Thats not the point. The point is he CAN be beaten because he has been shown to have flaws.
Flaws at events like No Mercy or Backlash prove that he can be beaten at WrestleMania?
And its SHOWCASE of the Immortals. Not event
I've been a wrestling fan all of my life. I apologize for just waking up and responding to your answers not completely alert.
Didn't realize that we were splitting hairs here.
And Miz can? Miz is the worst main event wrestler on the roster.
I thought I made it clear that I don't want the streak to end for the very reason that I don't think there is anyone young enough that is worthy of doing so.
And there certainly isn't any established wrestler like The Rock or HBK that need the accolade at this point.
The Miz couldn't beat a 52 year old stroked out Bret Hart.
And you fail to point out that the entire Hart Foundation interfered and helped Bret get him into the Sharpshooter.
Punk DOES have wins over Taker. Does Miz? No. Out of the two of them Punk already knows better about how to get the job done.
Punk also loss to Randy Orton at WrestleMania. Know who beat Randy Orton at WrestleMania? The Undertaker.
Splitting hairs again especially considering the fact that Punk doesn't know how to beat the Undertaker
at WrestleMania. If that were the case, then Triple H could have used his experience with the Undertaker to beat him n his two WrestleMania attempts.
The same is true for the Miz only WORSE because Punk has skills in the business Miz simply doesn't.
Like him or not, he gets a reaction. Vince doesn't care how good he is on the mic or how good in the ring, as long as he sells merchandise and keeps the crowd entertained, Vince and the WWE are happy.
Besides, you clearly dislike the guy and yet you still watch, so that means that he's doing his job. Part of being a heel is making the fans dislike you. You can certainly refute this and I know that you likely will rather easily, but I'll leave it up to you.
Its always going to be a milestone but not one people are going to be shelling out money on for 10 years. When every wrestling fan that WANTS a streak dvd or T shirt THEN what the hell do they do with it? Nothing thats what.
Or they can release a DVD featuring his last four WrestleMania matches. Another a couple years later with all of the matches. Another with some commentary from talent backstage. Make another one and put some special features on it including a rare match from early in his career.
People will keep shelling out their money for the same thing, as long as the WWE renames it and gives a little something extra with it.
If Taker helps makes the next big star like Hogan or Austin or even the next Cena or HHH or the next special attraction like himself or Andre thats something thats going to pay off for the next 10 years.
And if they miss and pick a guy that turns out to be a bust, then they just crapped on one of their greatest talents of all time.
Has the streak earned more money than Hogan or Austin? No. More than HHH? More than Andre? A performer can draw for years if they are good enough. The streak's drawing power will diminish much more quickly over time if Takers not defending it every year. In tact or not once its done its done.
WWE is going to have a hard time selling 19-1 t-shirts and DVD's. "Hey WWE fans, buy our DVD of this wrestler that accomplished one of the greatest streaks of all time, only to lose it late in his career pretty much nullifying any supernatural or amazing prowess that was once believed to be had throughout an amazing streak. Turns out that he was just a great wrestler and lucky as it easily could have ended before. It was nothing more than that."
Good luck selling that.
Taker deserves to keep the streak but not for financial reasons which have an EXTREMELY short shelf life in the grand scheme of things.
I never said that he did.
They never should and never will build a streak like Takers. Your point is already moot.
Wait, you can see into the future? Where did you get this inside information? Or did you just make it up based off of
your opinion of how the company that you don't control should be run? I'm guessing that it's the latter.
And? whats your point? Lesner got it too fast and hated the schedule. THATS why he didn't stick around. WWE didn't handle it as well as they should but that doesn't mean Lesnar didn't have the skill or aura to be WORTHY of it. He's the biggest draw in UFC which only helps prove my point that great talents CAN come alogn and be passed the torch. WWE just has to groom them properly and be sure they are committed.
Thats partly WWE's fault because they gave him to much to soon. That doesn't mean he wasn't incredibly talented.
Hated what schedule? That's the WWE life. The Miz is working just as hard of a schedule as John Cena in terms of taking bumps. They all work house shows and have to make appearances and autograph signings. No one in the WWE works harder than the other.
Lesnar walked all over some of the greats and then when he decided that the wrestling business was too tough for him, he was going to bail out. You're really going to blame WWE for how they handled him? Poor Lesnar, he got pushed better than any WWE wrestler ever had, promoted, and made the face of the WWE.
Darn that WWE for making that guy a superstar and putting ridiculous amounts of money in his pockets.
Which is GOOD. The business has to continue somehow. Somebody had to lay down for Austin and Rock.
Austin and The Rock aren't really products of who they were put over. Austin was made into a star for his gimmick of a reckless, beat up whoever he wants guy. That feud with Vince really propelled him too. Everyone loves seeing the boss and management get beat up. Not what made him, but it was a big reason.
