Skip to main content

Random blogness

Scott, hope all is well.  Thought I'd give you a break from the Bryan/HHH stuff...

I don't think I've EVER seen you give your opinion on the streak...

Should it be ended?  

If so, would you end it in Takers last match, end it to put over the heir apparent (guy like Reigns), or end it to set up a huge rubber match (like have Cena/Taker split the first two and then build to a rubber match in Takers final WM match)?

Or would you keep it in tact for whatever value is in that?

The value in the streak is chasing it, not actually ending it for whatever theoretical rub that Undertaker might give a guy, since they'd just fuck it up anyway and have someone else beat the Streak-Killer so as to try and get everyone over and thus get no one over.  Plus once you've taken that genie out of the bottle, you can't just build up another 20 year run of some guy, so why even take the chance?  On a related note...

I must have missed this somewhere, but could you please explain why UT-Cena is so desired for WM? I mean, we assume UT goes over because Streak, but then why do we want Cena not to go over at WM? I mean, yeah, suspense booking and all, and Cena doesn't NEED to go over, but what's the point?

It's desired because it's one of the last big matches we've never seen on that level, and one of the last ones where the result would be in doubt enough for people to suspend their disbelief.  Plus it would be a great fucking match and one I would pay money to see.  

Comments

  1. Unfortunately at this point Taker isn't around to build up the chase of the streak enough. The bigger question is: by ending the streak, does Taker's legacy take a significant hit?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Regarding why taker/cena at wrestlemania, there are certain match-ups where it only feels right by being on such a big stage as opposed to a lesser ppv. Examples include hogan/Andre, hogan/warrior, rock/Austin, cena/rock.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unless they want to suck more value out of it.
    Aka more streak DVDs, 2k14 streak mode, etc.
    Once the streak is broken it can only be used for one promotional purpose: To put over the "streak breaker"

    ReplyDelete
  4. I still don't think the streak matters at all beyond an easy, lazy storyline.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even then the question is whether or not the rub given to The Next Guy is worth more future earnings than the diminishing DVD profits. And it's not just the DVD vs. the rub. It's the difference between the 23-0 DVD, or whatever, and the 22-1 DVD vs. the rub. Because you can still release a set with that final loss. If anything, that's continuing to put over The Next Guy and extract even more future value out of him.



    And if you (not you personally, the royal-you) think that difference in profit between those two DVD sets is worth more than ensuring the maximum future earnings of the next face of the company you don't know shit about pro wrestling.


    What people who are in favor of Taker maintaining the streak into retirement can't admit is that there's no "smart" explanation for it. It's all bullshit rationalization. This is their single-season home run record, and I want my binky to have it! Even if it's a worked sport, and Taker is a 48-year old man who didn't actually beat anyone in combat. You're a fucking mark if you don't get why the streak needs to end.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just to be an ass and start a shit storm...

    Daniel Bryan should end the streak.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm down. Bryan PROBABLY doesn't need it at this point cause he's definitely an established top guy, but fuck it, I'm a mark for the guy so hell yea.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Only if Taker were a mark for himself (debatable) and wanted to go out with the streak intact, could an argument be made that he did enough for the business to get that wish granted.
    Other than that, you're 217% right.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually the story line would be easy, Bryan could do something that the authority in hhh (3x), hbk (2x), Kane (2x) and orton could never do.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr. Satan (Pat P. Pro)December 23, 2013 at 12:50 AM

    You are correct, sir.

    I predict Cena ending it with a roll up, and the next night on Raw he smiles, shrugs and says "eh, no biggie" thus rendering the whole feat meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mr. Satan (Pat P. Pro)December 23, 2013 at 12:51 AM

