Wrestling Forum banner

3 years later, I tell you why Brock's ending the streak has been successful

5K views 42 replies 35 participants last post by  The Pied Piper 
#1 ·


Years ago, the majority thought that Undertaker should have retired with the streak intact or, at worst, lose the streak to a 20-year-old, rising talent. In 2014, however, WWE pulled a swerve by having Brock Lesnar, a 36-year-old established star, end the streak.

Today, 3 years after Brock's win, I will explain precisely why Brock's ending the streak was the right call, as 3 years has been enough time for us to properly judge:

1). Brock was able to carry the momentum.

Upon ending the streak, Brock used his heat to evolve into an unstoppable demi-god, creating the charming "Suplex City" brand, squashing John Cena at Summerslam 2014, destroying Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania 31, and nearly killing Randy Orton at Summerslam 2016. He also worked a nice revenge storyline with Undertaker himself in 2015.

Those storylines, matches, and moments extend from 2014 - 2017. The significance is that the streak rub, which they gave to Lesnar, provided 3 years of excitement. The streak, therefore, was not wasted on Lesnar.

As a foil, I will point to the manner in which Kevin Nash broke Goldberg's legendary streak. When Nash ended the streak, WCW failed to run with it, as Nash didn't use the momentum to evolve his character and create moments for the fans. Instead, he participated in the fingerpoke of doom incident the night after Starrcade 1998, which nearly invalidated all momentum he gained.

Nash in WCW showed the way a streak rub can be wasted; Lesnar in WWE showed the way a streak rub can be productive.

2). Brock helped the future.

Perhaps the biggest criticism of Lesnar's ending the streak is that he was in his mid-30s and that the streak should have gone to some 20-year old stud. However, these criticisms fails on 2 counts.

Firstly, Brock was in his mid-30s, but his age doesn't entail that he is nearing retirement. After all, he wrestled full-time for just 2 years before leaving, and upon returning, he has worked part-time. Thus, Brock doesn't have much mileage on his body, the way Mick Foley, Steve Austin, and Shawn Michaels did; so he can viably go for years to come.

Secondly, Brock did help the future, even if he doesn't directly belong to it. By ending the streak, again, Brock gained significant heat and momentum. He thereafter used that momentum to feud with 29-year-old Roman Reigns and 28-year-old Seth Rollins in 2015. Those feuds with Reigns and Rollins helped create two mega-stars. Reigns and Rollins are main-eventers today because Brock ended the streak, in other words.

3). Undertaker needed the change

21 wins is plenty; he had already beaten several HOFers and future HOFers; he had already kicked out of 100s of chairshots and finisher moves; he had already won the belt multiple times at 'Mania; and he had already put on 5-star caliber matches at 'Mania.

What more could the guy do with an intact streak? The mileage was, reasonably, exhausted; it was time to change.

By ending the streak in 2014, Undertaker's next matches in 2015 and 2016 carried more suspense because fans speculated that he would lose and retire. His upcoming match with Reigns enjoys the same benefit.
 
See less See more
1
#2 · (Edited)
And I'll tell you why it wasn't.

1. Lesnar's title reign sucked because he was never on TV and spent several months in a half assed feud with Cena.

2. The next year, Rollins was a worthless chickenshit heel champion and their feud was only used as a buffer for the Undertaker/Lesnar rematch.

3. No new stars were created because the "rub" was wasted on Taker getting his win back via fuckery and a 50 year old Goldberg squashing Lesnar.

4. They're trying to retroactively give Roman the original Taker rub because of the poor booking of the last few years, but the effect is not nearly the same as it would have been, had he ended the streak himself.

5. All of his matches since ending the streak (outside of WM 31) have been glorified squashes full of German Suplex spam. He's not even putting on a good show to justify the damage he's done.
 
#9 ·
3. No new stars were created because the "rub" was wasted on Taker getting his win back via fuckery and a 50 year old Goldberg squashing Lesnar.
Carrying the momentum just to give it all way to Goldberg like a lil' bitch in under 2 minutes. I don't see how that benefits him or the company at all.
People have different opinions so I am not going to tell that you guys are wrong, but I just don't see how losing to Goldberg hurt Lesnar or wasted the rub.

At Survivor Series Lesnar was defeated, because he was too cocky, not because he was weaker than Goldberg. Similar things happen in "real sport" all the time. The winning athlete/team is not always the best - there are many different factors so it's not always black and white.
 
#5 ·
Brock was able to carry the momentum.

Upon ending the streak, Brock used his heat to evolve into an unstoppable demi-god, creating the charming "Suplex City" brand, squashing John Cena at Summerslam 2014, destroying Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania 31, and nearly killing Randy Orton at Summerslam 2016. He also worked a nice revenge storyline with Undertaker himself in 2015.

