|
Post by xxshoyuweeniexx on Mar 7, 2012 18:40:26 GMT -5
At this point there's no real reason to end it. Anyone that could possibly benefit from it, creative would f*** it up and yo yo 'em up and down the card so that in a year, it'd be largely meaningless. Exactly. Remember when Drew McIntyre was hot property? Jack Swagger? Kennedy? Guys get booked so hot and cold right now that I wouldn't trust creative with my cat let alone the guy who ended the streak.
|
|
spec
Hank Scorpio
Bum Wiping Aficionado
Posts: 5,676
|
Post by spec on Mar 7, 2012 19:03:29 GMT -5
Retire with The Streak intact. First and foremost, 20-0 DVD = $$$, or however much longer he chooses to go-0 DVD. The Streak is the one thing that Taker has that no other superstar can even come close to. Biggest star of all time? Still Hogan, probably always will be. (oh and insert joke here) Second biggest? Austin or Rock. Taker has longevity in the company over those guys, but The Streak is the really special and exceptional thing that sets him apart from those others. It adds to the mystique of the character. And it's something they can make a big deal out of when he's inducted into the hall of fame. Everything makes sense for the Undertaker to always have the undefeated at Wrestlemania achievement, that completely outweighs any benefits a token loss would bring to some other guy.
|
|
|
Post by blackmariah on Mar 7, 2012 19:18:10 GMT -5
Streak ends. Double retirement. Mark it.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,149
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Mar 7, 2012 19:20:07 GMT -5
If they're going to allow someone to beat Taker for the streak, they're going to have to build that person up properly and keep the momentum going afterwards.
With that in mind, he'll retire with it intact.
|
|
|
Post by Gelatinous Parasite on Mar 7, 2012 19:20:33 GMT -5
I think the majority of fans would shit on it if they ended the streak. I truly believe it would be detrimental to the career of the streak-ender. Of course, if someone did end it, they would have to go on to become one of the best of all time, otherwise it would've been wasted on them. At this stage, ending the streak is probably a bigger deal than winning the WWE/World title.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Mar 7, 2012 19:24:12 GMT -5
I don't have much of an opinion... whatever would be a better story. "Achievements" in wrestling mean only as much as the money and interest you can generate with them. I don't think Taker "deserves" to retire with it, or that a young guy "needs" to get the rub. Whatever they think is gonna work best is good with me.
|
|
|
Post by Jimichiro Likes Erick Rowan on Mar 7, 2012 20:45:22 GMT -5
I think that if the likes of Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, Batista, Edge, Jake Roberts & Randy Orton couldn't beat Taker at Mania, then nobody should.
Let's say that "young up & comer" does beat Taker at Wrestlemania. All his next opponent has to say is "You beat an old, broken down Undertaker, who's had more surgeries than you've won titles and has taken more time off than you've been wrestling, when he was most vulnerable. Good job." to kill their momentum dead.
|
|
|
Post by revolver86 on Mar 7, 2012 20:54:39 GMT -5
I think that if the likes of Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, Batista, Edge, Jake Roberts & Randy Orton couldn't beat Taker at Mania, then nobody should. Let's say that "young up & comer" does beat Taker at Wrestlemania. All his next opponent has to say is "You beat an old, broken down Undertaker, who's had more surgeries than you've won titles and has taken more time off than you've been wrestling, when he was most vulnerable. Good job." to kill their momentum dead. Was just about to make the same point!
|
|
shard
Mike the Goon
Posts: 14
|
Post by shard on Mar 7, 2012 21:15:25 GMT -5
He's held that crap this long just let him retire with it. It's overrated. They didn't even notice it until like WM X7 and now it's superceded it's role to itself. "The Streak" has become more important than the storyline of the match to the point that his last 3 matches have been about ending the Streak. I wish he'd go away. He's keeping more deserving people off the card. I'd much rather see any of the last 3 (plus this years) Streak matches over any potential matches from people who have been left off the card. Much Much Much rather see them. The matches have a whole different intensity and feeling than a couple of up-and-comers going at it. Maybe I can understand this point at another PPV, but Its Wrestlemania.
|
|
|
Post by sch1490 on Mar 7, 2012 21:15:51 GMT -5
Retire with it intact. Not unless someone super hot comes up through the rankings. Which isn't going to happen. It sets him apart as something bigger that this world. Something unnatural. The last bit of 'fantasy' story angles in wrestling.
|
|
zeez
Patti Mayonnaise
Yeah. That's right.
Posts: 32,702
|
Post by zeez on Mar 7, 2012 21:21:44 GMT -5
I like the idea of a passing of the torch moment but I don't see anybody that could end it that the fans would approve of. If it's booked perfectly I suppose it could work but still, it might be better for Undertaker's legend and legacy to retire with the streak intact.
|
|
|
Post by derrtaysouth95 on Mar 7, 2012 21:24:01 GMT -5
Is the fact that Taker missed WM 2000 not a blemish on his record? I've always wondered that. It's not a consistent streak.
