Skip to main content

The Streak Ender

Hi Scott,
 
Was thinking if the E decided to end the streak at WM 29 who be the best candidate. Makes no real sense to give the victory to a part-timer or a legend: why waste the streak for a special moment Wrestlemania with no long term benefit. And Cena clearly does not benefit from ending it - at least not compared to someone that can catapult into major player status. Who on the current roster would you trust with this mega push? It's a risk - a big risk. If I had to choose,  I would go with Wade Barrett. Though I am not aware of his committment and attitude, (which should factor in this decision) from what I see he is moderately over, a talent and could be built up as a strong heel. Put him over Mysterio at Summer Slam, Orton at the Rumble and then Taker at Mania. What do you think?  

There is absolutely no reason or need to ever end the streak.  The money is in the chase of that streak, and once it ends there's no way to ever go back to it again.  This isn't like where you chase a title for a long time and then win it and get over as a result, it took 20 years to build this up and wrecking it would piss of a significant amount of the fanbase and throw away a SIGNIFICANT chunk of the annual buys for the show.  

Plus clearly the answer is David Otunga, duh.  

Comments

  1. Please please please stop referring to WWE as "The E". That is easily the dumbest abbreviation ever!

    ReplyDelete
  2. But your gonna lose those buys anyway when he retires. The only way the streak should end is if they find their next Cena, it needs to be a face vs face epic showdown. I don't think they've found that guy yet but who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just call it the WWF. I refuse to refer to it by that other name.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just see a blur after the two W. Weird. 

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scott is pretty much correct, however if The Undertaker was going to retire and was willing to end the streak, I would pick The Rock to end it. True he doesn't need the rub, but how cool would it be for him to be able to say that he beat Hogan, Austin, Cena, and The Undertaker at Wrestlemania. Frankly no one else on the current roster is worthy of ending it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Plus it's not actually abbreviating anything. "WWE" has three letters and "The E" has four.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As usual, my opinions only:

    1) There is one reason, and ONLY one reason to end the streak: if it is, unequivocally, undisputedly, 100% Undertaker's last match ever. Once you know for sure that there will be no more Wrestlemanias sold on the strength of the streak, then you can go ahead and end it, because there won't be a reason to keep it from a financial perspective; you can't make more money from the streak since there won't be a possible payoff, nor will Taker ever defend it again.

    2) This is more my opinion, but in most fantasy booking scenarios, people want some young, up and coming star to end the streak and get the proverbial rub, but I'm in the opposite camp - I firmly believe that it should be a star on the magnitude of a Cena to end it. The strength of the streak over the last several years has been the high-profile guys that have tried to end it, ie Michaels and HHH. That is the trend that should continue, because the contrivance of a storyline like the underdog winning isn't really that strong. Using it as a way to bring Cena back to prominence, or using it as the missing piece for Punk to be strong forever, or even bringing back Rock or Lesnar to end it are much stronger scenarios from a storyline basis with which to do so than a random guy just winning it. 

    Keep in mind, if they never end the streak, I won't object too strenuously.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There may not be money in ending the streak... but in think the WWE missed a golden opportunity at Wrestlemania by not pushing a heel to screw up the Hell in the Cell cage match.

    Think of it this way- HHH/UT keep battling it out, neither can put away the other... then, pick a heel (Miz, if he had been completely off the WM card, would have had a great storyline reason.  But someone just under the main event event like Rhodes or Ziggler could have worked).  Have Miz come out from under the ring and lay out UT, Michaels, and HHH, ending the match in a no-contest.

    Here's the advantages:

    * UT's streak is alive- he still has never lost at Wrestlemania.

    * Miz is pushed to the moon as a heel, for interfering in the one match no WWE fan would have thought they'd muck with.

    * You've just created four PPV Main events:  Miz-Michaels, Miz-HHH, the HHH-UT rematch, and UT-Miz at the next Wrestlemania.

    You don't have to end the streak to use it to push someone to the next level. 

    ReplyDelete
  9. No one ever retires unless they lose a leg like Vachon did or just walk away from the business entirely like Sammartino.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Seriously, LOL at Wade Barrett beating the Undertaker at WrestleMania.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No one buys WrestleMania to watch the Undertaker. Only exception was 25 & 26 but people were buying to watch HBK face the Undertaker. And the 2010 buyrate with that match on top was not up to par.

    Undertaker is a SPECIAL ATTRACTION for a reason - it gives you something to be interested in while waiting for the main event.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Has anyone ever lost a leg AND walked away from the business?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nevermind who should end it.

    Realistically, at this point who could even challenge for it?

    After the last 4 years who could they possibly put against Taker that would even be half as interesting/believable to win?

    I guess they could do Cena/UT if they really go with Rock/Brock for the title. Even that I don't see how they could build it as nearly as epic as any of the last 4 defenses. It would be fun to watch the internet have a hemorrhage if they put Cena over though.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've heard a few people suggest this type of ending.

