I dont think this question has been asked

[Jacob Fox]

I'm hard pressed to believe WWE would allow the breaker of the streak to backslide like that.
Even if that individual did job out, I doubt the announce team would make light of it on national TV.
For example, Jericho defeated Austin and Rock in one night, but the announce team never degrades his accomplishment by mentioning he lost to Fandango.

Assuming a heel broke the streak, the announce team could make a d*ck move and bury somebody for losing matches but isn't it human nature to lose anyway?
Had Barrett broken the streak how long would be an acceptable stretch of time before he could lose again? One year?
Would WWE allow the breaker of the streak to lose a consecutive streak of matches so soon after? Even if they did (which I doubt), what business is it of ours?
Everybody loses eventually otherwise everything becomes redundant. A 'payoff' only fails if the person was sh*t to begin with and nobody is implying that the streak breaker be a sh*thead.

For the record, I gave Jacob Fox a positive rating. I just reject the notion of an invisible rule that said the breaker of the streak better not end up a failure.

WWE has done some tremendously dumb things, so don't they wouldn't do something like let the guy who broke the streak backslide. But OI wasn't really talking about them. I would assume that such a feat could have the effect of the wrestler peaking too soon. If a younger guy had beaten the streak early on his career, it would set the bar pretty high for the rest of his career. Hell, even winning the WWE title might not be a comparable feat.

For example, the Ultimate Warrior cleanly defeats Hulk Hogan and holds both the World and Intercontinental belt. Hogan had not been cleanly defeated in over six years.

So what became of the Warrior? He fights Rick Rude. A formidable opponent no doubt, but hardly a challenge for a man who defeated Hulk Hogan cleanly. What next? Mr. Perfect, Haku, Ted Dibiase... all fine wrestlers, but shouldn't be tough from the man who beat Hulk Hogan cleanly for the first time in over 6 years.

So where was Warrior left? Dropping the title to Sgt Slaughter Less than a year after he won it.

Warrior was hard to book because he accomplished a feat that could not be matched by anything WWF had to offer. Ratings and buy rates plummeted and the belt was taken off him.

It's just my thinking that a new guy would have this problem. Brock Lesnar was already seen like this, thus thete was no chance this would happen to him.

As far as the announcer comments, I was just trying to be silly at that point. I don't actually believe they would do if.

 

[The GOAT]

^I think with Warrior, the bigger problem was that people just didn't relate or take to him once he was on top as much as they did Hogan (was probably too eccentric for some folks.) He had the enormous crowd reactions on his side, but we all know that alone isn't the immediate measurement of overall popularity and drawing power. It shouldn't have mattered that he beat Hogan since that match was booked carefully enough to look as if both men were equally matched and that either one could have walked away victorious, only just happened to be Warrior who won that night. If he had squashed Hogan in a matter of minutes, I'd agree.

I actually always thought this whole perception that ending the Streak would turn someone into a mega-heel for life was way overblown. I mean, Lesnar ends the Streak, Heyman cuts an epic promo putting it over the top, and here we are only a year later and Brock is being greeted with positive roars from the crowd. CM Punk does everything in his power to get booed throughout the second half of 2012 and early 2013 (including dumping Paul Bearer's "ashes" on top of Taker just a few weeks after Bearer's real-life death), and yet he's greeted with a 50/50 reaction when he fights Undertaker at Wrestlemania. I honestly think he would have still been loved by the audience as well, had he ended it.

My point is, I don't think it would have tarnished a young guy's career, or even guaranteed turned them into a life-long heel... not that that the latter would necessarily be a bad thing in itself especially if you're someone like a Bray Wyatt.

 

[Jacob Fox]

^I think with Warrior, the bigger problem was that people just didn't relate or take to him once he was on top as much as they did Hogan (was probably too eccentric for some folks.) He had the enormous crowd reactions on his side, but we all know that alone isn't the immediate measurement of overall popularity and drawing power. It shouldn't have mattered that he beat Hogan since that match was booked carefully enough to look as if both men were equally matched and that either one could have walked away victorious, only just happened to be Warrior who won that night. If he had squashed Hogan in a matter of minutes, I'd agree.

I actually always thought this whole perception that ending the Streak would turn someone into a mega-heel for life was way overblown. I mean, Lesnar ends the Streak, Heyman cuts an epic promo putting it over the top, and here we are only a year later and Brock is being greeted with positive roars from the crowd. CM Punk does everything in his power to get booed throughout the second half of 2012 and early 2013 (including dumping Paul Bearer's "ashes" on top of Taker just a few weeks after Bearer's real-life death), and yet he's greeted with a 50/50 reaction when he fights Undertaker at Wrestlemania. I honestly think he would have still been loved by the audience as well, had he ended it.

