Daniel Bryan should defeat "the streak"

[Krimzon7]

Originally Posted by Destor it's not that *taker* is above it its that the streak is a very unique thing. nothing llike this has existed before and nothing like it ever will again. this has the potential to generate money decades after his retirement. you cant over look that. in wrestling i've always said this to guys training: "theres only one absolute rule in wrestling: there are exceptions to every rule. except that one." and its always true. there's always one situation that trumps otherwise absolute rules. the streak exists outside of the job rule. and its not for ego its the bottom line. theres too much money on the line to have him lay down, even if he wanted to i would hope they wouldnt let him.

Interesting wisdom. Very interesting. Don't let it be said that I don't understand the side of the argument that he shouldn't end the streak. I just think that a star could be cemented with a streak ending victory. I think that the right performer, under the right circumstances could make a magical bookend to the beginning and the ending of the streak.


I also feel that the more interesting question is who does TAKER think would be an amazing person to do the job for.


Lastly, I feel kinda sad to realize that Taker's only true legacy is the streak. Jeez, he's been around forever and all he has is the streak? None of his title runs have been that great. The only one i remember is the one that ended with Edge screwing Kennedy outta breifcase and cashing in on Taker after a steel cage match with Batista...loved that cash in.

[Destor]

Funny though even without the thing you would expect Taker is still a strong candidate for GoAT. Which is a testament to how exceptional the streak is.

[Asmo]

Originally Posted by Gertner The streak is a huge selling point. People buy wrestlemania for that match. If somebody beats him and fucks up, then you've just thrown money away. The streak and Undertaker literally go hand in hand, and if it's over and the guy doesn't break through like planned then what? We've seen the WWE do start and stop pushes constantly. I don't have enough faith in the company especially after how they managed to fuck up Ryback to pull this off.

This. Gertner gets it.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I'm completely with #1-wwf-fan on this. I actually don't understand why you would keep the streak alive past Taker's retirement. I'm not even sure you need to make the guy the focal point of the company after that, like The Amazing Gertner suggested. The guy who beats Taker at WrestleMania is going to ooze credibility and will no doubt lend themselves to a WWE Title match, but beyond that, the guy could just show up and be "that guy."

Daniel Bryan is really perfect for the role of streak-breaker, but it all depends on The Undertaker and his feelings towards Bryan, retirement and ending the streak. When you think about it, the streak has evolved over the years. At first, it wasn't even noticed by anyone. Suddenly, The Undertaker would often have WrestleMania matches that were designed to put him over and boost the number. Then he entered his "epic matches with legends" phase. Does Taker want to be a guy who appears at WrestleMania, Tombstones the heel of the month and get another tick in the win column, or does he want to have the best matches and tell the best stories?

If Taker wants to have the best matches and tell the best stories, who is truly a better pick for a WrestleMania opponent than Daniel Bryan? Yes, there is intrigue in a Taker vs. Cena match too, but The Undertaker vs. Daniel Bryan works on so many different levels. First, the match is going to be great. Bryan is in that upper-echelon of workers that even his utmost critics really wouldn't even attempt to foil him for his wrestling ability. Daniel's also a smaller guy, which means there won't be as many issues for Taker working in power moves and such -- an example being the Last Ride. There's also the style that Daniel Bryan works. It's the sort of style that works best with Undertaker and Bryan also incorporates a lot of MMA into his work, which Taker might appreciate. I could very easily see the two reversing signature submissions on each other.

Bryan is also the pupil of Shawn Michaels -- something that has come up in his most recent storylines. He's also got a lot of tension with HBK at the moment and is bitter enemies with Triple H. Bryan challenging The Undertaker to prove that he's got the ability to do what they couldn't is the perfect evolution of the streak storyline. All it really could use on top is some tension with CM Punk stemming out of Survivor Series.

Bryan is also insanely over. You could argue he's over to the point where he doesn't need to end the streak, but then again, who actually needs to end the streak? Bryan standing across from The Dead Man at WrestleMania just lends itself to an absolutely rabid crowd of differing ideas when it comes to wrestling. Where would a smark crowd side? Where would marks side? Keep in mind that casual fans are willing to boo Shawn Michaels for standing in Bryan's way.