    I would have been pretty annoyed if some mid level heel involved himself in a match about the conflict between HHH, UT, and Shawn Michaels, and some how managed to single handily lay out three of the biggest wrestling stars ever, causing a screwball ending to the second most important match of the year.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This.  The match was perfect as is, no need to add any pointless interference.

    Even if you didn't like Mania 28, all the big matches ended cleanly and decisively.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'd like to think the rematch between the two at Mania 28 contributed to the buyrate pretty significantly.  It certainly deserved to be.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't think it's intentional but maybe WWE has used the HBK/HHH series to soften the landing of Undertaker losing. Before the HBK match, Taker losing at WM would have seemed insane to the average fan, it was always a foregone conclusion before. Because of HBK/Taker 1 some of the fan base actually started to think Taker might lose. Just a thought, probably reading too much into it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It did. The card was so stacked, it a gave a lot of people different reasons to buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  19.  Disagree. My friends and I have bought or gone to the theater to see a least 4 Wrestlemanias because of Undertaker. You can argue that no one buys a show just for one performer, but I'm sure Undertaker tips the scales for thousands of potential buyers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. And even then Vachon was still getting involved in World title matches.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why would you call it the name of a wildlife charity?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Zach Gowen hobbled away.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Man, it seems like at least once a month someone asks Scott about a whacky mid-carder who should end the streak.  Can you people stop already?  I love fantasy booking, but c'mmon.

    Keep him undefeated, they've built it up this long, I don't see a real reason to end it.  So Cena beats him, so what?  He'll just go back to doing what he does every week.  So Barrett (or fill in the blank with another mid-carder) beats him, do you think they're going to stop their usual 50/50 booking afterwards?  It will be wasted.  Yes, this is the pessimistic point of view, but I have to use their usual booking philosophy (and data) to create that pov.  There are exceptions, Punk mainly, but lately, heels aren't exactly booked strongly.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This whole notion of Taker's streak being so sacred that it should never be broken is ridiculous.  It's not like Hank Aaron's home run record or Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak, you know REAL streaks that actually matter?  We're talking pro wrestling here!  It's about entertainment and the building of stars.  And it's time for Taker to make a star out of somebody at a Mania or at least do what ALL the WWE legends have done at some point at  a mania, why should he get a free pass?  Fuck that.  And even if you value streaks of any level, there's a saying that records are meant to be broken and that should apply to Taker's streak as well.  It's funny how Scott says the money is in the chase but, really, why would fans continue to fork over the money to see an ending that's a foregone conclusion?  What I'm saying is that people would just as much see Taker lose as him keep the streak alive.  So what if he loses?  Do any of you think WWE is going to take a huge blow from that?  Is Vince going to piss his pants because fans might get pissed? Come on.   

    ReplyDelete
  25. Surely Taker's only got one or two Wrestlemanias left in him (maximum)? I agree with cultstatus, you'll lose whatever buys he brings in when he retires, so why not put someone over when you know it's his last match?

    As for Barrett - not a fan. He debuted the same time as Bryan, was given all the booking favours he could've been, and has been solid at best. There are far better prospects in the company.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'd like to think that last Monday is a step in the right direction about how WWE books heels.  I mean there's always a place for chickenshit heels (Miz) but guys like Tensai need to be booked as unbeatable for the time being.

    ReplyDelete
  27.  The thing is, like you said, no one believes that Taker is going to lose.  So, if you have him lose at WM, you're not getting extra cash from people that do believe he's going to lose because you've already established he's not going to lose.  Confusing, I know, but it's too late to draw extra buys with Taker losing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I've been advocating an end to the streak for the longest time.  Why?  Because of all the wrestlers in the history of this industry, no one owes their success more to all the guys who cowered in fear, let UT take 85% of the offense, did the jobs, looked overmatched, etc. than the Undertaker.  His gimmick and career absolutely required his opponents to make him look like a million bucks.  Like Foley says about HHH selling the return of Cactus Jack on Raw, UT's opponents had to sell his gimmick day in and day out for 22 years.  the old adage of putting over the young talent and making sure the business continues would be apropos here.  That said, they blew it.  Batista or Orton or Cena when he was younger would have been good choices.  Now, there is no one.  You can see that by the fact that they have spent the past 4 years putting him up against guys with even better careers than him.  The reason you can't put Ziggler over or Miz or Barrett or any of these guys is because WWE spent the past few years making sure that you know everyone other than Cena or Orton can't compare to the legends of WWE.  So if the legends aren't fighting UT, then the crowd will shit on it.  And to me it makes no sense to put Cena over.  He doesn't need it and why take away the chance that you might want to drag UT out of the mothballs 5 years from now or even 10?  I think what they really need to do is either let him have a big retirement ceremony at next year's WM or have him do one last match knowing it's his last match.  But god help us if they keep dragging him out for one match year after year. 

