The Streak (RAW spoilers)

So is Brock the man to end the streak?
 
Will Heyman and Rybaxel get involved?
 
Kane to make the save?
 
Will it be a No DQ match to suit Lesnars fighting style and to shed a bit of light on the challenge laid down a couple of years back at the MMA event where Brock lost his title..............

DrDeath wrote:So is Brock the man to end the streak?
 

NOT A CHANCE.

They have to do a Cena/Taker programme before Taker retires.

I think there would be mass outrage if someone like Lesnar defeated the streak to be honest!

Theres no pay off to Lesnar ending the streak.

Here's a thought.

What's stopping Lesnar breaking kayfabe and brutalising Taker? Its not beyond him. There's no "do-overs" live at Wrestlemania. Brock could destroy Taker for real. And that's what will keep me hooked.

Taker and his streak can leave anytime.

No hook with it whatsoever anymore, I'd have him job out as the curtain jerker to the show, people say its WrestleMania's biggest selling point, its debatable, it may or may not be true but lets no kid ourselves, if there was no streak then the whole WWE machine would get behind something else and make whatever that is out to be the most important thing possible, who knows it might even make the WWE World Title Match at WrestleMania relevent again.

I completely disagree with anyone who says it shouldn't be broken, of course it should, its of no use to Undertaker or the WWE once he has finished, Wrestling is and always has been about passing the torche, this is no different

I think for a match with Lesnar, it would have been better to have biker Taker. Could've made the rivalry seem more personal with the UFC altercation being brought into it.

Lets be fair though, the streaks been the best thing about WM for the last 5 years or so

GSC wrote:Lets be fair though, the streaks been the best thing about WM for the last 5 years or so

This.

NickisBHAFC wrote:

GSC wrote:Lets be fair though, the streaks been the best thing about WM for the last 5 years or so

This.

thats a matter of opinion, definitely against HBK in 2009 nd 2010 but thats it for me, his matches with HHH were just a.ego massage for both.amd last years was a complete non even with the laziest shoddy attempt at a build up imaginable

the only time it looked remotely in doubt in that time was when Shawn kicked out the 2nd Tombstone when his career depended on it, the biggest show of the year shouldn't need to rely on a match which has such an obvious outcome

the Streak has had its day

Kay Fabe wrote:

NickisBHAFC wrote:

GSC wrote:Lets be fair though, the streaks been the best thing about WM for the last 5 years or so

This.

thats a matter of opinion, definitely against HBK in 2009 nd 2010 but thats it for me, his matches with HHH were just a.ego massage for both.amd last years was a complete non even with the laziest shoddy attempt at a build up imaginable

the only time it looked remotely in doubt in that time was when Shawn kicked out the 2nd Tombstone when his career depended on it, the biggest show of the year shouldn't need to rely on a match which has such an obvious outcome

the Streak has had its day

As a Celtic fan I thought you'd be accustomed to matches with obvious outcomes?

Big fan of the streak and it was easily the best match of last Mania, crowd were hottest for it. Taker will leave a massive hole in Mania when he goes and this is one Streak match they had to have before that inevitability.

Hes instantly my favourite thing in WWE right now, without Punk there anyway.

If you think the Streak has had its day then I would worry what else you think is coming topping it.

Dean Ambrose's leather jacket?

I didnt say what you wanted your cum on top of

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Big fan of the streak and it was easily the best match of last Mania, crowd were hottest for it. Taker will leave a massive hole in Mania when he goes and this is one Streak match they had to have before that inevitability.

Hes instantly my favourite thing in WWE right now, without Punk there anyway.

If you think the Streak has had its day then I would worry what else you think is coming topping it.

pointless speculation just naming the first thing that comes to mind but if the Streak wasn't there then the WWE would put more focus into their efforts in making something else the must see attraction,  maybe even the World Title,  that could be a novel idea, the World Title apart from last year has been an afterthought at WrestleMania for a long time now and the only reason they used the title last year was to squeeze 1 more match out of Cena and Rock.


The actual Streak match might have been the Match of the Night last year, lets face it, it was hardly a major achievement given what passed before or after it, plus with the Smarky Mania crowd it was always going to be Punk appreciation night anyway, he carried the company for 18 months and he got shafted into a boring feud to give Undertaker his moment, fans were always going to salute him and his efforts, the problem last year wasn't the match, it was the build up, it was shoddy at best, lazy at worst, Paul Bearer dying didn't help granted but that set the tone for an abomonation of a feud which resulted in the most obvious outcome of any Taker streak match in the last 8 years which is saying something

that might be just me tho'.

WWE still did a decent job holding suspense. When HHH did the tombstone and Taker kicked out of the SCM/Pedigree combo it still drew me in.

Not sure you can, by association, blame the Streak for the use of the title at Mania.

Also seems a bit like "yeah it was great but" is still acknowledging the match was great and the crowd loved it.

