Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,149
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Mar 7, 2012 22:02:52 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. He does see that, that's why he's offered for people to end the streak in the past(I swear I thought that was pretty common knowledge by now). It's Vince that doesn't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Mar 7, 2012 22:07:02 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. Maybe that is it to you but the people in charge and wrestlers in the back feel different and I'd wager 99% of the fans feel that way to. It's wrestling, his legacy is what Vince McMahon wants it to be and Vince wants his legacy to be the Streak.
|
|
|
Post by "American Dragon" on Mar 7, 2012 22:10:11 GMT -5
The streak could... cease to exist. Just like the Undertaker. It was all a figment of our imagination - that is how he could go out!
|
|
|
Post by CubsFan71 on Mar 7, 2012 22:11:10 GMT -5
Ok a few things here:
1. Taker wants the streak to end. He has offered to Kane and Orton both and they both turned it down as was already said.
2. Nobody credible enough on the roster wants to be the one to do it.
3. Right the only one credible enough outside if Triple H to end the streak is Cena.(You have no idea how much that hurt to type). WWE probably won't let that happen because Cena ending the streak is a sure fire heel turn.
So Taker needs to retire with the streak in tact
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,149
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Mar 7, 2012 22:16:05 GMT -5
I know this is going to make a lot of people mad, but the only person to me who should end it is John Cena. For 3 reasons.
1. He's the only guy on the roster credible enough to end it.
2. He would be honored to have that kind of rub and wouldn't change his mind about it at the last minute.
3. It could be a great catalyst for a massive heel turn and a great storyline on who will knock him down a peg. A storyline like that could put over another big babyface like mad. So you would be killing two birds with one stone.
|
|
|
Post by TheMediocreWarrior on Mar 7, 2012 22:17:13 GMT -5
He should retire with it.
I think whoever ended the streak would be "cursed", in that being the guy who ended Taker's streak would be an impossible standard to build a career on.
The only plausible candidate was Randy Orton, since he was already the "Legend Killer", and was already established enough so that you knew his career wasn't just going to fizzle out afterward.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Mar 7, 2012 22:18:26 GMT -5
I think it should end. An undeafted streak in the WWE is meaningless since you know, fake, but say he goes 20-1 at Mania to me is as impressive as 21-0 because he wrestled in 21 manias! That's real and that's damn impressive.
If Cena loses to Rock this year and challenges the streak next year and turns heel, then that wouldn't be a bad idea. Personally, I 'd like some new monster to do it, like when Kane debuted. No idea who that would be though.
|
|
|
Post by TheMediocreWarrior on Mar 7, 2012 22:20:04 GMT -5
I think it should end. An undeafted streak in the WWE is meaningless since you know, fake, but say he goes 20-1 at Mania to me is as impressive as 21-0 because he wrestled in 21 manias! That's real and that's damn impressive. If it's meaningless because it's fake, then isn't ending the streak also meaningless? The meaning of the streak...is the idea that the streak has meaning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 22:28:07 GMT -5
I don't get this, "It's predetermined so it doesn't matter," thing. It's like saying that on a TV show whether any characters live or die is entirely irrelevant because it's fiction anyway.
|
|
|
Post by perpetualn00b on Mar 7, 2012 22:29:44 GMT -5
The streak is a tool to get a guy over, nothing more, nothing less. Not quite. The streak is a tool to make money for the WWE, no more, no less. Getting a guy over is just one potential way of making money. The question is what is the likelihood that the money made by the gain in a competitor's credibility & storylines launched by the ending of the streak being larger then the money made by keeping the streak intact? No one knows the answer for sure, but in terms of what WWE "should" do, as a business (and being there no moral or ethical issues with the way), is whichever result leads to more dollar signs.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Mar 7, 2012 22:33:51 GMT -5
I think it should end. An undeafted streak in the WWE is meaningless since you know, fake, but say he goes 20-1 at Mania to me is as impressive as 21-0 because he wrestled in 21 manias! That's real and that's damn impressive. If it's meaningless because it's fake, then isn't ending the streak also meaningless? The meaning of the streak...is the idea that the streak has meaning. No because you could use it for storyline purposes or to give someone the ultimate rub. It's the only feat they have on par with "slamming Andre".
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Mar 7, 2012 22:35:28 GMT -5
I don't get this, "It's predetermined so it doesn't matter," thing. It's like saying that on a TV show whether any characters live or die is entirely irrelevant because it's fiction anyway. So Rocky's wins impress you as much as Ali's?