    UT has always been a special attraction.  he's never been the biggest draw or even the big draw.  He's always been second and third and fourth fiddle to other guys, whether Hogan, Savage, Warrior, etc. or Hart, HBK, Diesel, etc. or Austin, Rock, Foley, HHH, or even Cena, Orton, Batista, Edge.  His place in the business is assured but I don't put him on the top tier with HBK, Hart, Flair, etc.  His gimmick was too reliant on booking and opponents willing to totally sacrifice themselves to the point where they were worse off after a feud with him.  His work was below average from 90-97, decent in 97-98, and god awful from 99 until he ditched the underbiker big evil stuff and went back to his roots.  I don't know that anyone else could have made the UT gimmick work for even a couple years, much less 20, but I also don't believe without the gimmick and the protection that he becomes a star in any way.  On the other hand I think lots of other top guys would and have been able to become stars on sheer force of will and sheer talent rather than being fed everybody on the roster and showing almost no vulnerability for 22 years.  

    ReplyDelete
  29. What would be wrong with some breaking Aaron's or Dimaggio's records?

    ReplyDelete
  30. They can easily build a new guy up from now till Mania 29 to face Taker.  Even if it's someone like Tensai or Ryback.  No way would I buy the Miz as a streak ender even if WWE pushed him to the moon from now on.  Ziggler?  He's a great talent but again, even if they book him like a monster I just don't see it.  Barrett at least has the size to make it somewhat believeable.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I get what you're saying though, I still - ten years on - find WWE an awkward thing to say.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mick Foley lost an ear.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Shawn Michaels lost his smile.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I wouldn't call that walking away.

    ReplyDelete
  35.  Sammartino is going to be on an ROH show soon, and he still makes all his money doing autograph sessions and personal appearances. Bruno will never really "walk away" from the business.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Cactus Jack lost in Cleveland.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Val Venis lost his pee-pee.

    ReplyDelete
  38. One way I could see Cena go for the streak depends on where his character is by Mania 29.  Assuming he loses cleanly to Brock at Extreme Rules, that could drive him to finally let lose about how he thinks WWE is treating him.  NOT A HEEL TURN just so you know but a legit gripe about being pushed aside for Lesnar.  How this leads to him facing Taker I haven't quite worked out but maybe it's along the lines of "hurting WWE" by ruining the streak and knowing how many people it would piss off.

    ReplyDelete
  39.  Tensai/Albert already wrestled Taker at WrestleMania and it wasn't very good.  This would be no different.

    ReplyDelete
  40. If he loses to Brock how can he complain about the WWE unless he loses through Johnny Ace interfering?  Otherwise, you start to blur the kayfabe lines way too much and start dangerously getting into Russo territory.

    I'll make this prediction, in a year's time, Cena will be exactly how he is today...gasp!

    ReplyDelete
  41.  griping = heel turn.  Nothing turns a guy heel faster than whining, even if he's right.  I don't remember who on this blog said that, but it was absolutely spot on.  Bret Hart was correct in everything he said in 1997 leading up to WM but because he was "whining" the fans turned on him.  Well that and a friendly assist from Vince and JR on the announcing team doing their best to undercut him from the day after he beat Austin at Survivor Series.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Nothing except that today's stars are getting roided up to break those records.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Doesn't matter how good the match will be, it matters if people believe Tensai can end the streak.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Consider this, Cena thrives on being the face of WWE.  Not just in the ring but outside it as well.  Ace brought Brock back (try saying that three times fast) to replace Cena.  If Cena loses cleanly at Extreme Rules there's no way he'll just shrug it off like he kinda did with losing to the Rock which wasn't even about being replaced.

    ReplyDelete
  45.  Not enough people bring up Vince and JR on commentary doing their best to help the Hart heel turn along.  And Vince always fawning over Shawn every chance he had whenever (a) Shawn appeared and (b) during the altercations between Shawn and Bret.

    ReplyDelete
  46. If you want to call it a heel turn that's fine I just wanted to avoid getting into another pointless debate about the merits of turning Cena to the dark side.

    ReplyDelete
  47. See at this point, I think he should do the right thing and put somebody over at a Mania mainly because it would be the right thing to do.  If he were the great locker room leader people say he is, that would be the crowning achievement for him, to job at his last mania, as a message to the boys in the back.  I'm not saying  

    ReplyDelete
  48. Yeah, I can live with that if they go in that direction and hey, if Cena whines, I'm all for it.  It will drive him closer to going "corporate whiny" heel.  As long as we don't blur the 4th wall too much.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Some of the commentary during '97 is downright scary when you listen again knowing what's going to happen later on. Even now, 15 years later, I'm not entirely sure it wasn't an elaborate work that became real to Bret.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Except for Sheamus and Daniel Bryan. That big bastard CHEAP-SHOTTED the most inspirational pro wrestler in the business!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Cena is the most viable option at this point.