I wasn't a fan of the build, but not sure that's "The Streak" (in all its glory) at fault. It certainly did more for Punk than his feud with The Rock, gave him an excuse to disappear and also it just doesnt harm people in defeat.

Considering they use it as a quasi main event that gets less build focus than their usual main-main event, I cant see the issue.

Certainly, there are far bigger evils

Ah the annual pre-Mania Streak debate.

I absolutely 100% want it to be broken. KF is right, what use is it to the WWE or Taker? He’ll still be a marketable asset, DVD’s will still sell whether they it ends up say 25-0 or 24-1 and his legacy won’t be tarnished in the slightest, he doesn’t need to retire undefeated at Wrestlemania in order to be a bonafide legend. Joe Calzaghe retiring undefeated from a sporting perspective is admirable but boxing isn’t a story, it’s real sport. However in pre-determined storytelling there has to be an end to the story and for me the story would finish with a whimper if Taker went out undefeated without a big pay-off.

Although I think the match will exceed expectations because let’s face it, all of Brock Lesnar’s matches are awesome, I hate the fact that the outcome is inevitable. The Streak match should be unpredictable but Lesnar v Taker isn’t unpredictable, everyone knows Taker will win. For me it should have been Taker v Reigns or Taker v Bryan. Given the hot streak that both guys are on and the huge futures they have ahead I think there would atleast be an element of doubt about who’d win. It would certainly be more unpredictable than Taker v Lesnar.

From a booking perspective Reigns would make sense. It was The Shield who put Taker out of action last year, Taker could come back for revenge, The Shield already is disarray would argue about who’d face him, they’d have a Triple Threat to decide which Reigns would win. In the match itself you could have Ambrose & Rollins come out to try and assist Reigns who’d tell them to leave and that he doesn’t need them. Imagine Reigns hitting the Superman punch on Taker, not go for the pin, wait in the corner, line up another one, when Taker gets back to his feet Reigns hits another Superman punch, doesn’t go for the pin, waits in the corner, Taker gets back up and Reigns hits a third Superman punch. He stands over Taker, places his foot on his chest and the ref counts 1-2-3. Reigns just stares into the camera. Imagine how badass he’d look. It could push Reigns to an astronomical level.

I’ve always, always been against a young guy breaking the streak but I’d break that rule for Reigns.

The streak will never be broken.

I'm on the fence about it being broken. But one side is my personal feeling that it would make me sad for some reason against the logic of booking it to make someone. However, I do worry about how they'll do it and whether it will make someone or not.

I do think Lesnar/Taker for The Streak is just one of those dream matches they were not gonna miss. When Taker decided to go on from 20, I think you'd have wanted Punk, Lesnar and Cena to be 3 of the people to have a feud.

However, if I'd have been in charge of booking I'd have had Punk/Lesnar II nailed on for months for Mania. Without Punk, I don't see where else Lesnar goes at Mania for the moment.

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:The streak will never be broken.

Unfortunately you're probably right, but it should be.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Not sure you can, by association, blame the Streak for the use of the title at Mania.

Also seems a bit like "yeah it was great but" is still acknowledging the match was great and the crowd loved it.

I wasn't a fan of the build, but not sure that's "The Streak" (in all its glory) at fault. It certainly did more for Punk than his feud with The Rock, gave him an excuse to disappear and also it just doesnt harm people in defeat.

Considering they use it as a quasi main event that gets less build focus than their usual main-main event, I cant see the issue.

Certainly, there are far bigger evils

I've never blamed the streak for the lack of build up the Title has these days at WrestleMania, what I'm saying is that would be easily placed to become the most marketable aspect to it when they no longer use the Streak, I don't think the match was that great, I felt that the crowd knew Punk had been screwed and used it as a platform for appreciation, the match might have been the best of the night but I'm unsure if that's a ringing endorsement considering the match quakity of the show, I also think its disingenuous to say CM Punk's feud with The Undertaker did more for him than his feud with The Rock, I've said for long enough now that Punk should have won against The Rock and faced Cena at WrestleMania but while I wasn't a fan of Punk's heel run in that time his heel turn on Rock at RAW 1000 was the catalyst for a fued with Rock that lasted over 6 months, Punk looked totally unmotivated during his rub with Taker and has never really recovered from it, I'd have to totally disagree with the opinion that it done more for him.

Also, I'm not a big fan of situations when losing a match doesn't hurt the standing of a character, if you go into a match knowing X Y or Z won't be hurt by doing the annual job to Undertaker then what hook is there to become emotionally invested in the outcome?

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:The streak will never be broken.

That isn't really the debate is it?

Kay Fabe wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Not sure you can, by association, blame the Streak for the use of the title at Mania.

Also seems a bit like "yeah it was great but" is still acknowledging the match was great and the crowd loved it.

I wasn't a fan of the build, but not sure that's "The Streak" (in all its glory) at fault. It certainly did more for Punk than his feud with The Rock, gave him an excuse to disappear and also it just doesnt harm people in defeat.