    Yeah, people on this site definitely couldn't get behind that idea.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I still can't believe he no-sold the loss to the Shield like that. Among others. INfuriating.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't think it does. Taker is kind of like Sabu (I know what you're thinking, but stay with me here for a sec), in that he's one of those few guys where fans don't care about his win-loss record, but just seeing him is kind of a special event. With Sabu, it's because you know he'll try to kill himself to entertain you, with Taker it's because... well, it's The Undertaker. I'm not a fan of his, but shit, have you ever seen his entrance in person? That alone is worth the price of your ticket, even if he doesn't actually wrestle.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It writes itself. And, however they end the streak, this story is almost 100% better than whatever they come up with!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I mean is there anybody right now that deserves to end the streak? Obviously we all would want our faves to be the one to do it but I feel like everyone currently has had there value so watered down because of all the championships and 50/50 booking that it's just a waste. Someone newish like a Roman Reigns would make sense but only if he is going to be a huge mega star and no one knows if he will.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That's the goal of hte company; but it's strange to me that fans always argue about what's best for WWE. Why should we care? Just a weird quirk of wrestling fandom.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Given the nature of pro wrestling, you could argue that the longevity The Undertaker's streak is the only example of 'the business' showing some self control. Which, of course, means it was probably completely unintended at first.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "3-0 --- Miz (though he lost one year on the pre-show, which I'm not counting)"


    I'd count it. It happened in the same ring in the same stadium on the same day. Maybe if it was just a dark match, but if fans see it (even on WWE's YouTube channel) then it's a WM match in my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Newish stars are probably considered too risky because their future behavior can't be as reasonably projected. Reigns seems normal now, but they have no way of knowing he want have a Kurt Angle level meltdown in 5-10 years and then their streak-breaker is useless.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mr. Satan (Pat P. Pro)December 23, 2013 at 1:05 AM

    By the time he was going up against Triple H or Flair (9 and 10) they probably realised that they were onto something. Certainly, if the Flair match happened on any other PPV, the Arn Anderson spinebuster would have led to Taker tapping to the figure four.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Amsterdam_Adam_CurryDecember 23, 2013 at 1:07 AM

    Maybe it's because I can't stand him (though his match with Punk was pretty good, and I'd be saying the same thing about HBK in the same scenario), but if Taker retiring with the streak intact would be complete bullshit. Problem is, as Scott said, is that WWE would just fuck it up anyway, and who really has the credibility to pull it off? I honestly think Punk should have won this year and ended it, outside of that you have Bryan (which isn't happening, if they won't even give him the WWE title for more than 5 minutes you know cot damn well they aren't putting him over Taker at WM), and Cena and Orton, neither of whom need the rub, and both of them ending the streak would cause a HUGE backlash from fans. Unless they finally turn Cena, in which case him beating Taker would be the perfect time to turn him.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Amsterdam_Adam_CurryDecember 23, 2013 at 1:15 AM

    I think he needs it. He's still over, but he got SHIT ON by the "abeyance" angle. I can't see any reason to have it happen though, unless Bryan just comes out and says "I'm challenging you because I want to end the streak", which as Biscut says below would just be laziness from creative.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Amsterdam_Adam_CurryDecember 23, 2013 at 1:19 AM

    Agreed, and I think it's worth pointing out (yes, I'm biased...) that Undertaker is undefeated at WM while Shawn Michaels has a losing record, yet Shawn has the "Mr. Wrestlemania" nickname.

    ReplyDelete
  24. the buildup to the first Rock/Cena match was pretty great. not only managed Cena (and the way they portrayed him) to get people to root for him that usually wouldn't but he especially made it seem like it was the biggest deal in the world for him.

    (the problem of course was that the aftermath of it was horrible)

    ReplyDelete
  25. They had a tag title match in the same ring, in front of the same crowd but it was broadcast as part of Heat. If it's not on the card then its not part of the show. Seriously they have to do something with Miz just for histories sake. I can't think of anyone who has main evented a Mainia with less legacy before or after then Miz, if people buy a WM boxset years from now he will just be this weird midcard blip in all the names listed for closing the show.

    ReplyDelete
  26. no it wouldn't. because (afaik) Undertaker has never lost a match by tapping out.

    ReplyDelete
  27. you NEVER know who is going to be a big star.

    you could easily argue the opposite will: IF it pays of, being the one breaking the streak might have been the greatest tool for a push ever.