    The kids and kayfabe crowd would see Cena as having the chance to end it, considering how the kids love the guy.

    And the 'net crowd would be buzzing over whether McMahon would continue the superman Cena push all the way though ending Takers streak.

    Its a money winner at both ends of the fan spectrum.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I wonder if the World Wildlife Fund calls its supporters the WWF Universe...

    ReplyDelete
  53.  Tensai vs Taker would be both ......

    ReplyDelete
  54. I was just thinking about this a few days when watching Raw from this period. Raw opens with like a 10 minute Billy Gunn/Flash Funk match but they spend 95% of it getting over all the crazy shit going on with Austin and the Harts. Going over all the beats, why someone is doing that and someone is doing this. It was great.

    It's one of the things really lacking right now. One reason is because TV matches nowadays are only 2 minutes long at best so they have no time to get over main storylines properly. And the other reason is that Cole sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  55. That, and Michael Cole sucks.

    Say what you want about Vince, but his work with JR and King was pretty darn good at both calling matches and being able to convey the different storylines during matches.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Dunno if I'm the first, but I'm pretty sure in one of the many (many, many) Bret/Shawn threads I mentioned to the Bret supporters that even though Hart was correct, fans hate whiners, and he was booked to be a whiner.

    Honestly the same principle slowed Punk's momentum last fall.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Benoit lost his-

    Yeah, not going to go there.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Why are you morons even debating this? Scott already gave you the only guy worthy of ending it.

    Bowtunga FTW!

    ReplyDelete
  59. As long as Otunga can improve in the ring they better give him a good push.  Nothing like a potential end streaker (heh) but he's clearly developing better as a personality and character.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I'll argue only that "Barrett was given all the booking favours he could've been" part. Yes, he was given a high-profile angle, but to say that him losing pretty much every high-profile match he was given is hardly a booking favour. He couldn't beat Cena 2 on 1 at Summerslam after DDT'ing him on the floor, he couldn't beat Orton even with the Cena as ref angle, and the one time he did beat Cena, it took more run-ins than even the NWO used. He lost control of his faction easily (to dissension sowed by DAVID OTUNGA, of all people), and the stable he got on Smackdown was Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel. Not exactly strapping a rocket to his ass.

    Contrast that with Daniel Bryan. Brought back into the main event at Summerslam, eliminates 2 guys in that match, wins the US title from Miz in a pretty well-done angle for the time, and then is brought up to MITB status which led to his World Title win and higher profile on the card. While I could accept that WWE would rather have Barrett at the top than Bryan, since Barrett is more in the WWE mold of what a star is, I think that Bryan was actually booked much better than Barrett ever was. 

    ReplyDelete
  61. Just because it's entertainment doesn't mean something can't be sacred. But I think it has less to do with the streak being sacred and more to do (as someone else stated) that there just isn't anyone left because Taker has beaten them all (Triple H, Michaels, Edge, Batista, Orton.) John Cena is the only "veteran" left who Taker hasn't beat at Wrestlemania. And I seriously doubt that WWE's most hated man (technically) is gonna beat the streak. None of the newer guys are currently big enough stars to really end it and have people buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  62. ...babysitting job.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The only right answer is Eli Cottonwood. 

    ReplyDelete
  64. Well, to be fair, Taker was wiling to lose the streak to Orton and Kane, but neither felt right ending the streak. He supposedly wanted to give the streak to Angle at WM22 as well. Taker himself seems to have little problem with someone ending the streak if it's the right person.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Regarding the new guys coming in, who's to say they won't become big by Mania's time?  Although I'll agree that Cena is still the best choice.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I personally can't see anyone on the current roster ending the streak. People can stop fantasize about Dolph Ziggler or Wade Barrett or even CM Punk ending the streak because it'll never happen. Nothing against them, but they are just not big enough established stars to really get people to buy them ending it, even if you booked it that way. Having veterans like HBK or HHH or Cena ending it would be pointless, too. As would losing to someone Taker has already faced before at WM. I think the best bet would be someone in the position Orton was in WM21, where they are somewhat established and you know they're gonna have some sort of bright future but are not already legends. But there is no one quite in that position at the moment in my opinion.

    I also doubt Taker will ever even face a newer guy at Wrestlemania. He spent the last four WMs fighting HHH and HBK and batista and Edge before that. So, at this point, I think Taker is only gonna stick with the big matches at Wrestlemania, such as against Brock Lesnar (WM29?) and John Cena (WM30?).

    ReplyDelete
  67. I feel like Bryan's worked hard enough to justify any booking breaks he's had, and even then they've dropped the ball on several occasions. Fingers crossed this recent run continues to go well.