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Mar 7, 2012 22:37:53 GMT -5
The streak is a tool to get a guy over, nothing more, nothing less. Not quite. The streak is a tool to make money for the WWE, no more, no less. Getting a guy over is just one potential way of making money. The question is what is the likelihood that the money made by the gain in a competitor's credibility & storylines launched by the ending of the streak being larger then the money made by keeping the streak intact? No one knows the answer for sure, but in terms of what WWE "should" do, as a business (and being there no moral or ethical issues with the way), is whichever result leads to more dollar signs. How does this make money in the future though? If the streak is broken, people suddenly don't care about Taker anymore? The streak up til it was broken dissappears?
|
|
|
Post by "American Dragon" on Mar 7, 2012 22:43:03 GMT -5
Ok a few things here: 1. Taker wants the streak to end. He has offered to Kane and Orton both and they both turned it down as was already said. 2. Nobody credible enough on the roster wants to be the one to do it. 3. Right the only one credible enough outside if Triple H to end the streak is Cena.(You have no idea how much that hurt to type). WWE probably won't let that happen because Cena ending the streak is a sure fire heel turn. So Taker needs to retire with the streak in tact Ok, so lets say Cena goes heel on Rock this wrestlemania. What better way to establish himself as the top heel in the business than by taking out, the Undertaker and ending his streak? He has 1 whole year after mania to play that out. I personally, can't see a heel Cena doing this. It just doesnt feel right. I see a monster heel doing it. But not Cena. It's almost as if, a face has to be the one to beat taker - passing of the torch. Unless Cena beats him by screwjob with the help of Vince ala "I created you, now I destroy you" type deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 22:49:39 GMT -5
I don't get this, "It's predetermined so it doesn't matter," thing. It's like saying that on a TV show whether any characters live or die is entirely irrelevant because it's fiction anyway. So Rocky's wins impress you as much as Ali's? Within the context of the story, yes. Sometimes the hero should get to ride off into the sunset triumphant.
|
|
543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Mar 7, 2012 23:04:17 GMT -5
How long should the streak go on for? Il let Funk take this one:
(Vince doesn't own this right?)
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Mar 7, 2012 23:12:30 GMT -5
So Rocky's wins impress you as much as Ali's? Within the context of the story, yes. Sometimes the hero should get to ride off into the sunset triumphant. But winning a series of matches and then retiring isn't much of a story.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Mar 7, 2012 23:14:32 GMT -5
Within the context of the story, yes. Sometimes the hero should get to ride off into the sunset triumphant. But winning a series of matches and then retiring isn't much of a story. Going undefeated on the Grandest stage of them all, beating every top guy in his industry and going out on top isn't much of a story?
|
|
|
Post by perpetualn00b on Mar 7, 2012 23:19:32 GMT -5
Not quite. The streak is a tool to make money for the WWE, no more, no less. Getting a guy over is just one potential way of making money. The question is what is the likelihood that the money made by the gain in a competitor's credibility & storylines launched by the ending of the streak being larger then the money made by keeping the streak intact? No one knows the answer for sure, but in terms of what WWE "should" do, as a business (and being there no moral or ethical issues with the way), is whichever result leads to more dollar signs. How does this make money in the future though? If the streak is broken, people suddenly don't care about Taker anymore? The streak up til it was broken dissappears? Depends. Could be a lot of things. They may want to eventually get 'Taker into a "press button if in shit" place for Wrestlemania season after his official retirement. It may be they think that as a topic for documentaries, DVDs, retrospectives, and the like an intact streak will sell better then a broken one. It may be that they don't actually think that ending the streak will make them that much money, or that they want to be absolutely, 100% sure of a guy before they go ahead. It may be that the small but notable chance that the breaker will have a career-ending injury prematurely makes them go with a safer bet. Maybe they think that "ending the streak" is too difficult a topic to wrap a feud around if 'Taker isn't going to show up past the breaking point. Maybe they've just left the issue up to 'Taker himself, as a way of showing respect to a longtime worker (which is also a financial issue in how it relates to employee satisfaction) and he just hasn't found anyone who A) deserves it in his view and B) will accept it. All of this is just speculation.But my point is that we just don't know, and I have my doubts that anyone here has enough inside information about the WWEs financially to take even a remotely educated guess.
|
|
|
Post by "American Dragon" on Mar 7, 2012 23:24:51 GMT -5
How does this make money in the future though? If the streak is broken, people suddenly don't care about Taker anymore? The streak up til it was broken dissappears? Depends. Could be a lot of things. They may want to eventually get 'Taker into a "press button if in s***" place for Wrestlemania season after his official retirement. It may be they think that as a topic for documentaries, DVDs, retrospectives, and the like an intact streak will sell better then a broken one. It may be that they don't actually think that ending the streak will make them that much money, or that they want to be absolutely, 100% sure of a guy before they go ahead. It may be that the small but notable chance that the breaker will have a career-ending injury prematurely makes them go with a safer bet. Maybe they think that "ending the streak" is too difficult a topic to wrap a feud around if 'Taker isn't going to show up past the breaking point. Maybe they've just left the issue up to 'Taker himself, as a way of showing respect to a longtime worker (which is also a financial issue in how it relates to employee satisfaction) and he just hasn't found anyone who A) deserves it in his view and B) will accept it. All of this is just speculation.But my point is that we just don't know, and I have my doubts that anyone here has enough inside information about the WWEs financially to take even a remotely educated guess. Well if 'we' don't know. Then ask this guy {Spoiler} he knows everything!
|
|