    ReplyDelete
  28. the problem obviously is that the WWE today hasn't enough patience to do something like that - they would just end that new "streak" after two or three years.

    ReplyDelete
  29. exactly. I am the customer so I ask to see what >>> I <<< want.

    ReplyDelete
  30. he didn't have a problem with Steve Austin as the heel. however, guys doing heelish things getting cheered and the booking even supporting it? THAT'S one of the things he critized.

    ReplyDelete
  31. exactly. WCW got one of the participants in the hottest story in all of wrestling, the screwjob. and that's how utilize him? really?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mr. Satan (Pat P. Pro)December 23, 2013 at 2:20 AM

    Well, that would have been the only time. :)

    Also, that was HumanBikerTaker, not ZombieTaker.

    ReplyDelete
  33. to be fair he at least on his dvd he also mentioned that he was getting pushed too hard too soon (and also explained that the WWF was pretty much the first time he really had to "pay dues").

    ReplyDelete
  34. I wouldn't do Undertaker-Cena this year. It's the biggest match they've got left, so save it for UT's last match in a couple of years time.

    ReplyDelete
  35. this.

    it also shows that the WWF/WWE historically has a lot better track record than their competition in reaction to certain situations etc. (which obviously doesn't mean they still manage(d) to screw up quite often).

    for example, unfortunately I am very sure that even if most main event guys in WCW would have been out with injuries or whatever, they still would have been a lot more hesitation to push someone else in those spots.

    ReplyDelete
  36. He might also decide to do MMA...

    ReplyDelete
  37. That whole match is just wrong! Hogan dominates, pins Sting clean, Bret whines aboot nothing and looks like the biggest idiot, title gets vacated...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mr. Satan (Pat P. Pro)December 23, 2013 at 3:46 AM

    I disagree. The appeal of Cena vs. Undertaker lies in today's zeitgeist. A couple of years earlier nobody was clamouring for it, and nobody is sure whether it will be as profitable in even a year's time. You have to strike while the iron is hot, and that's WrestleMania 30.

    Here are some examples, all involving Hulk Hogan:

    Flair and Hogan never had a big match, if one at all, in early '90s WWF when it would have been a huge deal. They ended up doing it later in WCW and the result was mediocre.

    Alternatively, we never got the Bret/Hogan match at WrestleMania X. Once Bret hit WCW, the allure of the potential for that match was so great because they had held it off for so long, it had seemed like they were universes apart and it just seemed natural. Of course stupid WCW never did it, though. This relates closely to Taker/Cena because the two haven't had a PPV match in over a decade and the circumstances have changed greatly.

    Lastly, once Hogan and Rock nearly literally went nose-to-nose, it was explosive and it just seemed to be the natural fit at the time. Even though Austin vs. Hogan might have been a bigger match years earlier and later on people were still hoping it'd happen, the match with Rock worked because Hogan just got back to the WWF and Rock's popularity was still flying high.

    They haven't started any definite build to WrestleMania as of yet, so if they're planning on holding it off until 31 or even 32 I think that would be a mistake. As much of a fan as I am of long term planning, refusing to go with the flow can be disastrous.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This might be Taker's last year, though. He really doesn't have many left in him.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Exactly. In comparison, it'd be like giving the streak defeat to, say, Ahmed Johnson back in '96. He looked like a million bucks and a lot of people thought he'd be the next big star back in the day, but it turned out we were wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  41. At this point, Taker should just retire with the streak. For one, there's more money in the streak on a long-term basis than there is giving it to one guy who may or may not need the rub.


    But with WWE's constant stop and start pushes and 50/50 booking, there's really no one who should do it. The only times I thought maybe - MAYBE - someone deserved it was Orton or Edge. That was back when Orton was doing the legend killing gimmick and he could've killed the legend of the Undertaker. He could've used it after having such a shoddy turn against Evolution. Edge was pretty much at the top of his game at the time and didn't really need it, honestly.


    But even if someone DID go over Taker, what then? Do you really have any faith in WWE to capitalize on whoever wins? I certainly don't. You'd be lucky if they remembered it two months later.