    Okay, perhaps Barrett hasn't had big matches go his way, but he won NXT, led a faction, and has almost continually been involved in upper midcard feuds. They're obviously quite keen on him getting over. He's not quite received the Del Rio push, admittedly, but I just don't see him working as a main eventer. Ziggler and Rhodes are far more deserving IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  68. If only he could work. He's been on TV almost two years and looks greener now than when he debuted.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Fair enough reply. I don't think that, however, that Barrett hasn't worked hard. I was more advocating the fact that shooting someone up the card and making him look like an idiot/rookie/can't-hang-with-the-real-maineventers type guy is far more detrimental to the overall health of the push than a slower, more traditional build up the card like the one they gave Daniel Bryan.

    To put it another way, I agree they really want Barrett to get over - it's ironic, therefore, to me, that they've completely messed up that objective whilst using traditional booking patterns to get a guy like Bryan over that they never really cared about in the first place. 

    And, for the record, I think that Ziggler is a FAR better worker than Barrett. I prefer Barrett to Rhodes, but that's personal preference.

    ReplyDelete
  70. That's ignorant.

    If you had actually followed Bowtunga's entire career you'd see he has improved quite a bit. He's a lot shinier than he used to be. And his abs are much more defined. What more do you jaded smarks want?!?

    ReplyDelete
  71. I love Bowtunga until...he actually starts wrestling.  Needs some serious improvement there.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Yeah, I see that point. To me, Maris and Aaron still hold the records.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Absolutely. And it's such a high-risk strategy for a new talent. Lesnar is pretty much the only example that comes to mind of a wrestler being put into the main event after a few months and then staying there. If they have high hopes for someone, why not take the Angle route of holding increasingly prestigious titles (yeah... I know...) until they're ready - or there's actually space for them. Rhodes did excellently with the IC belt, shame Big Show needed that Mania win. 

    I think that with Bryan, although he's not the first, they simply gave him the MITB contract in lieu of an actual push. The trouble with that is it makes that person appear lucky (or, at best, an opportunist), and it then takes a while for the booking to catch up to the achievement. I think Bryan has survived, and indeed flourished, because he's a phenomenal wrestler. The Miz is an example of it not going so well.

    ReplyDelete
  74.  There's actually a kid I teach who believes that Paul London beat Undertaker in a Wrestlemania Dark Match.

    ReplyDelete
  75. His match last week with Santino was worse than most diva matches.

    ReplyDelete
  76. If you're ever looking to start a Breaking Bad scenario with one of your students, I guarantee you THAT kid has the drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  77. And Lesnar is a complete aberration because, to me, they DID strap the rocket to his ass. 

    To put it another way: would we be having a conversation about Barrett's main event chances at all if he would have kicked out of the Attitude Adjustment, broke the STFU, and finished Cena clean in the middle of the ring to win the title? Because that's exactly what Brock did to Rocky. And it made him forever. After that, he got to feud with, and beat, the Undertaker. You apply a push like that to practically anyone, and they're going to get over. Pushing a guy straight to the top with no background only works if you justify it by having that guy kick everyone's ass. And they haven't done that since Lesnar. 

    And, the next time they ever give a lecture to anyone about making the most of their push, they should hold Daniel Bryan up as a shining example. He has been awesome with his current character, and he wasn't really given much of anything to work with. I agree wholeheartedly that he has earned his push by being one of the best in the world at what he does; very few other wrestlers could have gotten over as well as him with the angles he was handed.

    ReplyDelete
  78. To be fair he seemed really off that night.  It's not like that was a regular performance from him.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Hey, I like the guy. Outside of the ring he seems a gent, so for his sake I think it would be best if he quit wrestling and made use of his Harvard degree. I'm all about what's best for David.

    ReplyDelete
  80. There's no guarantee Barrett would have achieved Brock-levels of success if he had gotten the win at Summerslam.  For one thing it was a totally different scenario that Suumerslam of 2002.  That being said he SHOULD have pinned Cena, no argument there.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Ironically, despite how well Lesnar's push worked out, it's because of him (and perhaps Lashley too) that the likes of Barrett suffer these stop-start pushes, never getting the big win, never looking a serious contender.

    Something I find odd is that, before his injury, Barrett was working some depth to his character, but it seems they've taken the exact ideas he was developing and given them to Damien Sandow. Bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Artist_Formerly_Known_as_KtuluApril 21, 2012 at 5:21 PM

    Moustache.

    ReplyDelete
  83. True. But with the booking he did receive, losing pretty much every important match, it was a guarantee that he wasn't going to get over as a top-level heel, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I don't think they'll ever end the WM streak, and I don't think they should.

    However, the Undertaker has lost at SummerSlam plenty of times. If/when the WWE wants to build the next big monster heel, there would be worse ways to do it than putting him over the Undertaker at a different PPV.