As for The Rock, he isn't what he is today because of a win over Triple H. Heck, you do realize that he lost multiple times to Austin at WrestleMania before he finally beat him years later, right? The same year that he left until his return recently.
He made himself off of his mic skills and charisma. A lot of people think that you need to get put over in order to become a superstar. When in reality, charisma and and talent are all that you really need. Not to mention that The Rock was a great in-ring talent.
Couldn't the same be true of the Miz? and yet you say he might deserve the streak when he has FAR less to offer WWE than Lesnar ever did.
Neither guy deserves to end the streak. I'm merely picking between the two guys. And not to sound like a broken record, but I'll take the guy with less mileage and more upside IMO.
The key thing is to make sure the guy they are taking the risk on is committed to them.
How did that turn out for them with Lesnar? How would you decide if a guy was committed enough?
This is a good discussion and I don't mean this in a negative way. But could you give me an answer at least for this question? I truly am curious as to how you think they can tell when to lay all their eggs in a basket with one guy.
People have to put people over...or would you rather WWE use your excuse every time it come time for a veteran to put over a young talent? If the young talent is COMMITTED to WWE and WWE MAKES SURE your whole point is null and void.
Again, how do they make sure?
They didn't just give a regular push to Lesnar. They gave him a mega push like nothing ever seen before inside the WWE. It's not just my opinion. Ask Vince if they'll ever do that again. The answer will be "No." and it's because they can't risk feeding their most talented wrestlers to a guy and then having him walk up and leave.
Where does that leave them? They don't need to give a mega push like you seem to think. You don't need a guy to cleanly beat The Rock, Austin, Triple H and Undertaker to help make him a star. Their top stars now like Cena and Randy Orton will do just fine in terms of giving credible wins.
There isn't any need to go over the top with it like they did with Lesnar, especially after seeing how that turned out.
I'm pretty sure I tought of it when Rey Mysterio broke his nose and blood gushed out and WWE didn't try to hide it. Even WWE has pointed out IN STORYLINE that the mad has chinks in his armor and weaknesses. He hasn't been the pure undead character you are talking about since the mid 90's. The Taker we have today is an evolution from that.
I'm not sure how the WWE handles blood anymore. But what I do know is if they didn't turn it to black and white, it's because the amount of blood wasn't bad enough. It has nothing to do with storylines. If it did, they would still allow blood for matches like the one Christian and Alberto Del Rio had at Extreme Rules.
As for the Undertaker, he might not be the undead guy anymore. But he still has supernatural powers. At least that's how I view him. He may be a man, but there's still some unexplainable powers that he has. And I think that it stays within his character to show that even with those powers, he's still capable of becoming worn out if enough damage is taken.
Miz couldn't beat Cena cleanly. And that was one feud with Orton. Who is to say Punk doesn't beat him at a later date. Just because Pun couldn't beat Orton then you assume that he NEVER will.
The way that you assume that the Miz couldn't beat the Undertaker because he never has. Pot meet kettle?
Taker didn't beat Giant Gonzales clean with a pinfall so like I said ANYBODY has their weakness. Even him.
If Tker was an undefeatable supernatural force shouldn't he have pinned Gonzales right in the middle of that ring for the win? And last time I checked the undead can't be chloroformed to sleep.
I'm not saying that he isn't fallible. I'm simply stating that his gimmick would tell you that there's more to the fact that he's the ONLY WWE Wrestler undefeated at WrestleMania.(At least with a significant streak)
Its not supernatural its his will to win. Otherwise why did he STILL win at Wrestlemania when he was the American badass/Big evil. He wasn't a supernatural force then. He won because he wanted it more.
Or because his opponents were Albert and Big Show.
But to answer your question, there was still a supernatural theme with him. I'm not claiming that's the reason for the streak. In fact I would agree that it's more based off of a will to win.
Punk beat Jeff Hardy clean for one of his world titles. Jeff Hardy won the title at aroudn the right time in his career...not a decade after waiting.
I'm only talking about how he's obtained the Championship. Even so, beating Jeff Hardy cleanly isn't an amazing feat. Super Cena on the other hand....
Miz has beaten NO ONE for a world title clean without MITB or a gang attack...and yet you say you'd rather he get it? Miz beat Orton with MITB AFTER Orton took a beatdown from Nexus. To say that HE deserves the streak more than Punk is absurd.
Orton was worn out, but not recovering from getting knocked out from a Batista Bomb. Same goes for CM Punk beating Jeff Hardy. I guess you could call it a draw as one was attacked by Nexus and on his feet, the other suffered through a brutal ladder match and managed to get to his feet.
He's the future of the company because YOU say so? He sucks as a wrestler and as a talker he's pedestrian. If thats the future of the company the company is in deep.