Those storylines, matches, and moments extend from 2014 - 2017. The significance is that the streak rub, which they gave to Lesnar, provided 3 years of excitement. The streak, therefore, was not wasted on Lesnar.

As a foil, I will point to the manner in which Kevin Nash broke Goldberg's legendary streak. When Nash ended the streak, WCW failed to run with it, as Nash didn't use the momentum to evolve his character and create moments for the fans. Instead, he participated in the fingerpoke of doom incident the night after Starrcade 1998, which nearly invalidated all momentum he gained.

Nash in WCW showed the way a streak rub can be wasted; Lesnar in WWE showed the way a streak rub can be productive.

I don't know why this notion seem so popular around here, but breaking the Streak didn't create monster Brock.

The first time we all witnessed Brock's deity booking was when he squashed Cena at Summerslam, which at the time was far more impressive for me than ending the Streak. Someone would have ended the Streak eventually, whereas I never expected Superman to be squashed like that.
 
#3 ·
What a load of bullish.
The end of the streak made the last big superstar redundant, ended in a horrible abortion at Wrestlemania 31, then "demi god" Brock ended up feuding geek Ambrose and has-been Randy Orton, to be fed to Bill Goldberg twice in three months.
Undertaker doesn't need change, he needed ONE streak-ending retirement match, and not this slow, painful end with the final straw being jobbing to the biggest failure in 34 years of WWE.
 
#12 ·
I've said this before, in theory Lesnar ending the streak so the "rub" could have a chance to be transferred to a face was a good idea.

But the poor execution after Lesnar ending the streak is what "ruined" it. From Lesnar squashing Cena, which turned him defacto face with a large portion of the crowd, and then the WWE severely miscalculating their ability to get Reigns over as a cheered face for WM31, forcing them to have Seth Rollins cash in and win the title, where he was supposed to be the top heel going forward, but was now viewed as "the savior" of WM by a large portion, the whole thing was a giant comedy of errors
 
#13 ·
No it was a huge huge fail.

First of all the match sucked, it was a terrible match to lose your streak on, not some epic encounter like he had with HBK and Triple H.

Second of all brock didn't show up for months on end and didn't even capitalize off the heat or significance of ending the streak.

It really just kind of shit on 22 years of building something up, and it was a complete waste just for some initial shock value.

I bet everyone regrets it espically taker.
 
#17 ·
1). The match "sucked" because Undertaker got a concussion, showing that his body cannot handle the rigors of wrestling as well as it did. Hence, the match quality supports the thought that it was time.

2). Brock didn't appear himself, but his advocate Heyman carried the load with some amazing promos. Brock would also become champion, so he always stayed in the background, even when absent.

3). It wasn't a complete waste for reasons given in the OP. Brock's character got hot and stayed hot for a while, it helped Rollins and Reigns get over when they got to work that a hot Lesnar, and it allowed Undertaker's character to progress.
 
#20 ·
I never bought into the rub thing at all. In order for a rub to truly be meaningful it has to be executed perfectly. This one was not. Did it help rebuild Brock's credibility and help him go on a solid title run? Yeah, but it's just too easy to point out that he lost to HHH the year before. A guy that lost to Taker three times at Mania and he also lost to Cena. Brock needed to be unpinned since his return for it to have truly worked imo. I think that the company saw that and that's why they so easily handed it to Goldberg. It simply wasn't that big of a deal.

Takers matches havent mattered since. It was the one blue chip at Mania no matter what and now it's gone. No matter how shitty the card was I could always at least look forward to the steak carrying on. It was a spectacle in itself. Now, it's just another wrestling legend having a match.

Terrible booking decision.
 
#29 ·
Brock helps the future stars?

Brock didn't do SHIT for Seth Rollins. Seth pinned Roman to win the title at Mania 31. During their feud, Seth got one up on Lesnar about once, and that was with the help of the rest of The Authority. During the actual match, Seth was thrown aside so Undertaker could show up and ruin the match and reignite his feud with Lesnar. Seth came off as a third wheel in his own damn title match.

He also did nothing for Dean Ambrose. That Mania match could have made Dean the star he deserves to be, even in defeat if it had been hardcore and Dean had passed out instead of giving up. It would have made him look tough and strong. But nope, Lesnar was too lazy and didn't want to do anything hardcore, and the match was an absolute dud. Lesnar also seemed like he didn't really give a shit about Dean. Yeah, but he helps the future stars, right?!
 
#33 ·
No, it didn't work.

1) It was mis-booked, just like almost everything the WWE has done for the last several years.

If you're going to have Brock Lesnar be The One In 21-1, then you needed to book him straight to the belt, and literally have him be Shao Kahn: No worthy opposition, so the only way to get to Lesnar (and the Must-See and Can't Miss that you must get on PPV or the WWE Network) is to actually become worthy.