    Or here's another fantasy booking scenario: a chickenshit heel annoys the Undertaker into wrestling him sometime between Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble. The chickenshit heel then destroys the Undertaker's knee with a chair. UT misses WrestleMania that year, and the chickenshit heel claims that he's the real Streak Ender because UT will never wrestle another Mania match.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Here's a lot of the problem: Taker is built as this mythical, mystical, almost un-human character. It stands to reason that he's going to seem a lot bigger and larger than life than most of the rest of the roster. The problem is, they don't build characters like that anymore. Taker and Kane are the last of that era; I somehow doubt we'll ever see a character that is that unrealistic and fantastical again. Which, on balance, is probably a good thing. In 2012 and beyond it's going to be a really hard sell to get people to buy into the idea that a wrestler is some undead zombie or a horror movie character come to life. See how hard stuff like The Boogeyman and Mordecai flopped, to the point that even with Kevin Thorn they had to specify that he was just someone that enjoyed the vampire lifestyle (hence why his super evil vampire name was, um, Kevin). So no matter how much you play someone up as being awesome and super talented, everyone's going to seem an ill fit to take out such a mythical character as Undertaker. The closest they have is Tensai, and even he's just a guy that's into Japanese stuff.

    I just can't imagine, even with strong booking, someone like Ziggler or Barrett ever seeming to be an appropriate streak-ender. I'd even go as far as to say, if you're going to put it on a new guy, you should take someone straight out of FCW and pair them up with Big Johnny or Vickie, or even Paul Bearer, to be the one that's targeting Taker to end the streak and let them get the rub. Instant credibility, even if going in people are skeptical. After that you have a main eventer ready to go.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I almost want to see Taker/Ziggler at Mania just for the sheer amount of bumping Dolph would do.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Am I crazy or am I the only guy who thinks UT is so old and pretty much broken down by now that there really *isn't* any value in someone beating him?  I mean, they sold the last streak match based on UT not wanting his last match memory to be of someone hobbled and taken out on a stretcher.  Why would beating the UT at 45 when he wrestles once a year mean more than beating him when he was still capable of going?

    I think the time to "make somebody" with ending the streak has passed (much like I think the time to make somebody by putting them over Foley is long gone as well). 

    ReplyDelete
  88. you go out on your back. thats the time honored traidtion. if taker respects this business SO much, he goes out jobbing and putting someone over huge. at wrestlemania.

    it means something to beat taker... it means that much more to beat taker at wm

    ReplyDelete
  89. There were/are rumors of HBK wrestling another match at WrestleMania with people even saying had Brock not shown up they would have signed HHH vs HBK for next years WM on that Raw. I know it may sound same old shit but what about for this year we take the last four years full circle and build to an end of that whole storyle between Shawn, Hunter and Taker by doing Undertaker vs HHH vs HBK. It could be a great match with some really cool dynamics. I would defenitly be into that match, the storyline and promos alone would be worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I see what you're saying, but the truth of the matter is that beating Taker at WM is something that has NEVER been done before - the person booked to beat him is the first, last, and only person to EVER get that feather in their cap. Beating Foley has been done before, this hasn't.

    Plus, while I agree that, in kayfabe, it seems less impressive to beat "old man" Taker, it's the type of thing that is totally kayfabe-breaking: the guy that beats Taker won't just be pushed back down to the midcard the next day, the audience will understand that they will be pushed to the moon.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Remember how RVD would bounce in the air after receiving a piledriver? I bet Ziggler could get about two-feet off the "Tombstone".

    ReplyDelete
  92. I like that idea.

    I also thought that, if they REALLY wanted to go this route, you could have somebody face Taker in a 2/3-Falls match at WM, with the opponent getting one fall.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I totally agree, I just don't see a guys like Ziggler or Barrett as being big and bad enough to beat Taker. I mean, at this point, you'd basically have to be the biggest, baddest mofo on Earth to beat Taker at WM. Either that, or be a truly top-tier star in the business (like Trips or Shawn). Hell, every year that goes by just makes it harder to think of anybody that could believably end it; even when he was wrestling Orton or Batista, he [Taker] still hadn't beaten a bunch of top-tier talent, so it was somewhat conceivable that he could lose, but now that he has a combined FIVE wins over Trips and Shawn? The caliber of opponent just keeps going up, meaning that his chances of losing keep going down.

    MAYBE if Brock were going to be around longer, like as an actual full-time guy that sticks around for several years (AND got back on the 'roids), I could buy him as potentially ending the Streak, but that's about it. Vince is going to have to find an absolute MONSTER of a human-being, that also happens to be a talented wrestler, charismatic, and fully devoted to competing for years on end, if he's looking for somebody to end the Streak.

    Or maybe they'll just fuck with us and have Santino end it.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Nah, if Shawn returns he needs to face the Rock or nobody.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I've always said that, as much as I never wanted the Streak to end, if I HAD to pick one person to end it, it would have been Angle. Sure, Angle didn't really NEED the win, and hindsight shows that he wasn't going to last long in WWE anyway, but I thought it would have been a great show of respect if Taker jobbed to Angle just due to his amazing talent.

