Mania Streak vs The Streak
 

Between Taker's streak and Goldberg's streak, which is more impressive kayfabe-wise?

Goldberg, if were talking Keyfabe and forget some of the wins were fabricated it has to be Goldys Streak.

Takers oposition is of higher quality in his streak but once again in Keyfabe to win each and every time is amazing. And in the way he won. Most guys he just ran over in 5 minutes or less.

Goldberg had a Wrestlemania streak?

(Obligatory :shifty: for the tards)

Isn't Goldberg is undefeated at Wrestlemania as well? Double streak.

Yes, yes he does.

1-0 baby!

So what you're saying is, it's not so much "who's next" as it is "who's second?"

Dion Phaneuf

I WENT THERE!

Totally kayfabe, it's Goldberg.

well goldbergs streak ended, takers is still going, gotta go with taker

HBK needs to cattle prod Taker then.

Taker's.


It would have been great if they debuted and pushed Goldberg as undefeated in WWE and put him up against Taker at a Mania with both streaks on the line

lol is this even a serious question?

I think it's a fair question, tbh. The streak was a gigantic part of Goldberg being what he was. Taker's is pretty amazing, too, but I don't know if it is as big a part of what makes Taker Taker as it does for Goldberg.

Having said that, I voted for Taker because I'm a Taker mark and I voted before thinking about it.:p

In Kayfabe, Goldberg. Whilst Undertaker has won only 16 matches at one particular event, Goldberg went 173 straight wins without a loss.

Outside of Wrestlemania, Undertaker has lost a lot of matches.

Of course, this is totally in kayfabe. ;)

Goldberg's streak was second only to Steve Austin in how over it was during that period.

I don't recall undertakers streak even being mentioned much outside of the last couple of wrestlemania's.

What's a kayfabe?

taker.
just because i think his streak was harder to maintain.

why was it harder? Taker had to win only ONE match per year. His streak isn't consecutive is it? He missed some time due to injury didn't he?

I like Goldberg's streak. Besides he kicked the shit out of Bret Hart during the streak.

goldberg

I like how in a thread that has nothing to do with Bret, he is still mentioned. LET IT GO.

The thread asked me for my opinion as to which streak I preferred. I gave my opinion why. Nobody ever sees the first punch Johnny, YOU LET IT GO!

Undertaker he has a victory over the great King Kong Bundy. Goldberg doesn'y have that kayfabe wise the Undertaker went through wrestlersto get where he is at. Goldberg spent a majority of time crushing jobbers, The Undertaker at least went through a challenge.

Kane86 wishes King Kong Bundy would sit on his face.

Taker has dominated over 20 years. That is more impressive than dominating for one.

Taker's win are on the biggest stage of them all.

Goldberg beat Hugh Morrus like 19 times on WCW Saturday Night.

Christian Cage's streak.

Come on that wasn't even a real streak.

Taker's is more impressive because it's still going.

Granted, he didn't get naked.

But technically, none of them are real, so that makes all wrestling streaks equal. So,

So true

You have a point there.....

Considering The Undertaker's streak spans 17 years and Goldberg got the majority of his wins over Hugh Morrus and Hardbody Harrison, I'm going to go with Taker.

Taker in this thread btw. Did vote, but never said that. Do wish Christian Cage's was on, cos that owns all and was clearly the best. Fuck Samoa Joe.

Most of his wins were just over jobbers. Did you see when Regal actually wrestled Goldberg and gave him run for his money? That was classic just shows another reason why Regal is great.

I would've liked to have seen that. Maybe I did even, but just forgot.

To be completely fair, though, Taker has had some shitty opponents in his streak too.

Uhh Really the only shitty match on the streak I can think of as that handicap match he was in. I have liked most of them I think the King Kong Bundy match had a weak finish. Oh, wait Giant Gonzalez I forgot that match sucked fuck monkey nuts. He was killing the business LOL

I hate to say it, but I think Snuka was a shitty match for him at the time.

Either way, I still voted Undertaker here.

Oh yeah, and Mark Henry.

Yeah Snuka was way better then Mark Henry you gotta admit it.

Not like Taker didn't get a few softballs lobbed his way.

In or out of kayfabe, I think that a dominance that last close to two decades is still more impressive than a dominance that lasts a few years.

fuck i dunno

If you ask me they didn't start making a big deal out of it until last WM 23 before that I didn't even know he was undefeated.

i always wanted sting to end takers streak

No one asked you.

What about the Bound for glory Streak vs the Wrestlemania streak?

That could make some good money.

how about kane vs a big penis i bet he wud job to it

But really it's 16 wins in 20 years...doesn't seem that impressive.

I am not here to insult you I just sharing Ideas.

ya right u tried to bury bound 4 glory

I'm going with the Mania streak. Goldberg's streak was impressive, but as has been stated, the majority of the matches were squashes against nobodies. When you add it all up, he probably only did about thirty minutes of solid work. Taker's streak may not have as staggering of a number, but when you consider that it is once a year and you look at some of the names he's beaten (HHH, Flair, Sid, Diesel) it's a pretty impressive list. Yeah, there have been some clunkers in there, but there haven't been in Barry Horowitz's either. Goldberg's streak was just a way to work his way up the ranks and earn a title shot. Taker's is now a way of earning immortality.

No I am jsut saying the mania streak vs the BFG streak would be cool. If anyone agrees with me we all know that BFG will never be up to par with mania. I amjsut being real.

starcade vs wrestlemania vs bound for glory

Nothing will ever be Wrestlemania period

See, this isn't dyslexia, it's retardation.

Kayfabe wise, the Undertaker's streak is more impressive because his streak is not already broken, or fabricated.

Undertaker's streak is 16 going on 17. Also, Goldberg was facing very weak wrestlers a lot. Meanwhile, Taker had mostly top guys he had to face. I mean he did have some easy guys along the way, but the majority of then were tough.

So true

Sid's Streak.

When I first read Xero's question, my immediate thought was "oh come on, it has to be 'Taker".

But then we are talking "kayfabe" here. Whichever way you want to look at it, whether you think Goldberg's streak was fabricated (which of course it was) so too was 'Taker's streak.

We are talking "kayfabe". And to me (who is NOT a Goldberg fan - however, I will admit that I was a little back in the early days of WCW) a winning streak of 200+ matches (whether against Hugh Morrus, Horace Hogan or Sid Viscious) would have to be at the very least AS impressive if not more so than 'Taker's 16-0 win record at Wrestlemania.

Both "streaks" are of course fabricated. In "kayfabe", (as much as I hate to admit it) I would have to lean towards Goldberg.

of Goldberg's near 200 wins, over half were against jobbers and mid-card talent..... taker has beaten the likes of Sid, HHH, Flair, HBK (soon), Kane (twice), Batista, Edge, Diesel, etc..... easy call... Taker wins

Golberg's Streak was a huge part of WCW at the time. Taker's Streak is just something that comes around once a year and until recent years wasn't really a main attraction of the show. Kayfabe and non-kayfabe wise, Goldberg's was better.

They're called "skidmarks."