The kid is over, he can wrestle, he can talk, he's been a champion before, he's had star-making moments -- this would just be that "Wow! I can't believe he did that!" moment that shuts up anybody who doesn't think he can be a franchise player for the WWE. No, maybe not as big as Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock or Hulk Hogan were -- but certainly an iconic Superstar within the borders of the WWE Universe -- perhaps on route to prove that he is the greatest ever.

[Bad News Gertner]

He's gonna ooze credibility until he's being booked two months later to lose to Justin Gabriel on Superstars. I have zero faith that the WWE would handle this correctly.

[The Whole F'n Show]

Originally Posted by Gertner He's gonna ooze credibility until he's being booked two months later to lose to Justin Gabriel on Superstars. I have zero faith that the WWE would handle this correctly.

That would be my fear also... I am not saying that it is necessary for someone to beat the streak, but if it would ever happen, bryan would be one of the few that I think could pull it off. The streak is iconic and even if it came down to 40-1, Taker would lose no credibility, at least in my eyes. If used correctly, beating the streak could be used as a passing of the torch, albeit, an extreme one.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by Gertner He's gonna ooze credibility until he's being booked two months later to lose to Justin Gabriel on Superstars. I have zero faith that the WWE would handle this correctly.

This much I agree with.

[scatterbrain28]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead It's not about NEEDING it, it's about will it help him become iconic?

I just think it would be too risky to put the streak on someone new on the scene because their push may not go over with the fans or the company. It would be throwing away money as Gertner said.

I think it should be the #2 or #3 guy in the company that needs that little jolt to become a legend. Cena's already reached that legendary level, so ending the streak won't do anything for him. D. Bry is pretty early in his push as I write this, but CM Punk is in that healthy middle, where he's an established main event guy, but not "the guy" and if he ends the streak, it would be seen as credible.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

D-Bry is massively over.

[dronepool]

Originally Posted by Noid I'm completely with #1-wwf-fan on this. I actually don't understand why you would keep the streak alive past Taker's retirement. I'm not even sure you need to make the guy the focal point of the company after that, like The Amazing Gertner suggested. The guy who beats Taker at WrestleMania is going to ooze credibility and will no doubt lend themselves to a WWE Title match, but beyond that, the guy could just show up and be "that guy." Daniel Bryan is really perfect for the role of streak-breaker, but it all depends on The Undertaker and his feelings towards Bryan, retirement and ending the streak. When you think about it, the streak has evolved over the years. At first, it wasn't even noticed by anyone. Suddenly, The Undertaker would often have WrestleMania matches that were designed to put him over and boost the number. Then he entered his "epic matches with legends" phase. Does Taker want to be a guy who appears at WrestleMania, Tombstones the heel of the month and get another tick in the win column, or does he want to have the best matches and tell the best stories? If Taker wants to have the best matches and tell the best stories, who is truly a better pick for a WrestleMania opponent than Daniel Bryan? Yes, there is intrigue in a Taker vs. Cena match too, but The Undertaker vs. Daniel Bryan works on so many different levels. First, the match is going to be great. Bryan is in that upper-echelon of workers that even his utmost critics really wouldn't even attempt to foil him for his wrestling ability. Daniel's also a smaller guy, which means there won't be as many issues for Taker working in power moves and such -- an example being the Last Ride. There's also the style that Daniel Bryan works. It's the sort of style that works best with Undertaker and Bryan also incorporates a lot of MMA into his work, which Taker might appreciate. I could very easily see the two reversing signature submissions on each other. Bryan is also the pupil of Shawn Michaels -- something that has come up in his most recent storylines. He's also got a lot of tension with HBK at the moment and is bitter enemies with Triple H. Bryan challenging The Undertaker to prove that he's got the ability to do what they couldn't is the perfect evolution of the streak storyline. All it really could use on top is some tension with CM Punk stemming out of Survivor Series. Bryan is also insanely over. You could argue he's over to the point where he doesn't need to end the streak, but then again, who actually needs to end the streak? Bryan standing across from The Dead Man at WrestleMania just lends itself to an absolutely rabid crowd of differing ideas when it comes to wrestling. Where would a smark crowd side? Where would marks side? Keep in mind that casual fans are willing to boo Shawn Michaels for standing in Bryan's way. The kid is over, he can wrestle, he can talk, he's been a champion before, he's had star-making moments -- this would just be that "Wow! I can't believe he did that!" moment that shuts up anybody who doesn't think he can be a franchise player for the WWE. No, maybe not as big as Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock or Hulk Hogan were -- but certainly an iconic Superstar within the borders of the WWE Universe -- perhaps on route to prove that he is the greatest ever.

