The Undertaker's streak was worse than you think for WWE's storytelling

I keep hearing people say Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak was the greatest thing ever but it actually hurt the product for years. Take the 2009 match with Shawn Michaels - everyone knew Shawn had zero shot of winning so the drama was fake, you know? Then in 2014 when Brock Lesnar finally broke it, it only worked because they spent 20 years making the finish predictable. The streak turned every Mania main event into a guessing game about who was losing next instead of building real tension. Has anyone else noticed how fans ignore that the streak made most of those matches less exciting, not more?

2 comments

Log in to join the discussion

Log In

2 Comments

jenny_jackson3mo ago

Oh man, totally agree! All those years of knowing the outcome made the matches feel like exhibitions instead of real fights. The streak was more about protecting a gimmick than telling a good story.

10

quinn5823mo ago

Ugh, come on! I know the streak got a bit predictable but calling it "protecting a gimmick" feels harsh. Some of those matches were still really fun, like the one with Big Show and the punch out sequence or the early ones with Kane. I dunno, I think people just love to overanalyze everything these days. Wrestling is supposed to be goofy and over the top, not this deep character study. Sometimes a big winning streak is just a cool story in itself.

1