    ReplyDelete
  42. A massive Cena heel turn is the only thing worth ending the streak for. Otherwise he should retire with it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Don't be fooled, The Streak will NEVER be broken. Taker will wrestle until he can't, say 2-3 more Mania's or 4-6 more matches. Cena vs Taker has value in NAME ONLY, a poor man's "Dream Match" in name only. The Streak is a pivotal selling point for Mania & the WWE, Cena, & Taker gain ZERO by having Cena go over. The business would have to be in another transition period, entering another wrestling "boom" where a Streak ending victory would transcend someone's career moving forward. There is no such "boom" in sight & no such "can't miss, future mega star" on ANY roster worth ending this epic run by this epic superstar. If the "Summer of Punk" was handled properly, he was hot enough, deserving enough, and reliable enough meaning you know he is a wrestler at heart & will be sticking around, where he had a fraction of a chance to end The Streak to catapult him into another tier. His age though would have probably been a deal breaker. Whammy.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Now I know how Jesse Baker feels, this drives me about as nuts as anything wrestlung related could. The clamoring for UT/Cena is exactly what Scott said PLUS with the diminishing returns of Cena as the tippy top decreasing every day, the magnitude of a Taker/Cena super match won't be as great in a few years as it would be right now. Do the match this year and break all the records

    ReplyDelete
  45. You're half way there...

    HHH SHOULD END THE STREAK.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Could easily post 100 comments just in this thread. Gonna try and contain myself :)

    ReplyDelete
  47. There is no way they end the streak. Its the biggest draw they have left. IMO theres no more drama in the outcome of undertaker vs cena than there would be with undertaker vs wade barrett

    ReplyDelete
  48. It is the first time I remember watching something in wrestling and wondering if what I saw was "real." I felt a little like Booker T, "Tell me I did not just see that!"

    ReplyDelete
  49. BTW got into the east coast late last night. Nothing like seeing a little freezing rain at Xmas!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Well said. I'm of the belief it should be broken to put over an heir apparent, or set up a huge money rubber match...spit ballin so bare with me here

    If neither of those 2 things are imminent though why not have Taker "retire" for a year or two and then come out if retirement to job the streak when the heir apparent presents himself. SSay someone catches fire like a young Brock in a few years. Have Taker come out of retirement "to defend" the wwe at wrestlemania only to job the streak to the white jot guy. That'd be some drama. I agree the streak should end but just ending it to put over any random jabroni would be a mistake

    ReplyDelete
  51. They probably end up jobbing the streak ender out on raw the next night.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "and I want my bible to have it" lol

    ReplyDelete
  53. This is right but they all apparently failed out of pro wrestling 101. Theres some money in having the streak exist as a thing even after taker retires. There would be more money in finally using it to get someone over but unlike just keeping the streak this would require them to 1) build up a challenger 2)properly promote the match 3) follow through on the push.

    Thats why I think they won't end the streak.

    ReplyDelete
  54. How in the blue hell can you forget the finish in the biggest match of the year...smh

    ReplyDelete
  55. You don't draw money by having him lose because people buy it to see another chapter added to an epic journey narrative the WWE fell ass backwards into around 2001. It's kind of like a mythos being created in front of your eyes that you can believe will be mentioned if wrestling still exists a hundred years from now.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "since they'd just fuck it up anyway and have someone else beat the Streak-Killer so as to try and get everyone over and thus get no one over."

    Never thought if this but yea, that'd probably happen and yea, it'd most definitely suck.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Porn-Peddling Jef VinsonDecember 23, 2013 at 6:38 AM

    It makes no sense to end the streak. I thought they fucked it up when they had Edge lose at WrestleMania before he wrestled the Undertaker because they had a real shot at having a "streak vs. streak" match there.

    As I've said before I think it's time UT gave the rub to someone they can build as his heir apparent. Not to carry on the streak but a believable badass that Vince could use in those "big man vs. big man" matches. Reigns is a viable option.