You can basically create a gatekeeper that Heyman will manage that prospective challengers have to get through. He becomes the toughest man on the week to week programming (basically champion while Brock is in absentia), and then either someone gets over enough to be worthy of the spot, or the gatekeeper eventually turns on Heyman and takes the spot himself. Three years ago, I'd have put Cesaro in that spot. I'd now do that with Samoa Joe.

This forces Creative to start putting people over week to week, something the WWE has not done for several years running. They not only mis-booked it directly after Mania 30, they mis-booked it once Lesnar got the belt.

With how Creative has declared the weekly shows irrelevant, Lesnar should be champ, now, three years running.

2) It basically renders anything else Taker does to be meaningless.

Why should we care, now, about Undertaker, especially as every match can literally, now, end with Taker being gravely injured (not because of a "shoot" or any intent -- the guy's body is breaking down with age, lack of selling, ring wear, etc.)? Especially this year, since it would appear the very real chance is that Taker, in the Grand Tradition, will be retired by Roman Reigns (the only meaningful week-to-week wrestler Vince wants us to care about!) to set forth the Roman Empire vs. the Unbeatable BAAAAAROCK...

3) STER-OIDS!!!

John Cena had it right:

ME BROCK LESNAR!
HERE COMES THE PAIN!!
GOD MADE ME STRONG...
FORGOT TO GIVE ME BRAIN!!!


Vince McMahon has been conned, just like Dana White was.

His only money draw for this card is the same only money draw Dana White had left for UFC 200 -- so much so that Lesnar was almost paid more than the entire remaining main event card COMBINED...

So Lesnar pisses hot twice to nullify his "victory" over Mark Hunt.

And then the WWE deliberately and PUBLICLY ignores the Wellness Policy.

Look, I know -- "sports entertainment" and all... -- but isn't there still something some state can do to prevent Brock from performing there for the crap he pulled at UFC 200 and the almost-assured nature that the guy has spent a good part of this last WWE run on the gas?
 
#8 ·
I thoroughly disagree. For one thing it has made all of Takers WM matches since mean a lot less than they would have with the streak still around.
We'll also never get the spectacle of a Cena vs Taker match with the streak still in place.
Also ever since Brock broke the streak, all of his matches have just been glorified squash matches, which is a shame since he's good in the ring when his matches aren't so one sided.
All of this would be merely annoying if the Lesnar rub was given for a good cause. But no, he'll just get beaten by face Roman. At least it was delayed a few years I guess.
 
#15 ·
Plus the Lesnar/Goldberg feud was/is a massive selling point for Royal Rumble & Wrestlemania. They essentially got three main events out of it instead of the one. And if Lesnar beats Goldberg at Mania for the title, he's back to being the beast that he was, and arguably even stronger now that he's shown he can come back after being knocked down, unlike, say, Ronda Rousey.
 
#24 ·
Should have gone to Bray or to Roman as a way to get him huge heat immediately prior to a heel turn, then Taker should have beaten Sting at the next Mania and called it a day.

Brock was a part timer, was 36 which isnt too old in itself but he had already been a main event level star over 10 years earlier so was not fresh at all. Whats more him breaking the streak and his subsequent booking that made him look like an unstoppable monster wasnt ultimately used to put over a new talent in a big way either. When the time finally came for him to make someone a star by getting completely squashed the guy getting the rub was fucking Goldberg...another part timer, 10 years older, main eventer since 1998.

This kind of shit is a big part of why the WWE are only making B level stars like Owens and Rollins instead of the next Rock or Austin.
 
#27 ·
^ If only they turned Reigns heel the moment the crowd started to boo him....

He'd be like "I'm THE man and there's nothing any of you can do about it" and at least then there would be a reason(albeit a fake reason) for Roman being booed. :shrug

And as a result, he could be a solid heel going forward but instead Vince continues with his hard-on for Polarizing(Yay!/Boo!/Yay!/Boo!) superstars. It started with Cena and continues with Reigns.
 
#31 ·
Gotta say I expected to come into this thread and absolutely hate the OP. But nah, you put together a comprehensive and decent argument. I don't agree with everything you say mind.

I would of rather flipped it. I wish somebody coming up had of ended the streak, I'm not gonna name someone specifically as it could of been one of five or six. What I do think they should of done though is allow Brock to retire Taker. After all lets be honest when Taker retires, be it this year or next, its highly likely that Brock is going to become the guy to beat at Mania, essentially sliding into Taker's slot, so retiring him would of been a lot more useful. That way you have you're new Mr. Mania and an up and comer has took a huge rub by being the man to finally break the streak!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top