then beat Bundy after a body slam and a clothesline.

[CM Dazz]

Oh, I don't think either will ever be broken.

[randomranter]

Dec 31, 2010 21:43:56 GMT -5 CM Dazz said:

The Undertaker – King Kong Bundy: This was the first mention of “The Streak”. They didn’t call it the streak but they did acknowledge for the first time that The Undertaker was undefeated at WrestleMania, so it looks like after just 3 wins they realized they would be building a streak for Taker.

I disagree with his assessment.

Just because they acknowledged the streak that early does not necessarily mean they intended to build on it.

By the time they got to the late teens or early 20's, then you knew they intended to turn it into a big thing and a selling point of Wrestlemania.

But at WM9? no

[randomranter]

Dec 31, 2010 21:03:48 GMT -5 crimsonwolf said:

Honestly, neither seems likely to duplicate. Undertaker is especially a rarity because not only do you have to be supported backstage, and you have to continue to be active all those years.

This I agree with. It would take a 20+ year committment to break the streak, which isn't going to happen.

A Goldberg streak isn't likely to happen again either. WWE has a habit of "Future Endeavoring" their Jobbers/Mid-Card wrestlers, so there's a lack of fodder for someone to build up their streak.

Fuzzy math covers that though.

They could easily break Goldberg's streak if they wanted to seriously get behind someone for about 8 months. Easily doable.

[carter 15]

Dec 31, 2010 19:46:54 GMT -5 anglarite said:

I didn't even know Goldberg HAD a streak.

..do you know who Goldberg is?