Paid Members air_raid Posted August 3, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 3, 2018 @IANdrewDiceClay Didn't Taker confirm that at some point or at least some office people have been recorded on screen or on podcast saying this was true? Honestly after Kurts 2005 it wouldn't have bothered me, he was unbelievable. In an era of two titles in 2005-2006 Kurt and Shawn should have both had a decent reign. Shawn and Angle were two of the best four on the planet in 2005 for me, with AJ and Kobashi. And 2005 ruled, worldwide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted August 3, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, air_raid said: In an era of two titles in 2005-2006 Kurt and Shawn should have both had a decent reign. It's madness that the argument was "Shawn isnt full time, you need the belt on the road." You're lucky to see it on TV now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 He didn't want it anyway, did he? He didn't enjoy the pressure of being the champ. He couldn't hack that life once he was off the pills. And it wouldn't have done much for Shawn (or Kurt) at that point, certainly not to where it'd outweigh the benefits of making new stars by presenting Cena and Batista as the top guys on each show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted August 3, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 3, 2018 As guys that get A run before that pair knocked them off then. Instead of the water treading that went on, not including Dave getting injured and Kurt getting an uninspired Henry-heavy run curtailed by Orton losing the belt to Rey on his behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 It's like the "Roddy Piper/Mr Perfect/Jake Roberts should have been world champion" thing. There was never really a time in that era where Angle or Michaels would've been the best bet for a real run with the belt, even if their respective personal issues meant that they were up for long title runs. Batista taking the title from Triple H was one of the best stories they've ever told, Batista taking it from Shawn Michaels wouldn't have had the same momentum. Cena and Angle could've potentially been better than Cena vs JBL (although I never rated any Cena/Angle matches as highly as the Cena/JBL one at Judgment Day), but Bradshaw as the mega-heel was a stronger launchpad for Cena than the duelling chants stuff with Angle that came along six months later anyway. The only time I could see Michaels viably having a decent go with the belt was from his late 2007 return to around mid-2008, retaining it against Flair at Mania and then losing it to Jericho in their feud, I suppose. Angle, probably just that little run he did have before they sacked him. He'd have been as well to have retained at WrestleMania that year though, given how shit the Rey Mysterio reign was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted August 3, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 3, 2018 1 minute ago, King Pitcos said: There was never really a time in that era where Angle or Michaels would've been the best bet for a real run with the belt Either would have been preferable to King Booker in 2006 and HBK ahead of fucking Khali was a no brainer a year later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator Onyx2 Posted August 4, 2018 Awards Moderator Share Posted August 4, 2018 I was absolutely certain Randy was beating Taker that year. Setting up the Legend Killer gimmick was a perfect cue to finish Undertaker. I first recall the Streak coming up at 18 vs Flair, where Undertaker held ten fingers up after winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon-Carr_92 Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 I'm trying to think what was the first proper mention he was undefeated. They said 8-0 at WrestleMania X-Seven before beating Triple H the first time. Any earlier than that? XXI was the first time it was used as a selling point because they only mentioned it in passing prior. But X8 was definitely the first people took notice. Remember when Lesnar beat him and there was all that stuff going round it was only because he was going into business for himself? He was the guy for job. He's just gotten hideously overexposed since. We did get this cracker out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator HarmonicGenerator Posted August 4, 2018 Awards Moderator Share Posted August 4, 2018 The first time I remember them consciously making a thing of the Streak was Taker holding all ten fingers up after beating Flair. I’m sure they mentioned it as part of the X-Seven match but more as a “he can’t beat him in his yard, because this, this, this, oh and he’s unbeaten at WrestleMania”. It was a big enough thing to notice but not so unique that you didn’t also wonder who else was unbeaten at Mania. Rob Van Dam didn’t lose at WM for ages if I remember correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members TheBurningRed Posted August 4, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 4, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, HarmonicGenerator said: It was a big enough thing to notice but not so unique that you didn’t also wonder who else was unbeaten at Mania. Rob Van Dam didn’t lose at WM for ages if I remember correctly. Edge too. He won his first 5 Wrestlemania matches before losing a MITB match and then losing his first singles match to Undertaker. I’m sure it was mentioned at the time of their match that they was both unbeaten in singles matches at Mania Edited August 4, 2018 by TheBurningRed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyattSheepMask Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 They definitely mentioned about Taker being undefeated, I think McMahon even says “The Undertaker, a man whose never lost at Wrestlemania” during his match with King Kong Bundy at WM11, but that will have only been his 4th Wrestlemania and more of a coincidence than anything else. It certainly became ‘the streak’ when it got to 10-0 against Flair at WM18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted August 4, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 4, 2018 They mentioned it. "He's never lost at WrestleMania" got mentioned in passing. The Orton match was the first time it was properly part of the story. Just like that, it was the story forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted August 4, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 4, 2018 Was Taker's 10 fingers at Mania X-7 not part of the "Decade Of Destruction" thing that'd been going on? 2001 would have been his 10th year in the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator HarmonicGenerator Posted August 4, 2018 Awards Moderator Share Posted August 4, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, jazzygeofferz said: Was Taker's 10 fingers at Mania X-7 not part of the "Decade Of Destruction" thing that'd been going on? 2001 would have been his 10th year in the company. The 10 fingers was the following year in 2002. He may have been pointing two toes off camera for 12 years, he may have been mocking the 4 Horsemen and going 'I have more fingers than you lot and I just beat up two of you' and getting the hand signal a bit wrong. But probably it's the 10-0 thing. Edited August 4, 2018 by HarmonicGenerator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members mim731 Posted August 4, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 4, 2018 He was just signalling the star rating he expected for the match from Meltzer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts