|
Post by Snaptastic on Jan 1, 2011 0:22:54 GMT -5
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 I read it was around about WM12/13. They already acknowledged he was undefeated...but I read that around about this point when he was 5/6-0 that they decided to run with the "streak". Wish I could find where I read that, but I admit it was a while back when I did.
|
|
|
Post by "Dashing" Dr.VonPhoenix on Jan 1, 2011 1:47:19 GMT -5
Goldberg. Easily. It will be some time before anyone is ever booked like that again, IMHO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2011 2:09:34 GMT -5
There's no way in hell anyone's winning that many mania matches in a row again.
There's a minor chance someone could be pushed for a year and rack up a goldberg like streak.
|
|
|
Post by Bake Or Die on Jan 1, 2011 4:48:06 GMT -5
Undertaker
|
|
|
Post by s l i k on Jan 1, 2011 5:42:56 GMT -5
Taker.... obviously.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Jan 1, 2011 9:07:05 GMT -5
Takers
|
|
|
Post by héad.casé on Jan 1, 2011 10:40:20 GMT -5
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 remember Jim Ross acknowledging that Taker was undefeated at Wrestlemania 17 just as he was making his entrance. That was the time I actually wanted Taker to stay undefeated at Mania and hoped Triple H wouldn't go over. It's been a long time since I watched Wrestlemania 11, but maybe it was mentioned then as a trivia type thing, and they didn't actually plan on making it a yearly thing until Mania 18 when Taker went 10-0.
|
|
|
Post by crimsonwolf on Jan 1, 2011 21:02:38 GMT -5
They could easily break Goldberg's streak if they wanted to seriously get behind someone for about 8 months. Easily doable. My reasonings for not seeing another Goldberg though is that after Lesnar and Lashley bailed on the company, I just can't see them fully backing a monster wrestler that way any more. I think Sheamus is a illustration of that. He got pushed hard, but was eventually shown not to be indomitable force.
|
|
|
Post by kyromax on Jan 2, 2011 0:24:57 GMT -5
Like 60 of Goldberg's wins didn't actually happen...So I go with Undertaker.
|
|
anglarite
Don Corleone
...enchantment!
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by anglarite on Jan 2, 2011 8:21:23 GMT -5
I didn't even know Goldberg HAD a streak. ..do you know who Goldberg is? Uh, big guy, was starring in the catastrophic Universal Soldier: The Return and in Looney Tunes Back in Action. Also, lost his title in the Fingerpoke of Doom incident. I am aware he was overpushed and had no real idea what "selling" is, but I did not know he had a streak which actually matters.
|
|
husti
Team Rocket
Posts: 981
|
Post by husti on Jan 2, 2011 8:34:04 GMT -5
I don't see either one happening again, I shall not vote!
|
|
|
Post by canceled4truth on Jan 2, 2011 12:58:23 GMT -5
Like 60 of Goldberg's wins didn't actually happen I remember seeing a list of Goldberg's victims and the final number came out to around 144-0....and about a third of them were either Hugh Morrus, Jerry Flynn, and Curt Hennig.
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Ring Troll {BLM} on Jan 2, 2011 12:59:09 GMT -5
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 remember Jim Ross acknowledging that Taker was undefeated at Wrestlemania 17 just as he was making his entrance. That was the time I actually wanted Taker to stay undefeated at Mania and hoped Triple H wouldn't go over. This. I remember this. 100%. I was a huge wrestler fan back then and kept up with everything, and I clearly remember THIS was the feud I'd heard of Undertaker's undefeated streak. And as a huge Triple H fan at the time, I desperately wanted him to break that streak.
|
|
|
Post by carter 15 on Jan 2, 2011 20:02:34 GMT -5
..do you know who Goldberg is? Uh, big guy, was starring in the catastrophic Universal Soldier: The Return and in Looney Tunes Back in Action. Also, lost his title in the Fingerpoke of Doom incident. I am aware he was overpushed and had no real idea what "selling" is, but I did not know he had a streak which actually matters. Hah, right. Also no, he didn't lose his title in the fingerpoke of doom.. Anyway, i voted Taker. Bergs streak takes a year maybe two, Takers? 20, so yeah.
|
|
mattperiolat
King Koopa
Thank you, Brodie... for everything.
Posts: 11,445
|
Post by mattperiolat on Jan 3, 2011 3:35:21 GMT -5
Taker. It's one of those things the WWE just walked into and has really become the stuff of legend. Right guy, right place, right time and, quite honestly, I don't think people were really aware of The Streak until he beat Flair to go 10-0. That was when the E started getting behind it since, to be honest, Flair, Orton and the two HBK matches were really the only times they could have realistically broken the Streak and not have it seem stupid. Now? He'll retire unbeaten at Mania. I mean, it's too good a story now.
|
|