    ReplyDelete
  58. 4 years ago I thought for sure the end it to someone at some point. Now I doubt they will

    ReplyDelete
  59. Porn-Peddling Jef VinsonDecember 23, 2013 at 6:39 AM

    Isn't Cole undefeated at WrestleMania? If the Undertaker loses we'd have to hear that for eternity.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Why have they never had someone go on like a Goldberg run for a year and do a "streak vs streak" match up in that sense? Even if they had 0 desire to put that guy over Taker, he sstill becomes a star by doing the Goldberg thing amd by hanging tough with Taker in a WM match. Caveat, that guy can't suck like Ryback

    ReplyDelete
  61. Porn-Peddling Jef VinsonDecember 23, 2013 at 6:44 AM

    It probably could have worked with Ryback. but it would take a lot of work for him to put together a coherent match with the Undertaker. But this is where the WWE was short-sighted. This could have been done with Brock Lesnar.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Even then, it's not a very good argument. The 'time-honored tradition' has always been you got out on your back and give back to THIS BUSINESS.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Porn-Peddling Jef VinsonDecember 23, 2013 at 6:49 AM

    We're not even sure if he can wrestle at Wrestlemania yet. Didn't he have a few surgeries?

    ReplyDelete
  64. I'm not a Ryback fan but yea they most definitely could have done it with ryback. Have him just mow through guys for a year and then have him job to UT. He comes off looking great, 10x better then he looks now

    ReplyDelete
  65. Depends on how he went about it. If it's based around a desire to prove he isn't a B+ and do what none of the "A+" guys could, including Shawn (twice). They could even use Shawn to 'warn' him about how tough Taker is, how he doesn't have a chance (but in a matter-of-fact way).

    ReplyDelete
  66. Uh, what are you talking about? Did you not see him in WCW? He definitely turned into the next big thing. What that thing was, I dunno. The Blob?

    ReplyDelete
  67. When's the last time Flair beat a non-jabroni with the figure four? 1992?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hart probably doesn't care about losing to Austin.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Porn-Peddling Jef VinsonDecember 23, 2013 at 7:07 AM

    He beat Carlito with it for the I-C title..so you're close.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Porn-Peddling Jef VinsonDecember 23, 2013 at 7:09 AM

    He doesn't even have to be perceived as a threat until the last minute.

    ReplyDelete
  71. In this day and age of broken necks, torn achilles and concussion you can not invest 20 years into a wrestler anymore.


    People flame out. The business is hardly protected and there is way too much tv. You can not special attract guys like Taker. No matter how many times you overhaul him and tweak his character. In this day and age of twitter and real time results, theres no 6 year old kid waiting 20 years to see the fruits blossom for another Taker.


    Its been 10 with Cena and look at his returns and he is THE GUY.

    ReplyDelete
  72. The Streak must be protected for the sheer uniqueness of it, & the fact that there will never be another superstar to even flirt with The Streak, let alone any streak. It's not a championship. It's an irreplaceable accomplishment that will NEVER be matched. Compare it to Bret Favre's 200+ consecutive games played streak, its just an unthinkable run & impossible to believe that it can be broken or even matched. Anybody can be given a title belt, but one cannot be given a 30 year career laced with a 21-0 Wrestlemania record. It should also be protected as a sign of respect to one of the business' greatest wrestlers. Taker has always done right for the company he works for, Vince owes him. It would show that Vince has gratitude and will take care of those who take care of him.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I'd be willing to bet that "I forgot the finish" is some kind of carny for "I screwed up and don't want to admit it" or "I really know, but I'm not telling you because you weren't there." Strictly theories, though.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Raw in 97 was great in general, mostly thanks to Bret (& Austin) you goof.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I absolutely love WWF from 1997. I know 1998 was the big money year with Austin on top and the full ramp up of the Attitude Era and all, but from an entertainment/story standpoint I've always thought 1997 was much better top to bottom.

    ReplyDelete
  76. By the time "WM" rolled around, it would have been a FIVE-hundred day reign.