This.

[Fignuts]

Ugh. Feel like arguing the streak is like arguing politics or religion. Nobody wins. Yet I always find myself throwing in my two cents even though I know better.

[DrA]

I don't think they should end it. You saw what happened to WCW after they ended the Goldberg streak.

[CSL]

#Nashvember

[Mr. Nerfect]

I had a dream that the streak ended when Undertaker went against a heel Big Show. They didn't actually have their match, but rather brawled out to a pier, off which Taker threw Big Show. Taker then looked directly at the camera and said "I think I need a break." Brock Lesnar then stood behind Undertaker and the two also fought. Taker threw Lesnar off the pier as well, and then the camera cut back to the crowd who chanted "Thank you, Taker." Joey Styles, who was sitting on commentary for some reason, said "We got the moment we wanted."

[Fignuts]

Fucking DrA

[Shadrick]

Originally Posted by Noid I had a dream that the streak ended when Undertaker went against a heel Big Show. They didn't actually have their match, but rather brawled out to a pier, off which Taker threw Big Show. Taker then looked directly at the camera and said "I think I need a break." Brock Lesnar then stood behind Undertaker and the two also fought. Taker threw Lesnar off the pier as well, and then the camera cut back to the crowd who chanted "Thank you, Taker." Joey Styles, who was sitting on commentary for some reason, said "We got the moment we wanted."

How come I wasn't in this dream?

[The One]

Do. Not. End. The. Streak.

I don't know how much Desty has to scream this message before you all seem to understand it; there is money to be made with the streak. I'm not talking about only DVD/Blu-Ray/Whatever's next sales either. I'm talking about every single god damn year from now until eternity they can hype each and every win in the streak. There are exhibits at Fan Access. Literally money from nothing in terms of people checking websites and giving hits. Every single wrestler until the end of time gets to bring up the Streak when listing off past wrestler's successes and how they will soon trump even that (or however their promo is crafted).

And to the people who say having a one to the right of the dash won't diminish it? Ask the 1985 Chicago Bears if that one single stupid loss annoys them, not because it kept them from being the greatest team assembled in history, but because it opened the door for the '72 Dolphins to wiggle into the debate. Let me make one thing perfectly clear, debates aren't good for selling things like "The best!" And in an industry that has been built from the ground up on hyperbole and definitive good vs evil. right vs wrong, up vs down…opening that can of worms is poison.

And by the way, this has nothing to do with Mark Calaway. He's just some guy who woke up one morning and realized he had never lost at Mania, and did that hand gesture after beating Flair at X-Eight, and it all built from there. Right guy, right place, and it works. So why introduce new Coke, when old Coke is selling so damn well.

And who the hell ever "got over" by ending streaks? Did Kevin Nash's popularity skyrocket after ending Goldberg's streak? No. If anything, he never reach that same level of popularity he had BEFORE the Starrcade match - and I realize the Finger Poke had a lot to do with that as well, but let's continue… Did whoever ended Samoa Joe's undefeated streak (Angle maybe?) get over because of that? No. As soon as a streak is over, the angle is dead. That's just the facts of life. In MMA Fedor Emelianenko went (basically) undefeated for years, and then was beaten by Fabrico Werdum. Is Fabricio a big freaking deal today? Sorta, kinda, but not because of the Fedor win. In fact, as soon as the streak was over people were falling over themselves to talk about how Fedor really wasn't all that to begin with - as though 10 years of wins was some crazy fluke. WCW World Heavyweight Champion vs WWE Champion - Chris Jericho unifies them, then no sooner does he drop the belts, and is forgotten to get booked the very next month's pay per view and spend years floating around in midcard hell.

When an angle is over, it's done. You can harp on it all you want, but it will never get you over. You know why? YOU DON'T GET POPULAR BE ENDING THINGS! You only get popular by creating them. This isn't like a Title Belt, where by doing the job opens the door for the next guy to make a run with the belt. There is no creation of star power or momentum in ending the streak. All you're really doing is closing the door on potential once a year matches with Taker that sell, sell, sell.