My point is, I don't think it would have tarnished a young guy's career, or even guaranteed turned them into a life-long heel... not that that the latter would necessarily be a bad thing in itself especially if you're someone like a Bray Wyatt.

I have to strongly disagree about the Ultimate Warrior thing. Back at that point in time Hulk Hogan was seen as a completely unstoppable force. That's how he was built up. Here was a man who had this knack for becoming invincible during his matches and no one could really get the better of him. Here was the man who defeated Andre the Giant, which at the time seemed very formidable. While others had definitely beaten Andre before, the majority of the people watching WWF at the time had not been watching wrestling long enough to know anything about Andre's real past.

Personally, I always hated the Ultimate Warrior. I never connected with him at all, but I can understand why others did. But I think you're downplaying his accomplishment quite a bit. In comparison, there were plenty of wrestlers who absolutely dominated Hogan, only to lose at the end. For the majority of the typical Hogan match, it really didn't matter who was more in control because the only thing that every mattered was the moment when he "hulked up." Everything else was always irrelevant. This is actually a great article: http://camelclutchblog.com/why-did-the-ultimate-warrior-fail-as-wwe-champion/

I agree with your comment about the "mega heel" thing and I have never felt that would be the result if someone broke the streak. I can't really argue the counter point there since I technically agree with you.

As far as whether it would harm the career of someone who broke it, it really depends upon who it is that broke it. Some people feel that whomever beats a long winning streak are rarely remembered. Do we remember Nancy Zerg or Ken Jennings? Do we remember Al Smith and Jim Bagby or do we remember Joe Dimagio? James Douglas or Mike Tyson? How many people off the top of their head can name the NBA team that ended the Boston Celtics 8 year championship streak (The 76ers).

I'm not saying it's a rule, just that it happens often that a long standing champion or someone who is on a streak and someone breaks it, the person who usually benefits most in history is the person who got defeated, not he whom defeated. We really don't know what would happen until it happens. I think having Lesnar do it was the safe bet. Undertaker doesn't in any way look bad that it was Lesnar who ended it. I mean, come on, it's Broooocckkk Lesnar. Lesnar benefited from it somewhat, but as shocked as everyone was, Lesnar winning was probably the most likely opponent he ever faced.

It's funny because lately I seem to really play everything up as variables. Not really sure why.

 

[Red Rain]

I have to strongly disagree about the Ultimate Warrior thing. Back at that point in time Hulk Hogan was seen as a completely unstoppable force. That's how he was built up. Here was a man who had this knack for becoming invincible during his matches and no one could really get the better of him. Here was the man who defeated Andre the Giant, which at the time seemed very formidable. While others had definitely beaten Andre before, the majority of the people watching WWF at the time had not been watching wrestling long enough to know anything about Andre's real past.

Personally, I always hated the Ultimate Warrior. I never connected with him at all, but I can understand why others did. But I think you're downplaying his accomplishment quite a bit. In comparison, there were plenty of wrestlers who absolutely dominated Hogan, only to lose at the end. For the majority of the typical Hogan match, it really didn't matter who was more in control because the only thing that every mattered was the moment when he "hulked up." Everything else was always irrelevant. This is actually a great article: http://camelclutchblog.com/why-did-the-ultimate-warrior-fail-as-wwe-champion/

I agree with your comment about the "mega heel" thing and I have never felt that would be the result if someone broke the streak. I can't really argue the counter point there since I technically agree with you.

As far as whether it would harm the career of someone who broke it, it really depends upon who it is that broke it. Some people feel that whomever beats a long winning streak are rarely remembered. Do we remember Nancy Zerg or Ken Jennings? Do we remember Al Smith and Jim Bagby or do we remember Joe Dimagio? James Douglas or Mike Tyson? How many people off the top of their head can name the NBA team that ended the Boston Celtics 8 year championship streak (The 76ers).

I'm not saying it's a rule, just that it happens often that a long standing champion or someone who is on a streak and someone breaks it, the person who usually benefits most in history is the person who got defeated, not he whom defeated. We really don't know what would happen until it happens. I think having Lesnar do it was the safe bet. Undertaker doesn't in any way look bad that it was Lesnar who ended it. I mean, come on, it's Broooocckkk Lesnar. Lesnar benefited from it somewhat, but as shocked as everyone was, Lesnar winning was probably the most likely opponent he ever faced.