The record will never be beaten or matched or even come close to. In order to do it they'd have to start someone out with that storyline in mind and stick it out for at least 10 years. WWE isn't smart enough to run with anything longer than a year hardly much less 10.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,149
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Mar 7, 2012 21:25:40 GMT -5
Is the fact that Taker missed WM 2000 not a blemish on his record? I've always wondered that. It's not a consistent streak. The record will never be beaten or matched or even come close to. In order to do it they'd have to start someone out with that storyline in mind and stick it out for at least 10 years. WWE isn't smart enough to run with anything longer than a year hardly much less 10. A year? Try one month.
|
|
|
Post by EP 54 is banned from Collision on Mar 7, 2012 21:26:13 GMT -5
If hypothetically, the streak ended, who would then have the biggest wrestlemania streak? Is RVD 4-0? Um, if the Streak was ended then the person with the longest undefeated streak would be The Undertaker, and this would be so up until someone won one more than him. Which would never happen. Lets assume Taker wins at Wrestlemania, and immediately retires. New guy debuts the day after Wrestlemania this year, and then wins every match at Wrestlemania. In 2034 he'd beat the Undertaker's streak. 20 years without a career ending injury, without being forced to retire due to wear and tear, without being fired or quitting for whatever reason. And its even longer if he misses a Wrestlemania due to injury, or suspension. And he has to be booked to win every match. Never. Going. To. Happen. Ever. Thats the real achievement to the Streak. Taker's been over enough and has had the longevity to be booked on 20 Wrestlemania cards. Here's a thought experiment for you. Lets imagine Taker was screwed by The Horsemen, and Ric Flair pinned him after that sweet Arn Anderson spinebuster at X8, so his original streak went to nine. Everything else went just the same, with the proviso that some of the booking was changed up a little with regards to HBK, which is easy enough (HBK says he's Mr Wrestlemania, Taker points out he's only been defeated once at Wrestlemania, goes from there easy enough). Right, so in this alternative world, do you think this years Taker match would be any less of a big deal? 20th Undertaker Wrestlemania match? About to break his own record?
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,016
|
Post by nate5054 on Mar 7, 2012 21:46:42 GMT -5
Definitely retire with it. Frankly, he should retire after this one giving him a perfect round number 20.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Mar 7, 2012 21:53:04 GMT -5
If he retires without making someone's career by giving him the streak, then the whole thing is pointless. I don't understand this reverence for an "undefeated" streak in a predetermined sport. The streak is a tool to get a guy over, nothing more, nothing less. If Undertaker's a big enough mark for himself that he doesn't see that, then that blows my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Mar 7, 2012 21:56:53 GMT -5
Retire with the streak.
Undertaker can be the dignified legend that Hogan and Flair couldn't be.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Mar 7, 2012 21:58:18 GMT -5
If he retires without making someone's career by giving him the streak, then the whole thing is pointless. I don't understand this reverence for an "undefeated" streak in a predetermined sport. The streak is a tool to get a guy over, nothing more, nothing less. If Undertaker's a big enough mark for himself that he doesn't see that, then that blows my mind. The big hangup is who wants to end it. He's offered it to Kane and Randy Orton, and both turned it down. So it's not a problem with Taker losing, the problem is Taker's opponent not wanting to end it. I don't think there's anyone on the roster willing to end the streak, because it's Taker's legacy.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Mar 7, 2012 21:59:39 GMT -5
If he retires without making someone's career by giving him the streak, then the whole thing is pointless. I don't understand this reverence for an "undefeated" streak in a predetermined sport. The streak is a tool to get a guy over, nothing more, nothing less. If Undertaker's a big enough mark for himself that he doesn't see that, then that blows my mind. The big hangup is who wants to end it. He's offered it to Kane and Randy Orton, and both turned it down. So it's not a problem with Taker losing, the problem is Taker's opponent not wanting to end it. I don't think there's anyone on the roster willing to end the streak, because it's Taker's legacy. I've had this argument before, but no, it's not. It's the 20+ years of being one of THE guys for the WWE that's his legacy. Not "winning" 20 matches in a row at a single event.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 22:02:04 GMT -5
The big hangup is who wants to end it. He's offered it to Kane and Randy Orton, and both turned it down. So it's not a problem with Taker losing, the problem is Taker's opponent not wanting to end it. I don't think there's anyone on the roster willing to end the streak, because it's Taker's legacy. I've had this argument before, but no, it's not. It's the 20+ years of being one of THE guys for the WWE that's his legacy. Not "winning" 20 matches in a row at a single event. Plenty of people've been in the business for twenty or more years. Few with the same sort of company stability admittedly but still, the streak is what's special.
|
|