And if you think Undertaker couldn't come back after retirement? Hulk Hogan is trying to get a spot at Mania 30, and at 60 years of age, that old hack piece of shit would probably be on par with Cena for being able to sell just so people could see one last glimpse of the Hulkster doing his dumb shit in the ring at Mania one more time. Now tell me honestly, at WrestleMania 40, when Taker is 58, do you think people will buy him coming out of 5-10 years of retirement if he's got a 1 in the record book? OR, to put it in a way McMahon sees it (and rightfully so) - how much money would fans be willing to pay to see him make one last return to WrestleMania, to defend that streak one more time? Answer: a lot.

The streak makes money. The streak insures potential future revenue. Ending the streak won't get anyone over. And if you're already over like a cake at fat camp (Cena, Rock, etc.) you don't need one last win to take the next step…if anything, feeding the Streak one more legend makes it that much sweeter.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by The One Do. Not. End. The. Streak. I don't know how much Desty has to scream this message before you all seem to understand it;

You say this and then follow it up with talking about how the streak can make money... clearly not understanding what me and others have said repeatedly. The streak ending does not mean the streak never existed. No less money can be made from Taker losing his final WM match than if he had won it. I don't know how many times I have to scream this message before people seem to understand it.

"I'm talking about every single god damn year from now until eternity they can hype each and every win in the streak."

Still happens when Taker's done regardless of whether he loses his last match or not.

"There are exhibits at Fan Access."

There will still be regardless.

"Literally money from nothing in terms of people checking websites and giving hits."

If someone's going on a website to read up on the streak... they will still do so.

"Every single wrestler until the end of time gets to bring up the Streak when listing off past wrestler's successes and how they will soon trump even that (or however their promo is crafted)."

Still a seemingly unmatchable streak that people can use in this fashion even if he loses his last match.

And to the people who say having a one to the right of the dash won't diminish it? Ask the 1985 Chicago Bears if that one single stupid loss annoys them, not because it kept them from being the greatest team assembled in history, but because it opened the door for the '72 Dolphins to wiggle into the debate. Let me make one thing perfectly clear, debates aren't good for selling things like "The best!" And in an industry that has been built from the ground up on hyperbole and definitive good vs evil. right vs wrong, up vs down…opening that can of worms is poison.

It's a streak. Not comparable to a record in a football season. The streak will always be __-0... and then it will end. Whether it's because Taker just can't go anymore or he loses... it 100% has to end. And even if it ends right now, it's the most legendary, seemingly unreachable feet in wrestling history.

[The One]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan It's a streak. Not comparable to a record in a football season. The streak will always be __-0... and then it will end. Whether it's because Taker just can't go anymore or he loses... it 100% has to end. And even if it ends right now, it's the most legendary, seemingly unreachable feet in wrestling history.

Bill Goldberg.

Mike Tyson.

Fedor Emelianenko.

Unstoppable draws, huge marketing potential, one single loss and none of them ever had the same appeal again. Ever.

Now let's look at Rocky Marciano: fought in one of the weakest eras of boxing, his biggest opponent was a washed up cruiserweight, and yet every damn time someone brings up best ever someone has to say it's him because he's 49-0. Too dated? OK, ask Floyd Mayweather how valuable it is to have a goose egg in the loss column.

Still think a streak is still a streak after it's ended? Streaks are ONLY important if they are followed by a -0. If any number other than a zero is to the right of the streak, that streak doesn't mean squat. 22-0 is a chapter in the history of wrestling, 21-1 is a small blurb.

If it ends when he's hung up the boots forever, it's still marketable by the WWE. If it ends with his shoulders pinned to the mat, it's a promo on Raw and the occasional mention in conversation. I've laid out both historic context for my argument, and explained how future cash flows would be effected by the streak ending...and your rebuttal was to basically say: no that's not true because it goes against my position.

[#1-norm-fan]

You're mentioning guys being draws after the streak has ended when I've said countless times it should only end when he decides he's absolutely done. It would be silly to end it if he's good to go the next year.

This however...

Originally Posted by The One Streaks are ONLY important if they are followed by a -0. If any number other than a zero is to the right of the streak, that streak doesn't mean squat. 22-0 is a chapter in the history of wrestling, 21-1 is a small blurb.

