[ShiftyLWO]

Originally Posted by K.W.H.

Cena would be a much more likely choice than HBK, given that he is a bigger star and the current top star for several years now.

That is true. But when its said and done, hbk will still have the better legacy. I also think taker has more respect for michaels then cena, no way taker is putting over cena at mania. Unless of course the money is right.

[Dexter Morgan]

Originally Posted by ShiftyLWO

That is true. But when its said and done, hbk will still have the better legacy. I also think taker has more respect for michaels then cena, no way taker is putting over cena at mania. Unless of course the money is right.

No doubt. Guys like Bret, HBK, Taker, HHH, and a few others all will have greater legacies than Cena ever will.

[The Pied Piper]

Originally Posted by K.W.H.

Cena would be a much more likely choice than HBK, given that he is a bigger star and the current top star for several years now.

Yeah, Cena is the only guy that can possibly end The Streak. Although I'm sure there will be a backlash from both the locker room and the fans if he does that.

[TheAussieRocket]

Cena ending the streak!? No way!

[zep81]

The Streak will not end IMHO.

Im still unsure if 'Taker will be at this years Mania.........or even next tbh.

[RAWImpact]

I've always been torn on whether or not The Streak should end. Part of me believes that it shouldn't end and that Undertaker should retire undefeated at WrestleMania. Another part of me yens to see the epic moment that it would be if it did end. The shock, the awe, etc. It seems like a moment that any wrestling fan should hope to see someday, but at the same time it just feels so wrong. I guess that is why The Streak has been one of the biggest things at WrestleMania since 2005.

I find it hard to see why someone like John Cena should get to end it, though. I know he is "the guy" now and all, but really, how much longer is that going to last? It's not as if Cena is a young buck and the newly-fresh face of the company. He has been on top for a long time. And although I doubt it would ever happen, the only way I could see a reason behind it is if it were to be the catalyst for a Cena heel turn. Other than that, I see no reason why Cena should have the honor of beating Taker.

[TripleG]

I was just thinking about all 20 Wrestlemania Matches Taker has had. I came to a pretty startling revelation.

Of his 20 Mania matches, there were only 3 times where I honestly thought Taker might lose, and one of those came before the Streak was even a storyline point of interest.

Vs. Snuka at VII? Everyone and their grandmother knew he'd win that one. Snuka was a jobber by that point.

Vs. Roberts at VIII? Taker just turned face and got over quick so it just seemed like the logical move to have him win.

Vs. Gonzalez at IX: Taker got a bit of a giant killer vibe deal going and Gonzalez was just another big man thrown to him. Taker was practically unbeaten from the start of his face turn until his Casket Match with Yoko in 94 and even after that it was extremely rare to see him lose as a face, so I had no reason to think Gonzalez was taking this one.

Vs. Bundy at XI: Same as above but even more likely Taker would win because of Bundy's lowered status.

Vs. Diesel at XII: This was probably Taker's less likely victory up to this point, but I still thought he was going to win just based on him always winning. Plus, if the internet was like what it is now, we probably would have known Nash was leaving in a month, making it more obvious.

Vs. Sid at 13: OK, I ordered Wrestlemania because I knew Taker was winning the belt and I thought I'd be cool. Because of the lack of planning behind this main event, it made Taker's face win pretty obvious.

Vs. Kane at XIV: Now this was one I thought Taker was going to lose. They seemed to be turning Kane into the New Undertaker and keeping him as a credible killing machine with a great backstory. I thought for sure Kane was going to go over.

Vs. Bossman at XV: Taker isn't going to lose to McMahon's stooge. No way. This one was obvious.

Vs. Triple H at X-Seven: This is another one I thought Taker was going to lose because it was the first time they even mentioned the Streak. They kept saying "He's 8-0 at Mania" which just made me think that Trips was going over, lol.

Vs. Flair at X-8: It would have been utterly stupid to have Flair beat him and I knew they wouldn't do that.

Vs. A-Train and Big Show at XIX: No way in fuck Taker is losing in a throwaway handicap match. Just no way.

Vs. Kane at XX: He was returning as The Dead Man. It would have ruined it if he lost.

Vs. Orton at 21: And this was the last time I thought he might lose. WWE was high on Orton and pushing him strong for a while. And with his Legend Killer gimmick, it was a perfect set up to end the streak here.

Vs. Henry at 22: Henry go over? No way that was going to happen. Come on!

Vs. Batista at 23: Batista had been champ for a while and there wasn't that much to go with on the SD brand at the time, so I just figured Taker would win it.

Vs. Edge at XXIV: Edge got over on Taker so often on TV that Taker's win at Mania could not be any more obvious.

Vs. Michaels at XXV: Because he's already a legend, I knew it would be stupid to give the huge win of ending the streak to somebody that doesn't need it. So yeah, I knew Taker was winning.

Vs. Michaels at XXVI: Same as above PLUS the added stip of Shawn retiring when he lost. I ordered the PPV just to see Shawn retire. That's how sure I was.

Vs. Triple H at XXVII: I guess there is a little added doubt whenever HHH is involved, but even then I thought "If Shawn didn't get too, I highly doubt Hunter will".

Vs. Triple H at XXVIII: It was Taker's 20th and no way in hell they'd resist getting the streak that far. Also, by this point, I was thinking the same thing with Michaels. Trips is a legend and doesn't need the win, so it'd be stupid to give it to him. Also by this point, Taker had kicked out of so many things at Wrestlemania, that I just assume he's going to kick out of anything.


So yeah, that's pretty telling. 17 matches out of 20 where I am at the very least 95% sure that Taker is going to win?

If they want to make it a little more exciting, put him up against somebody that might actually make me go "Oh, he might lose that one". The answer of course, is John Cena. I can't see them giving that win to CM Punk, Sheamus, or Ziggler, but I can see them giving it to Cena just as a way to convince us that he is the greatest of all time.

At the very least, it would be interesting just because I could actually believe Taker might lose at Mania, which is obviously a very rare feeling.

[xdoomsayerx]

Originally Posted by TripleG

I was just thinking about all 20 Wrestlemania Matches Taker has had. I came to a pretty startling revelation.

Of his 20 Mania matches, there were only 3 times where I honestly thought Taker might lose, and one of those came before the Streak was even a storyline point of interest.

Vs. Snuka at VII? Everyone and their grandmother knew he'd win that one. Snuka was a jobber by that point.

Vs. Roberts at VIII? Taker just turned face and got over quick so it just seemed like the logical move to have him win.

Vs. Gonzalez at IX: Taker got a bit of a giant killer vibe deal going and Gonzalez was just another big man thrown to him. Taker was practically unbeaten from the start of his face turn until his Casket Match with Yoko in 94 and even after that it was extremely rare to see him lose as a face, so I had no reason to think Gonzalez was taking this one.

Vs. Bundy at XI: Same as above but even more likely Taker would win because of Bundy's lowered status.

Vs. Diesel at XII: This was probably Taker's less likely victory up to this point, but I still thought he was going to win just based on him always winning. Plus, if the internet was like what it is now, we probably would have known Nash was leaving in a month, making it more obvious.

Vs. Sid at 13: OK, I ordered Wrestlemania because I knew Taker was winning the belt and I thought I'd be cool. Because of the lack of planning behind this main event, it made Taker's face win pretty obvious.

Vs. Kane at XIV: Now this was one I thought Taker was going to lose. They seemed to be turning Kane into the New Undertaker and keeping him as a credible killing machine with a great backstory. I thought for sure Kane was going to go over.

Vs. Bossman at XV: Taker isn't going to lose to McMahon's stooge. No way. This one was obvious.

Vs. Triple H at X-Seven: This is another one I thought Taker was going to lose because it was the first time they even mentioned the Streak. They kept saying "He's 8-0 at Mania" which just made me think that Trips was going over, lol.

Vs. Flair at X-8: It would have been utterly stupid to have Flair beat him and I knew they wouldn't do that.

Vs. A-Train and Big Show at XIX: No way in fuck Taker is losing in a throwaway handicap match. Just no way.

Vs. Kane at XX: He was returning as The Dead Man. It would have ruined it if he lost.

Vs. Orton at 21: And this was the last time I thought he might lose. WWE was high on Orton and pushing him strong for a while. And with his Legend Killer gimmick, it was a perfect set up to end the streak here.

Vs. Henry at 22: Henry go over? No way that was going to happen. Come on!

Vs. Batista at 23: Batista had been champ for a while and there wasn't that much to go with on the SD brand at the time, so I just figured Taker would win it.

Vs. Edge at XXIV: Edge got over on Taker so often on TV that Taker's win at Mania could not be any more obvious.

Vs. Michaels at XXV: Because he's already a legend, I knew it would be stupid to give the huge win of ending the streak to somebody that doesn't need it. So yeah, I knew Taker was winning.

Vs. Michaels at XXVI: Same as above PLUS the added stip of Shawn retiring when he lost. I ordered the PPV just to see Shawn retire. That's how sure I was.

Vs. Triple H at XXVII: I guess there is a little added doubt whenever HHH is involved, but even then I thought "If Shawn didn't get too, I highly doubt Hunter will".

Vs. Triple H at XXVIII: It was Taker's 20th and no way in hell they'd resist getting the streak that far. Also, by this point, I was thinking the same thing with Michaels. Trips is a legend and doesn't need the win, so it'd be stupid to give it to him. Also by this point, Taker had kicked out of so many things at Wrestlemania, that I just assume he's going to kick out of anything.


So yeah, that's pretty telling. 17 matches out of 20 where I am at the very least 95% sure that Taker is going to win?

If they want to make it a little more exciting, put him up against somebody that might actually make me go "Oh, he might lose that one". The answer of course, is John Cena. I can't see them giving that win to CM Punk, Sheamus, or Ziggler, but I can see them giving it to Cena just as a way to convince us that he is the greatest of all time.

At the very least, it would be interesting just because I could actually believe Taker might lose at Mania, which is obviously a very rare feeling.

their saving cena/taker for the main event of wrestlemania 30.

[Stone Hot]

Originally Posted by xdoomsayerx

their saving cena/taker for the main event of wrestlemania 30.

na its gonna be rock vs cena 3 at wm 30 lol

[LoueyGG]

MY STREAK WAS THE LONGEST IN HISTORY BLA BLA ... And even without the title I'm still the best in the world! my streak was the greatest in history *cue undertaker