    They really screwed that up. Cena/Rock did NOT need the title.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Porn-Peddling Jef VinsonDecember 23, 2013 at 7:54 AM

    Hi Mark!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Porn-Peddling Jef VinsonDecember 23, 2013 at 7:56 AM

    Which brings about the issue of the misuse of secondary titles.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Porn-Peddling Jef VinsonDecember 23, 2013 at 8:05 AM

    This is the closest I've seen:

    http://youtu.be/yjxYmaWCw-4

    ReplyDelete
  80. There was the little matter of Wrestlemania 14 and Austin FINALLY getting the big win over Bret.



    Austin/HBK doesn't have "it".

    That being said, it did a lot for Austin's standing that they were able to draw so well without the obvious story. It did more than double the buyrate from the previous year, so what do I know?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Porn-Peddling Jef VinsonDecember 23, 2013 at 8:30 AM

    Here you go:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-BlK3B4Ykc

    ReplyDelete
  82. I'm a "mark" or u think I'm a gentleman named Mark......

    ReplyDelete
  83. The problem is that with WWE's crappy booking, so many guys that could've/should've been worthwhile candidates to break the Streak and become the next big megastar have already been irrevocably damaged. Three years ago I would've tapped Wade Barrett as a great candidate to finally beat Taker...two years ago, Ziggler....last year, Cesaro. Now, it's an upset if any of those three guys actually appeared on WM30 at all.

    ReplyDelete
  84. One problem: Taker doesn't care about the streak and was ready to hand it to Kane. KANE was the one who said "no."

    I've always found it funny that people care more about the "respect" pertaining to the streak than the supposedly "disrespected" guy does.

    ReplyDelete
  85. That would've been unreal --- Punk's 500-day reign against the Streak. There would've just enough doubt (the long reign, Undertaker already being 20-0 so he could've at least claimed a 'round number' as his streak, Punk's mic work) to make you think Punk actually had a chance to go over.

    ReplyDelete
  86. You'll know when it's his last match. They won't just let it happen. They'll promote the shit out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Shit, I remember watching Bash at the Beach when the 3rd man was to be revealed with Hall & Nash. Prior I remember Hall saying there were 3 guys & describing them all by height, and the combination of his insinuation of a smaller guy & Hart's impending departure it had me so positive the 3rd man was in fact Hart that the reveal was almost anti- climatic. Especially with the impression WCW was trying to give of very current WWF guys invading/jumping ship. Hart was the guy, brother.
    But the Hogan turn was tits for anyone who grew up a Hulkamaniac & got bored of him. Hogan was the guy, brother.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Punk/Taker as streak vs streak would have been unreal. And they could have done the EXACT same card if they wanted too.


    Cena wins Rumble. Show keeps the WHC.


    During Rock/Punk at Rumble, Shield runs in to help Punk, Cena runs in to help Rock, and somehow Cena ends up accidentally hitting Rock and costing him the match.


    Rock then beats Show for the WHC at Elimination Chamber, and BAM.


    Cena vs Rock for WHC, Punk vs Taker for WWE Title streak vs streak. Sane matchups, much more interesting context though. (Plus it lets Cena and Rock actually have an ISSUE to be mad at eachother for.)

    ReplyDelete
  89. Porn-Peddling Jef VinsonDecember 23, 2013 at 9:15 AM

    The Undertakers real name is Mar..oh forget it.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I don't disagree with that, but in the big picture, it would have looked bad if yet another one of Vince's top guys were leaving to go to WCW. The perception that WWF was not the big time would have cost them more money than just losing Shawn.

    ReplyDelete
  91. This EXACTLY. Taker in real life doesn't give a shit about retiring with the streak, and if he did well FUCK HIM that's his problem.


    And exactly, The Streak DVD/download/whatever-we-watch-in-the-future will be as promotable (perhaps moreso) with the ONE LOSS on it.