Is just wrong. You realize there is a big difference between a streak and a record. If it ended at 22-1, the phrase "Let's look back at The Undertaker's incredible 22-0 WrestleMania streak" is still valid. Still unmatchable. Still ridiculously impressive. And the loss never has to enter into the equation when discussing the STREAK. Hence the reason we're discussing it as a STREAK and not a record. The streak is the impressive part. The streak still does and always will exist. Again, you don't forego the biggest moment in wrestling history because you're worried that people are gonna confuse the record with the streak and see it as flawed. The streak will never be flawed.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by The One I've laid out both historic context for my argument, and explained how future cash flows would be effected by the streak ending...and your rebuttal was to basically say: no that's not true because it goes against my position.

No. I've explained how your "historical context" is invalid and how no future cash flows would be hurt by the streak ending with a loss. Even how it would be beneficial money-wise to make such a huge moment that wrestling hasn't seen in decades. Just the fact that you claim I'm only saying "that's not true because it does against my position" is pretty ironic after that "I don't know how much Desty has to scream this message before you all seem to understand it" comment. Kinda makes it seem like you're the one plugging your ears as to not hear any opposing theories.

Seriously. Even if you think I'm wrong, how the hell do you get "That's not true because it goes against my position" unless you're completely ignoring what I'm saying?

[Theo Dious]

Everything The One said is true except for this:

Originally Posted by The One Ask the 1985 Chicago Bears if that one single stupid loss annoys them, not because it kept them from being the greatest team assembled in history

These guys and some of their friends would disagree with that.

Also LOOK AT THIS BELT



As far as the Undertaker goes, no, the streak should not end. If it goes XX-1, then it will be a thing that WAS great. If it remains XX-0, then it IS a great thing, for eternity. If it remains unbroken, then it lives forever. If it is broken, it dies that day.

[Theo Dious]

I've also been thinking about this. It's a clear violation of booking law and logic, but the streak is a unique situation. It would have to be done very carefully if at all and I'm not sure it could be done well at all. Caveats aside, suppose you have someone who, in the buildup to the match, repeatedly says "I know I'm not going to win." If we're going with Daniel Bryan, imagine him saying "The Undertaker's streak is immortal. I know I can't break it. But just by being part of the streak, that makes ME immortal. And I'll stand at the top of the mountain of the immortals by being the best of them all. EVERYONE will remember number 22!" Then you have the commentators saying "Is this a mind game? Why fight if you don't think you can win?" And have it piss off the Undertaker, and have Bryan say things like "After Wrestlemania, you'll be 22-0, and everyone will always remember that I was 22!" (Yes yes yes etc etc.)

To my mind there could be something to this. Would anyone really even remember Giant Gonzalez if he wasn't part of the streak? Fuck, Albert/Tensai is part of it and probably the only thing he'll ever be remembered for (well okay maybe next to originally being named for a genital body decoration.) Anyone who participates in the streak will be remembered as long as wrestling is remembered.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Some interesting discussion I missed here. The One makes the best case for it staying alive. I'm not completely sold, as I do think that The Undertaker losing at WrestleMania doesn't diminish what he has done. In fact, it could lead to a future angle where Taker feels he has to prove himself. Perhaps some cocky heel claims he can beat The Undertaker now the magic is gone and Taker returns at WrestleMania XXXI, not for a long match, but just to hit the Tombstone and add another victim to the list.

Hulk Hogan, The Rock, Shawn Michaels and Stone Cold Steve Austin have all lost at WrestleMania. It's not the only thing Taker has going for him. Fuck, Taker lost this year in that six-man against The Shield (a huge rub for them that wasn't sold as well as it should have been, which actually might be a case for not ending the streak, but I think the WWE would treat something they value that much a bit differently).

