Originally Posted by The Pied Piper
It would be incredibly moronic to call a destroyed streak "streak". Streak is something you have when it's still active.
Besides, 22-0 or 23-0 DVD sells better than say, 20-1?
But lets say he only goes to next year or the year after that
22-0 is fine and all but IMO people will pay to see the ending, pepole like seeing "history" making
they loved it when Andre lost, people always pay to see streaks not cause they are undefeated but the chance to see them lose
if he retires after this one
20-1 and 21-0 are the same IMO, all you do with 20-1 is give someone else something to go on rather then make the streak useless, and make a moment, how many of Andre matchs of his undefeated streak do you recall? how much do you watch? whats his most famous match?
How about Goldberg? whats one of his most famous matches?
when they lose, and I'd auger it would sell far better
No one cares about guys who where undefeated 30 years ago and NEVER EVER lost a match, it gets forgotten and laid to rest
Can you tell me, with out looking them up, teams\pepole\sports that where undefeated two decades ago?
Maybe you can, most cant, but they CAN tell you who lost, cause its a bigger moment
if he keeps wining so what? he always wins, but to see it end? that's HISTORY that's bigger then him wining
Was Goldberg's career the same after his 173-0 ended? Was Andre's career the same when his 15 years unbeaten run ended? Was Sammartino's career the same when his 7 years WWE title run came to an end? No, right?
But I'm saying his LST match, when there IS no carrea to be affected, and look at the people who beat them, they can for their rest of their lfies (for better or worse) use it
As been said before the most memorable (or top 3) moments is when they LOSE, had they won it would of been "just another match"
and even then, look at what Andre losing did, look at what Goldberg lossing did, ruin them? maybe, but it had for better worse WAY more impact then if they had won and been undefeated forever.