Considering they use it as a quasi main event that gets less build focus than their usual main-main event, I cant see the issue.

Certainly, there are far bigger evils

I've never blamed the streak for the lack of build up the Title has  these days at WrestleMania, what I'm saying is that would be easily placed to become the most marketable aspect to it when they no longer use the Streak, I don't think the match was that great, I felt that the crowd knew Punk had been screwed and used it as a platform for appreciation, the match might have been the best of the night but I'm unsure if that's a ringing endorsement considering the match quakity of the show, I also think its disingenuous to say CM Punk's feud with The Undertaker did more for him than his feud with The Rock, I've said for long enough now that Punk should have won against The Rock and faced Cena at WrestleMania but while I wasn't a fan of Punk's heel run in that time his heel turn on Rock at RAW 1000 was the catalyst for a fued with Rock that lasted over 6 months, Punk looked totally unmotivated during his rub with Taker and has never really recovered from it, I'd have to totally disagree with the opinion that it done more for him.

Also, I'm not a big fan of situations when losing a match doesn't hurt the standing of a character, if you go into a match knowing X Y or Z won't be hurt by doing the annual job to Undertaker then what hook is there to become emotionally invested in the outcome?

By association, I believe it was dragged into the same point.

I'd disagree on the crowd *casual "I was there" boast* but Punk was my favourite wrestler of that year, the year before and this year, but I wanted Taker to win. The place was nicely split with the majority really quite happy for either outcome. The match itself was very good, for my money, so again no harm. Barely a soul went there thinking "he's been screwed" because the majority of people love Taker and love The Streak as a concept.

Personally, I thought Punk looked crud for his Rock feud, the feud in earnest at least. I thought he phoned quite a bit of that in, mixed with some absolute classic lines. He then did the best with a gash story for Taker which WWE bowlocks'd up from the second a fatal four way kicked it off.

I'd have loved Punk to beat Rock, but ifs and buts really. They had Lesnar booked into HHH, they had Rock and Cena booked in to each other. He got a proper main event match and got the match that will be most fondly remembered.

I will take umbrage with someone on a wrestling board discussing likelihoods of outcomes. You're on the smarter level of people (damning with faint praise in this place), you get whats gonna happen, you probably know the outcome of 90% of matches you watch I'd guess. Trumpet blowing but the only thing I got wrong at the Chamber was the order of Sheamus and Christian eliminations, but I really enjoyed that PPV, especially the Chamber and the 6 man tag.

I enjoyed the Chamber, there isn't much wrong with a predictable outcome of the storyline behind it is good, for me the best part of a feud is usually the journey, the destination doesn't always live up to the hype, if the journey isn't upto it then the match itself must deliver, I'm not sure if the Punk/Taker match did truly deliver, again it might have been the best of the night but that for me would just make it the best of a bad lot instead of a match that will stand the test of time, this is a match of thr Night at WrestleMania, that phrase alone should be pushing it into the stratosphere but I don't think it does.

If CM Punk was beaten by the Undertaker at any other PPV I'd have probably enjoyed it but at WrestleMania the predictability of it all lessens the impact for me.

I also wouldn't argue with you in saying Punk phoned it in a bit during his prolonged feud with Rock, it was inevitable in some instances when Rock wasn't around for a lot of the time but this is where I feel its disingenuous, if he phoned that feud in he must have been on strike during his run with Taker, it was lame and if you look at how his year has been since then its probably his worst since about 2007 when he got into a little bit of a rut on ECW waiting on someone giving him something worthwhile to do.

making The Undertaker look good just another time hasn't done anything for him, if anything it's probably made him realise that all he'll ever be is a second in command, during his feud with Rock there was legitimate hope that he could be the next main guy.

What they did do was cover it by having him take the rest and come back with an urge to do things his way on his own. The face turn saved it, and in many ways losing to Taker with it "all on the line" in self-respect terms was an easy way to transition him back to face and believable by Punk's character standards.

My main gripe with the booking of Punk is that he appears to have been given the win over Heyman in the feud to make up for losing to Lesnar. Which it doesnt. He lost that feud by not beating Lesnar, I have no problem with him losing once to Lesnar but he should have his revenge.

I hope there is a little bit of explanation to this though. Why did The Undertaker challenge Brock Lesnar?

And why would Taker, who beat Triple H twice, want to face Lesnar, who lost to Triple H last year?

Lesnar should just bork the undertaker and end the streak, going against the planned finish and leaving a bonified legend.

There's only one true Streak

RVD 4-0 Wrestlemania

I'd love to see Bray Wyatt vs The Undertaker at next years Wrestlemania..... Imagine the promos!!!!

I think Wyatt should take the streak and build up a streak of his own. The guy is a legend.

NickisBHAFC wrote:I think Wyatt should take the streak and build up a streak of his own. The guy is a legend.

I second this motion.

Would be class if a heel had a streak. He could spend all of the wrestlemania season bigging himself up and putting people over by almost letting them win until he cheats his way to victory.