    At the time, NOBODY was better than Angle.

    ReplyDelete
  96. One thing I find interesting about the proposed Taker/Cena match is that a lot of people seem to think that it wouldn't make sense for Cena to challenge Taker at WM, as he'd be coming off losses to both Rock and (presumably) Brock.

    I actually think having a non-invincible Cena makes the match more interesting: in storylines, Cena wants to show that he can still get the job done, and in "real life", I think a lot of smarks would actually expect Cena to win as "payback" for jobbing to Rock and Brock.

    If anything, I think it would seem more likely for "humanized" Cena - the former franchise player that is now a bit of an "underdog" due to his recent losses - to have the storybook ending where he overcomes the odd and gets back to the top of the mountain, as opposed to "Superman" Cena, who could absorb one loss between periods of total domination. Almost like Taker/Batista at WM23 - when Batista was on a hot-streak, it seemed obvious that he'd lose, but when he cooled down, it seemed like he'd be given the win as a way to regenerate interest.

    And, yes, I definitely think Vince absolutely HAS to do Cena/Taker next year - everything is in place, with Cena needing vindication, Taker needing a big-name opponent, and the Streak standing at the nice round 20-0, making it more likely that it will end. I still think Taker should win, but I also think I'd be on the edge of my seat for every single pin-attempt.

    ReplyDelete
  97. In his prime, Shawn probably could have carried nobody to a great match.

    ReplyDelete
  98. If nothing else, Undertaker vs. Otunga could have a catchy tagline: the power of the urn vs. the power of the coffee thermos. I bet Otunga would get a fifteen minute long coffee slurp during his victory celebration, too. 

    ReplyDelete
  99. theres one guy who should beat taker: RYBACK!!!

    he's got the intensity and determination of ultimate warrior and the awesome ring gear of rvd.  if you let him get some big wins over your midcard for a few months, collect both the us and ic titles as a double champ, and then win the rumble by last eliminating cena it would totally work.  you'd then speculate which champion he'd be wrestling at mania, but he instead choosing THE STREAK!!!  in the lead up you can play it up like taker isn't concerned but then ryback brings back paul bearer and kicks his ass as motivation for taker to accept the challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  100.  "but God help us if they keep dragging him out for one match year after year."  First, you do realize that since he's been semi-retired, the four matches with HBK and HHH may have been the best in his streak, the best match at their particular Mania card, and considered dramatic successes by most fans.  God help us?  Really?

    And what do you mean it's "too late"?  Orton and Batista turned out just fine and were pushed just as hard after those losses.  In fact, I think both men got one up over Taker later in the year (so you preserve a special attraction for Mania each year, and push the guys over as better or smarter at the same time--that's good booking).  And you act like it's impossible to build any new stars.  I could see Punk, Ziggler, Bryan, Sheamus, or Cena winning in the next couple of years and having it mean something.

    If this were 2000-01, I'd be agreeing with you on how much he owes others (his ring work was in a sharp decline and he was way too territorial).  But he started showing some growth in the early 00s and then became a terrific wrestler, perfecting a unique style the last 8 years.  There probably wouldn't be a Smackdown today if he wasn't there to provide some much needed depth and star power for the better half of a decade--people weren't lining up to lead Smackdown.  When he gave in to Lesnar in their HiaC match, it was a big turning point for him, and I feel he has given plenty to WWE and wrestling in general.

    Even if he is retiring for sure in advance, I'm still 50-50 on whether or not the streak should be broken.  There'd be thousands (maybe millions) of dollars to be made for memorabilia such as shirts, books, and DVDs for one of the few streaks to never end.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I completely agree. Whatever heel ends the streak will brag about it for a month and then it'll be dropped as a booking point. 

    ReplyDelete
  102. But who is there to put over that would have a major elevated-to-headline-player status? I think the only time to ever pull it off would've been Randy Orton at WrestleMania 21. But otherwise, there is no "rub" to give anyone on the current roster, because you have to pull it on someone who is going to be elevated to the top and never come down again, and there really is no confidence in doing that to anyone on the roster who is not on the roster.

    Scott is right, there is no point in ever ending the Streak. And you know what, a lot of traditions have been tossed out the window during the Streak. There's always an exception to the rule; Undertaker's WM legacy, the only "record" that will carry a weight of legitimacy (in regards to Taker's prolific career) in the business to day, is that exception. 

    ReplyDelete
  103. I also think that if they know that it will be Takers last match, he shall lose against someone new, because if Taker is no more, and the streak is on, there is NO money to make in the future.

    And even if he can continue, they can use a new guy like Barrett against him, even if Undertaker wins. It worked with Randy Orton in 2005, it can work again.

    Wrestling was always about making new stars and NOT keeping old stars.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Nah, having Taker take any kind of a fall (be it a pin in a 2/3 falls match) at Mania would dilute the Streak, in my opinion.