It's funny because lately I seem to really play everything up as variables. Not really sure why.

You're trying to win a debate even though you don't believe it. It's unemotional for you, not unlike a lawyer. It's being competent and a tough balance when you really don't want to come off like a d*ck.

My criteria for breaking the streak is: What can you do that nobody else can?
I don't care about wins or losses or even the gate. The streak breaker was never written in stone as the next 'draw for the ages'.
Undertaker was never 'the guy', so why should the breaker of the streak be 'the guy'?
Undertaker was the phenom, capable of miraculous feats that nobody else could, and this was his legacy.

The streak breaker ought to be the same. Wrestling is a subjective artform. A phenom should break it, somebody who brings something to the table that nobody else can.

 

[Green Jesus]

It was just not a safe bet. Making someone be defined as the streak-breaker and hope fans will buy it is risky. Undertaker was just too simbolic and nostalgic. Brock isn't, Brock's just a guy who happens to have a shitload of titles, who was aways a monster in his carreer and then further estabilished that by beating the undertaker. He has nothing to lose in the eyes of the fans, even the ones that respect him. The suspense of disbelief given by brock and his legit strong and formidable in-ring demeanor is great for giving rubs. Fans like to see him in action and buys him as an unstopabble monster. However, they do not worship him and do not try to protect him as religiously.

Saying that, I do think people overestimate how much of a push the guy would get by beating taker, and usually dismiss the huge weight wwe has lifted by unburdening themselves with the need to find the perfect challenger for his once in a lifetime defining moment.

 

[Jacob Fox]

You're trying to win a debate even though you don't believe it. It's unemotional for you, not unlike a lawyer. It's being competent and a tough balance when you really don't want to come off like a d*ck.

My criteria for breaking the streak is: What can you do that nobody else can?
I don't care about wins or losses or even the gate. The streak breaker was never written in stone as the next 'draw for the ages'.
Undertaker was never 'the guy', so why should the breaker of the streak be 'the guy'?
Undertaker was the phenom, capable of miraculous feats that nobody else could, and this was his legacy.

The streak breaker ought to be the same. Wrestling is a subjective artform. A phenom should break it, somebody who brings something to the table that nobody else can.

Well I am only debating two points and I believe both of them. First, I believe the Ultimate Warrior's lackluster title run was due to the impossibility of booking him realistically after defeating Hulk Hogan. Second, regardless of how we feel about the man who should have or may have broken the streak, it would not have been any guarantee of future success. I believe both of those points very strongly.

I think it's important to acknowledge that WWE has not historically done what the fans think they should do. Vince McMahon has a very ironic way of approaching a lot of his decisions. For example, it's very well known that he likes to make wrestlers lose matches on their birthdays. Not so much now, but in earlier WWF days he was known for making wrestlers lose in their home towns. McMahon has a tendency to not only believe that he always knows what is best but to push back against the fans to the point of often making baffling decisions simply to establish that he is in control and he knows what is best. Just a year ago, after the Rumble, he ordered a rewrite of the Raw script not because fans were upset, but in spite of that fact. It took a while before he realized that his pushing back was hurting more than helping.

Should the streak have been broken by a younger wrestler who may have benefited from it? Absolutely. Would that victory have guaranteed that Vince McMahon was going to give that young wrestler a strong push based off that one feat? Absolutely not.

I would love to believe that the whole ending of the streak would have been handled in a very good and appropriate way. But when the 21 year streak is broken by a man who is so dominant that he doesn't really need that victory to enhance his dominance, how can any of us say that any other person who broke the streak would be pushed appropriately. The answer is, we can't. If someone believes that it was bad booking to have Brock Lesnar break the streak, how can the same person believe that any other person who broke the streak would be booked correctly afterwards?

They can't. A person cannot acknowledge a bad decision and assume that in the presence of other bad decisions that a good decision is the likeliest outcome. And that is why I cannot make the assumption that anyone breaking the Undertaker's streak would have been booked well and benefited from it. Should they have been? Yes. Is there any guarantee that they would have been? No. There is just no guarantee of that and yes, I feel really strongly about that point.

I'm not sure if you're saying I'm coming across like a dick or not. I can't imagine that I am, since I am going way out of my way to be diplomatic in my posting because I am not looking for confrontation. If I am coming across as a dick, than I apologize since it isn't my intent. But I honestly think the only thing I am doing is what everyone else in the thread is doing and that is presenting their opinions to each other. I never once expect anyone to acknowledge that I am right and I never disrespect others for simply having a different opinion than me.