[Mr. Nerfect]

In a storyline sense, however, all "should it end" talk aside, I just read an interesting idea from someone on another site:

They speculated that come WrestleMania XXX time, The Authority might actually enlist The Undertaker to fight against someone trying to bring them down. This would fit the Daniel Bryan story pretty perfectly. Shawn Michaels, Triple H and Kane all grinning as they think The Undertaker, who is reluctant in ideals but has his streak to keep in mind, is going to completely obliterate Daniel Bryan.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by The Whole F'n Show I have been thinking about this ever since the "best for business" angle has formed. This would only work if they decide to end the streak and if they do, Bryan should be the man to do it. It would set Bryan's future pretty much in stone by "making" him an A+ competitor in the eyes of management by having him do something that no one including HHH or HBK have been able to do. I don't think it can or should happen this year, but if they want to hand Bryan the reigns and really shake things up, it would be the perfect angle. Thoughts?

No one should beat the streak.

If there is a guy who should end the streak (even though there shouldn't be), it's John Cena. As 'over' as Daniel Bryan is, Cena is by far and away the only guy worthy of doing it.

But again - no one should end the streak. Taker's career should end at Summerslam one year when Bray Wyatt 'buries' him after defeating him.

[sean the killer]

Tatanka 30-0 dvd still sale so even if the streak ends, they can stll get thousannds for Tatanka : Mr wrestlemania dvd

[NormanSmiley]

i'm still amazed the streak talk gets 5 threads and so many responses people thinking it will actually end.

[Innovator]

Originally Posted by He-Man No one should beat the streak. If there is a guy who should end the streak (even though there shouldn't be), it's John Cena. As 'over' as Daniel Bryan is, Cena is by far and away the only guy worthy of doing it. But again - no one should end the streak. Taker's career should end at Summerslam one year when Bray Wyatt 'buries' him after defeating him.

I think Cena is the one guy who the fans would believe would break the streak, but Cena gains nothing from it. The guy is in his late 30s and is one more injury away from a super reduced schedule. You'd have to have someone young with at least 10+ years ahead of them to build off of breaking it. Even then with their booking history, I don't know if they would maximize and keep that person hot.

[DrA]

John Cena is still in his mid-thirties, let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

I also question the notion that beating Undertaker would be such a great thing for an up and coming wrestler. If anything it might impede on his or her career, since they would probably just be typecast as "the person who beat the Undertaker" from there on in. Which would be fine for most wrestlers, but if you're trying to make the next Austin or Rock you probably wouldn't want one thing to overshadow everything else. People never remember who breaks a streak, they just remember that it got broken.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by DrA People never remember who breaks a streak, they just remember that it got broken.

I agree as far as up and comers. I don't buy that the streak should be used to try to put some young up and comer over. I don't think it's an instant catapult to being a megastar that people think it would be.

If it were a guy who's already a megastar like Cena though, people would always remember who broke it. The streak doesn't need to be used to put over anyone. It needs to be used to give wrestling, WWE and the fans the epic, unforgettable moment that has been building up over the past quarter of a decade.

[rockman725]

The streak doesn't need to be used to put over anyone. It needs to be used to give wrestling, WWE and the fans the epic, unforgettable moment that has been building up over the past quarter of a decade.

Agreed.

I'm going to add my opinion to this once & only once. The streak should not end. But, if it was going to end, the only guy that it should end with is Kane. Period.

The streak is a storyline within itself. It doesn't need to turn into a situation where The Undertaker MUST put someone over at Wrestlemania. Both Daniel Bryan & John Cena have built their characters & following another way and both of them are not at all the youngest of wrestlers either, so I don't want to hear that garbage.

The only storyline I want to see is Undertaker vs. Kane where they both "retire" together. Kane defeating The Undertaker will put the exclamation point on his career. It does not hurt the Undertaker's legacy one bit, but it boosts the Kane character to a very high level. Years from now, it would be great to say that when you think of Kane, you think of the epic moment of him defeating his "brother" and them exiting the ring with truly a feel-good moment with 2 guys who have a storyline connection that goes beyond good guy vs. bad guy. Personally, I'd rather remember that as a true career moment as opposed to Katie Vick or the electrocution of Shane McMahon's jewels.

It does not & should not have to be a situation where the veteran puts over the young guy. That's not what this storyline is about.

[XL]

So you'd have The Streak end, Taker, and Kane retire in the same moment. Seems like a waste.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

What if they didn't unify the titles at Mania and the match was still happening the way it is now with Batista as World Champion and Orton as WWE title? Daniel Bryan could have unified the belts at Mania.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Where is the RAW after Mania going to be I wonder. Will be amazing to watch the Punk, Lesnar and Heyman celebrating their victory.