    I like the concept of having a chickenshit heel try to take Taker out rather than actually beat him at WM...it's a nice variation on Triple H's "I lost the match but you got carried out, so I really broke the Streak" from this year.  Of course, the only comeuppance for this chickenshit heel would be for Undertaker to return at the next Mania and beat him, and that would require WWE keeping a heel strong for an entire year.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Boogeyman was over and he could've been a major star had he not been one of the absolute worst workers the company has ever had.

    Even Kevin Thorn, I feel, was a missed opportunity.  WWE could've jumped on the Twilight stuff by a couple of years by introducing a vampire-themed character or stable.  I'm not sure Kevin Fertig was necessarily the right guy for the part (not a bad wrestler, though) but just find a couple of pretty-boy heel types, goth them up and boom, you have at worst a new Brood.  Also, Twilight has normalized the idea of vamps having regular names; its lead guy is just 'Edward Cullen.'

    ReplyDelete
  106. Good idea in theory but I just don't see hardcore Twilight fans suddenly watching wrestling because of some pretty boy vampire characters.  They already have the books and movies, why bother with wrestling characters?

    ReplyDelete
  107. No fucking way.  I don't care how pessimistic you are about how WWE books heels, no way would they just drop the fact that someone ended Taker's streak a month later.

    ReplyDelete
  108.  I mean it's too late to end the streak now.  I'm not arguing that losing to UT hurt Batista or Orton.  it didn't really, but it sure could have taken them to the next level of a Hogan, Cena, austin, or rock, whereas they have stayed a notch below that.  My opinion is that guys who the fans have seen job too many times already, like Ziggler, Punk, Bryan, and to a slightly less degree sheamus, are not good choices to beat UT.  Batista and Orton had few losses when they face UT.  they rarely lost on ppv, much less Raw or SD, whereas the guys you mention have lost on the regular TV shows numerous times.  And they've done fine to a certain degree so trying to now turn around and go over UT seems silly to me.  The guy who beats UT should be a guy who is in his first couple years, has barely if ever lost, and has been protected like crazy in the booking.  Then you can sell the match, the story, and use the win to propel the person to Cena-like heights.  And unless that someone is hiding in florida or some indie, he ain't in WWE right now.

    And UT does owe just as much now as he did during the terrible underbiker days.  Just because he rarely wrestles now and works a better match, doesn't change the fact that without the performance of all his opponents selling his gimmick, he wouldn't be able to work once a year or part time as he did for five years or so.  he wouldn't  be making 500k or so for one night (if not more).  As for the Lesnar match, yeah that is by far the most vulnerable UT ever allowed himself to be and the cleanest loss I ever remember, but even then he had to have a cast on his hand to "explain" it.  Post Lesnar he sqashed Punk and killed his momentum.  now thankfully Punk has so much talent he recovered, but there was zero reason for UT to squash Punk like he did.  Now whether that was his choice  or Vince or Steph or however, I have no idea, which is why I always keep my criticism to UT the character and don't bash UT the man or person backstage because I have no idea of his political powerplays, and some of my favorite people like Bret Hart, Chris Jericho, Rock, and Foley all adore the guy backstage.

    ReplyDelete
  109.  might have been you.  for some reason Jess Baker was sticking in my head but I don't think he usually says a lot in Bret hart/screwjob conversations.

    ReplyDelete
  110.  I'm stealing credit for it, not like Jess' gonna try to correct me.

    ReplyDelete
  111.  Well thought-out argument.  The Punk-Taker thing from 2009 was fishy; I agree. 

    I still disagree in the sense that I think Taker did give a lot back over the decade.  Batista post-Eddie and post-injury needed some rub and inspiration (okay, that sounds sick, but you know what I mean) and Taker provided that.  Orton post-HHH needed to be seen as legitimate again.  Edge trading wins with Taker helped him seem like he was on THAT level (instead of a guy who held the belt until Cena wanted it back).

    Anyway, if you get a chance to read this, the man they call Comdukakis, I was very impressed with your rebuttal after I was a little too aggressive in my argument.  You have nothing but respect from me.

    ReplyDelete
  112.  fair enough.  and I didn't think you were too aggressive.  I've been doing the message board thing on wrestling for going on 16 years now, so I've pretty much seen it all and written it all.  Been called names, told I'm an idiot, told a few others they were idiots, etc.  I don't take much offense to strong opinions about a topic if it's genuine and not an attempt to troll (no one in mind with that remark, nope not one bit :)

    But anyway, it's all good.  I'll be honest, sometimes my Smackdown history in the middle of the decade to current is spotty at best because I wasn't able to watch it that much do to to work and then later I just stopped watching WWE.  So UT may have been more giving than I remember from mostly just catching ppvs.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Of course he did. On SDvRAW 05 or something.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment