|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Dec 22, 2011 21:18:17 GMT -5
I know that Taker is technically still an active wrestler, but this is about his past matches. We know that his WM streak is one of the biggest achievements ever in pro wrestling, but does anybody feel that his streak is a bit of a letdown considering that he never faced the 3 biggest draws of all time at WM? Hogan, Austin, and Rock were the biggest faces the company ever had, yet Taker never fought any of them at a WM. Does this hurt the streak for anybody?
For me, the streak is great, and he has fought alot of top names, but the fact that he never fought either of those three hurt it for me. Seriously, defeating guys like Big Boss Man, A-Train, Mark Henry, King Kong Bundy, and Giant Gonzalez are not big acomplishments IMO, and not facing the biggest stars of his time hurt its credibility.
What do you guys think?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 9:53:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2011 22:42:57 GMT -5
I agree with some of what you wrote.
However, you have to remember that they didn't really start talking about "the streak" until around Wrestlemania X8 when he defeated Flair. The streak has really only gained serious momentum in recent years so in the past it wasn't such a big deal that Taker was going over Bundy and A-Train.
I will say this though...that whole A-Train match really bothered me. Did they REALLY have to make it a handicap match? Did Nathan Jones suck that bad that they couldn't work around him and had to take him out of the match altogether? It just doesn't fit with the rest of the matches Taker's had to complete the streak. Always kinda bothered me.
They should have just made it Undertaker w/Nathan Jones vs. Big Show w/A-Train or something. Blah.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 9:53:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2011 0:16:21 GMT -5
The thing is there wouldn't have even been a streak had he fought those top 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by xtremeperil on Dec 23, 2011 1:08:17 GMT -5
The thing is there wouldn't have even been a streak had he fought those top 3. Agreed. Don't really see Taker beating those guys during the time the matches could've happened. That said, it kind of weakened it for me too. Then he retired Shawn Michaels, and I think that more then makes up for any damage taken away from it's creditably; which isn't much if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Wrestling on Dec 23, 2011 3:07:49 GMT -5
Just imagine had Undertaker defeated Hulk Hogan at WrestleMania for the WWE Championship instead of Survivor Series. That would've been a really big deal.
As far as I see it, nothing really tarnishes Undertaker's streak. Sure, there's a couple of people he could've faced that looking back would make the streak look even better, but I don't think it hurts it because of they way it is.
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,344
|
Post by nibs92 on Dec 23, 2011 5:30:13 GMT -5
During Austin and Rocks peak, it made better sense for them to face each other and i don't think Taker could have drawn nearly as well as the pair of them.
At WM 7 Undi wasn't a big enough star to headline so it wouldn't have worked to have him face Hogan and with WM8, he had turned face so a match with the Hulk wouldn't have happened either.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 9:53:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2011 5:58:24 GMT -5
it doesnt hurt it at all for me because until Foley turned up Undertaker was facing the "monster of the week" @wm.
and since then he has had so many quality matches at WM(some disasters too)that it more than makes up for it.
I would hate for Austin to be part of the streak.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rule 30 on Dec 23, 2011 17:23:18 GMT -5
He's also defeated Kevin Nash, Sid, Jake Roberts, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, Batista, Randy Orton, Edge, and The Big Show. From a kayfabe stand point, guys like Henry add to the streak. No doubt, there would be no streak if he had faced Austin or Hogan.
|
|
|
|
Post by sean™ on Dec 23, 2011 17:26:41 GMT -5
Undertaker went undefeated for an entire year, and a year after his debut, he beat the biggest star in the business at that time for the WWF title. Would it being at WM have been bigger? Sure, but not by much in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Dec 24, 2011 11:47:12 GMT -5
He's also defeated Kevin Nash, Sid, Jake Roberts, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, Batista, Randy Orton, Edge, and The Big Show. From a kayfabe stand point, guys like Henry add to the streak. No doubt, there would be no streak if he had faced Austin or Hogan. Even Kayfabe Henry doesn't do anything for the streak IMO considering he spent the first 14 years of his career basically jobbing in the mid-card. |
|
|
|
Post by tnafan17: The Total Package on Dec 24, 2011 14:06:50 GMT -5
I can see where you are coming from.
Could Taker have faced bigger named opponents? Of course he could.
But I think for the better part of the streak and the other superstars, it's better left as is. I wouldn't go back and trade any of his matches at Mania to have other superstars be apart of the streak.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 9:53:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2011 1:01:59 GMT -5
I wonder how much of the streak was coincidental.... Think about it...had hogan not gotten his rematch until Wrestlemaina the streak would have never been...
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Dec 25, 2011 2:40:41 GMT -5
if anything, with the fact that wwe has attempted to use taker as a safe launching program for new green wrestlers, it's important to note that wwe never used any of those 'lesser' names to go over taker to MAKE them.
|
|