Cena fans and a lot of the fanbase of the WWE now are children, and they react to the Miz. Meaning that he's a good villain and a good draw. It has nothing to do with my opinion, it's the truth. It doesn't matter if your opinion is that he isn't entertaining. As long as he helps sell a storyline by playing a villain, then he's doing his job.
He was an afterthought in Rock vs Cena...if the man is SO great why did he get lost in the shuffle? A true STAR of the future would have shone bright enough not to get TOTALLY overstaged by Rock and Cena the way Miz didtn.
Uh I would agree with you but.... Pro wrestling isn't completely real.... Some aspects are fake. They have writers. And if these writers want to overshadow you by building up a WrestleMania match that will happen a year later, then there isn't anything that you can do about it.
If it were real, then I could understand. He should have grabbed the attention and the spotlight. But in reality, there isn't a thing the man can do if management doesn't know how to do their jobs correctly.
he had his tail to far up his legs to confront Rock about it. WWE might put him at the forefront but he is no great talent in the ring and they know it.
If he has no talent then why are they having him feud with their top dog in John Cena?
Even a DQ looks tougher because at least thats done FIGHTING. And after that Miz needed Rock to save him and GIVE him the WWE title. Pathetic. That was the ONLY way Miz would look believable winning and they knew it.
Getting Disqualified looks tougher than actually getting counted out due to fighting because getting Disqualified means that you likely took a cheap shot at someone? I don't get the logic.
And the WWE management don't believe anyone is good enough to cleanly beat Cena at WrestleMania at this point. Not just the Miz.
If Cena can beat SHAWN MICHAELS at Wrestemania I'm pretty sure he can beat the Miz. By your own logic theres no way Miz could beat Cena CLEAN with a pinfall because Michaels IS Mr Wrestlemania.
Yet we've never seen Cena beat the Miz cleanly(Or dirty for that matter)at WrestleMania. Same with Shawn Michaels. Who's to say that the Miz couldn't beat HBK at Mania anyway? Match has never happened.
Like Sage said Punk HAS bean Cena clean...no count out. So by your own logic if Punk is so weak that means Miz is even weaker. Cena would have supermaned a win right over Miz.
I never said that Punk was weak. All I'm saying is that the Miz in my opinion has more potential with a win over Taker at Mania. And Cena didn't Superman a win at WrestleMania, he ended up hurting himself and helping the Miz retain the title.
Although I will help you out with your own argument, because for what it's worth, CM Punk has cleanly pinned the Miz twice. I'm surprised you didn't bring that up. But regardless it was early on in both of their WWE careers and it still has nothing to do with their potential after ending the streak.
Miz beat Orton with MITB AFTER Orton had already been beaten down by Nexus. Thats WORSE than almost any other MITB cash in in WWE history.
Almost. But not as bad as beating Edge who had know idea where he was, whereas with Orton his leg was injured and he was weakened.
Miz had TROUBLE beating Orton AFTER Orton had gotten his *** kicked by a gang of 5 or 6 guys.
I disagree. He wisely picked him apart before finishing him off.
You're right Miz needed MORE help to get his WWE title of Orton.
Again, CM Punk needed more help with Batista. Second time with Jeff Hardy was equal.
Miz had trouble beating a sixty friggin two year old Jerry Lawler..and that was his BIGGEST feud before he faced Cena.
What does that say about the rest of the WWE/CM Punk that the World Champion's biggest threat was 62 year old Lawler?
How the hell does he have any kind of credibility? Miz lost the US title to a 52 year old stroke victim. How does he have any credibility?
Again, you don't remember this match too well as you forget that, there were two guys one of which weighs about 300 pounds that decided to involve themselves in the match to basically hand the win to Bret.
YOu can't have it both ways. If Punk isn't good enough to take the streak then how can Miz rise to occasion to beat The Phenom CLEAN at Wrestlemania? Its absurd.
Neither is or should. Between the two, I'll take the guy that managed to hold on to the World Championship for about 5 months on the brand with Cena. CM Punk isn't devastating in the ring, he's good playing mind games. I could see the Miz finding a way to pick up a clean win more than CM Punk.
Is Miz gonna throw the mic at Taker and knock him out to get the win?
That would be considered a dirty win.
Flair HHH and Michaels are considered too be THREE of the greatest WRESTLERS ever. Miz is a TALKER.. His wrestling ability is LACKING at best. He's not a technical master adn he's not a powerhouse and he damn sure isn't a badass brawler. Punk IS a superior wrestler. Using your own logic Miz defeating Taker is absurd and HOW it would be done makes no sense. Its totally unbelievable that all those ring generals couldn't do it but The Miz, the guy who is one of the WEAKEST in ring performers in WWE today, could.
Miz slowly picked apart Randy Orton en route to his first title run. I could see him picking apart a beaten down Taker on his last leg slowly before finishing him off. At least, I can see it better than CM Punk.
Thanks. I'm addicted to this season. Can't wait for tomorrow's episode.
." 
