Undertaker's Streak: What would have been different without it?

[Xero]

The other Undertaker thread got me thinking. With the streak, especially the last 6 years, Taker has always been put into positions where the streak is more important than the opponent winning.

Now, I'm not saying that everything would be different, but let's say Taker had two or three losses at Mania. WWE wouldn't have this "we can't let HIM take the streak" situation they must peg on every Taker Mania match.

And yes, you can argue that someone can break the streak and it wouldn't be the end of the world, but since they began acknowledging it at WrestleMania 18 (I believe), I have no doubt that it's interfered with potential booking plans, whether they never saw the light of day or were held off for a non-Mania feud.

So, what would have been different? Would, say, Orton have gone over at WrestleMania 21? Would someone else have faced the Undertaker at another Mania, and maybe won? I have to think some of Taker's timeline would have been different, because Taker wouldn't be a guy that basically COULDN'T lose at the event.

[CSL]

If Giant Gonzalez was actually any good, if Sid could have put all the pieces together, if Kane maybe debuted at a later date and was still being 'established' could potentially have changed things. By 17 I think the streak probably started to play a factor and as they went on, it became more about that than anything else.

[Nicky Fives]

If Giant Gonzalez was actually any good, if Sid could have put all the pieces together, if Kane maybe debuted at a later date and was still being 'established' could potentially have changed things. By 17 I think the streak probably started to play a factor and as they went on, it became more about that than anything else.

well said....

[Fox]

I think if the streak had been broken before WrestleMania 21, Randy Orton would've gone over Taker at Mania, which could have been really huge for his career.

[The Gold Standard]

I think if the streak had been broken before WrestleMania 21, Randy Orton would've gone over Taker at Mania, which could have been really huge for his career.

I actually think Orton losing was huge for his career. It show us that he can perform in a Main Event slot in, at the time, the upcoming years, and it only made him better to have a good feud with Taker because Taker seems to be one of the guys that decides if someone gets a push

[Theo Dious]

Yeah, honestly Orton/Taker at Wrestlemania was huge for Orton, and the win or loss didn't really matter. He proved he belonged on the big stage that night, and if anything, winning that match would have taken the edge off of the ensuing feud betwen the two. It was far better suited to Orton's character development to follow up that match with the "I should have won" attitude than to have him gloating over a win. I remember hearing a lot of complaining at the time that Orton should have gone over, but looking back it doesn't seem to have hurt him in the long run.

[chrisat928]

Wrestlemania buys.