 

[Red Rain]

Well I am only debating two points and I believe both of them. First, I believe the Ultimate Warrior's lackluster title run was due to the impossibility of booking him realistically after defeating Hulk Hogan. Second, regardless of how we feel about the man who should have or may have broken the streak, it would not have been any guarantee of future success. I believe both of those points very strongly.

I think it's important to acknowledge that WWE has not historically done what the fans think they should do. Vince McMahon has a very ironic way of approaching a lot of his decisions. For example, it's very well known that he likes to make wrestlers lose matches on their birthdays. Not so much now, but in earlier WWF days he was known for making wrestlers lose in their home towns. McMahon has a tendency to not only believe that he always knows what is best but to push back against the fans to the point of often making baffling decisions simply to establish that he is in control and he knows what is best. Just a year ago, after the Rumble, he ordered a rewrite of the Raw script not because fans were upset, but in spite of that fact. It took a while before he realized that his pushing back was hurting more than helping.

Should the streak have been broken by a younger wrestler who may have benefited from it? Absolutely. Would that victory have guaranteed that Vince McMahon was going to give that young wrestler a strong push based off that one feat? Absolutely not.

I would love to believe that the whole ending of the streak would have been handled in a very good and appropriate way. But when the 21 year streak is broken by a man who is so dominant that he doesn't really need that victory to enhance his dominance, how can any of us say that any other person who broke the streak would be pushed appropriately. The answer is, we can't. If someone believes that it was bad booking to have Brock Lesnar break the streak, how can the same person believe that any other person who broke the streak would be booked correctly afterwards?

They can't. A person cannot acknowledge a bad decision and assume that in the presence of other bad decisions that a good decision is the likeliest outcome. And that is why I cannot make the assumption that anyone breaking the Undertaker's streak would have been booked well and benefited from it. Should they have been? Yes. Is there any guarantee that they would have been? No. There is just no guarantee of that and yes, I feel really strongly about that point.

I'm not sure if you're saying I'm coming across like a dick or not. I can't imagine that I am, since I am going way out of my way to be diplomatic in my posting because I am not looking for confrontation. If I am coming across as a dick, than I apologize since it isn't my intent. But I honestly think the only thing I am doing is what everyone else in the thread is doing and that is presenting their opinions to each other. I never once expect anyone to acknowledge that I am right and I never disrespect others for simply having a different opinion than me.

No way bro. I don't believe you're a d*ck at all. I am rather unpoetic, but you and Lockard are the two cats I enjoy debating with by a country mile.
As for being right and wrong, you may be right. To be honest, that would be a good thing because getting to the truth of the matter is what we are all after is it not?

As for your argument, I really don't know the future. I do know, however, is that if Vince McMahon wants a person to win a match, they will.
If Wade Barrett broke Taker's streak and Vince wanted the guy to win 100 consecutive matches, then he would.
What is 'over' anyway? What constitutes a draw? What is success? These are all questions with many different answers. Ultimately, it's Vince's company and he makes the final choice.
Does money matter? I'm sure it does, but then the concern becomes 'How long does (wrestler A) last?'
Will he be mature enough? Can his body hold up? Is he a drug addict? Will he embarrass the company?

 

[Jacob Fox]

No way bro. I don't believe you're a d*ck at all. I am rather unpoetic, but you and Lockard are the two cats I enjoy debating with by a country mile.
As for being right and wrong, you may be right. To be honest, that would be a good thing because getting to the truth of the matter is what we are all after is it not?

As for your argument, I really don't know the future. I do know, however, is that if Vince McMahon wants a person to win a match, they will.
If Wade Barrett broke Taker's streak and Vince wanted the guy to win 100 consecutive matches, then he would.
What is 'over' anyway? What constitutes a draw? What is success? These are all questions with many different answers. Ultimately, it's Vince's company and he makes the final choice.
Does money matter? I'm sure it does, but then the concern becomes 'How long does (wrestler A) last?'
Will he be mature enough? Can his body hold up? Is he a drug addict? Will he embarrass the company?

Yeah, I was half asleep when I read your post which is probably why I couldn't tell if you thought I was being that way or not. You take a couple Benadryl for a dust allergy and for about two hours everything just seems REALLY HEAVY.

But yeah, it all boils down to exactly what you said. Regardless of anything, whether it makes sense or not, it really just depends on what Vince wants when it happens. He makes some really smart choices and he makes some choices where we wonder if he Steve Austin stunned him one too many times. The fact that it is Vince's whims is the only sure fire bet in WWE.