    The potential money on creating a new star is way more valuable than any money you can argue would be made by having an 60 year old retired Undertaker still being undefeated.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Vince doesn't owe him shit. He's treated The Undertaker VERY well over the years. If there's someone that they can make by ending the STreak, then they should. Taker being a cool dude in the lockerroom should have less than zero to do with that decision.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Nah, I think I've said this before, but I would have worked Bret in as the special referee for Sting/Hogan, playing him as a guy with ambiguous loyalties between WCW/NWO. Then, in the match, you use this to paper over the work rate deficiencies by having him do things like force Sting to break holds, pull him off of Hogan, etc. to build dramatic tension in the match, but ultimately he proves to be the good guy by helping Sting clear the ring during the obligatory huge NWO run-in, Hogan's eyes bug out of his head when he realizes that he's totally fucked, Stinger splash, Scorpion deathdrop, 1,2,3 everyone goes ape shit.


    Then main event Souled Out with Sting/Bret against Hogan/Savage, and double main event Superbrawl with Bret/Hogan and Sting/Savage. That would have made ridiculous amounts of money, could have logically wound down the NWO angle, and you'd still have Bret/Sting and Bret/Flair to run at a later date.

    ReplyDelete
  94. It's a simulated sport. You get that Taker didn't actually "win" all those matches right?

    Yea it's a cool little novelty that sells WM that fans can get swept up in but there is no tangible value in it once you're absolutely positive he's retired.

    ReplyDelete
  95. He's both of the above, duh.

    ReplyDelete
  96. ... to a guy who promptly puts Taker on the shelf the next week... then challenges the streak ender to a match at "B-PPV After Wrestlemania 14" for the official title "Undertaker Wrestlemania Streak Ender".


    And the match ends in a Sportz Entertainment Finish after Undertaker returns and chokeslams, then tombstones both wrestlers.




    (Paging Vince Russo... Mr. Russo, please come to the white courtesy phone at the front desk)

    ReplyDelete
  97. Someone here came up with the idea of the Shield ending the Streak, with Reigns getting the pin.


    THAT is a money idea.

    ReplyDelete
  98. No its not. Maybe Reigns in a solo match next year

    ReplyDelete
  99. Yea. It would have been tremoundous. You can still go Cena/Rock WHC and them Punk vs UT streak vs streak. Would have been great

    ReplyDelete
  100. Well then let's not push anybody, because anything can happen!

    ReplyDelete
  101. I would crack up if a story came out about Taker suggesting that happen and Bryan accepts, while Triple H, Vince, and Stephanie shit themselves with shocked looked on their faces.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I wasn't a huge fan during the WM 21-23 years, still watched WM but didn't really give a shit about much else...

    did they ever give any consideration to Javier Parton snap the streak? He seems like the perfect candidate: young, home grown wwe guy, viewed by wwe as a potential heir apparent. I guess they knew at that point they still had 10-12 years to monetize in the streak, but it doesn't seem like there'd be a better candidate until reigns is ready

    ReplyDelete
  103. In Shawn's defense, his matches usually steal the show, while Taker's were passable at best unless he was with Shawn, Edge, Punk, or Triple H in 2001.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Hm. Someone asks for something, Jef delivers.

    < pondering >


    I should try and find a really large pile of money so that I never have to work again....

    ReplyDelete
  105. What were we talking about again?


    - WWE Creative

    ReplyDelete
  106. I've had that thought many times. I think Bret should have jobbed in Montreal, or VKM should have been smart enough to have him drop the belt in the US before that. But, I really sided with Bret in terms of his loyalty to the WWF and expecting Vince to live up to the contract.
    But yeah, once he was gone, it's clear that they didn't miss him and WCW didn't have the faintest idea on what to do once he arrived. Of course, how many storylines/angles/whatever did they actually do right besides the nWo during that time frame? You could say Goldberg, and Jericho was great...the the latter was more on the individual.

    ReplyDelete
  107. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Quoting off of your own post:

    "did they ever give any consideration to Javier Parton snap the streak?"



    Dolly Parton has a bastard Hispanic kid?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Oh. I edited that literally seconds later, not sure how you still saw it. Somehow "having Orton" got corrected to "Javier Parton"

    ReplyDelete
  110. I watched as it happened; I was not a "smark" at the time. I remember wondering what the deal was with all the "Goodbye Bret" signs. I had no idea he was leaving. As for the finish, my best guess is that I was just confused. I wondered what exactly happened and why.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Autocorrect for the win.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment