The Undertaker's Streak has its fair share of legitimate credit. It's one of the greatest features of WM each year. But there are some points about it that make it wrong, unfair, bad for business. Here are the points:
The result of The Undertaker's match at WM is always predictable because we know they won't end the streak. Although the match is great to watch, it would be greater if the result was unpredictable.
I think no pro wrestler should be made to look immortal, it makes things too unrealistic. With WM being the only event that Undertaker participates in now, it makes him invincible, unbeatable.
He won't be putting anyone over if The Streak is to be kept alive. Even if he wrestles at another event and puts someone over there, it won't be as big as putting over at WM because the biggest stars should rise at the biggest stage.
Lastly, it is simply unfair that great wrestlers like Triple H, Shawn Michaels(who's even greater than taker) have to lose to him on numerous occasions. Under normal circumstances, if Taker and HBK wrestled 2 big matches, both would get to win one. But Shawn lost both of the big matches because of the WWE's obsession with The Streak. He made them the greatest matches ever, he deserved to win.
Why should he end the streak he has been one of the hardest workers for the company its not as if he has been slacking off for the last 20 years. Plus the gimmick of the Undertaker is that he is immortal. Also those matches with HBK were two of the greatest matches ever,Michael's was happy to end his career in such a way. And Taker mania matches are not predictable numerous times during the first taker Michael's match and during the HHH match when Michael's gave him sweet chin music and the game gave him a a pedigree i thought it was over.
Because CM Punk is not the kind of heel who should be beating guys like Rock and Cena clean. He has already peaked anyway, so booking him like he was in 2011 would have lost steam anyway because he ended up reaching the top of the mountain. What would be left for him to rebel against? How long could he have done worked shoots before he ran out of shit to say. He would have started making up "real" shit. Plus if Punk became to face, Cena's heel turn would have overshadow whatever Punk would be doing anyway.
So Punk has somehow peaked already and therefore shouldn't go over clean? And yet, his opponents were The Rock and John Cena who are years past their peak and they should get to go over clean in every match they're in? There's a huge difference between having someone lose and having someone constantly lose as well as there's a difference between winning and constantly winning. I'm not suggesting Punk should win every single match, but if you're going to try and sell a match between Punk and Taker and even remotely give off the impression that Punk has a chance, he has to have some momentum--he lost the WWE Championship and has barely won a match in 2013 and things don't seem to be changing anytime soon. So really, all it would've taken is for Punk to go over clean ONCE over a big name this year to give him an ounce of credibility. But no, of course he couldn't and now the guy on a losing streak is going up against the guy on a 20-0 WM streak, a streak that includes names such as Flair, HBK, and HHH.
And I love how you've basically condensed Punk's character into solely worked shoots, as if he's never done anything else or that he's capable of doing anything else. Newsflash: being a "rebel" and shooting aren't requirements for everything Punk gets involved in. Yes, it's what he's known for and probably does best and it's worked (no pun intended), but you seem to be suggesting that it's literally impossible for Punk to do anything else.