10 Biggest Pro Wrestling Debates

6. If Not, Who Should The Undertaker Have Lost To?

This is always part two of the previous debate. When talking about The Undertaker's WrestleMania streak, you have to talk about people he could/should lose to, no matter which side you're on. As mentioned, the "logical" thinking is that his loss should have been to someone that could have used that moment to propel them to the next level in the business. Established main eventers need not apply. If you look at the actual matches he's had during "The Streak", you could argue that nobody fits the "up-and-comers" description unless you go all the way back to WrestleMania 21, when Taker faced Randy Orton, and even then, Orton was already a one-time World Champion. Mark Henry at WrestleMania 22 was not yet a main event worker, but back in 2006, nobody outside of the Henry family wanted him to be. Anytime before that, and you're looking at a time when "The Streak" didn't mean anywhere near as much, and it wasn't presented like it on television. That means you'd have to look at "what if" scenarios. In recent years, the first person that jumps to mind is Bray Wyatt, who could have had some phenomenal promos against Taker, and who, by all accounts, should have become one of the top heels in all of wrestling by now. A victory over Taker at Mania could have done that for him. If Roman Reigns had turned heel out of The Shield's split, he would definitely belong in this discussion, although it could be said that he might belong, anyway. Some would say Daniel Bryan belongs here, especially if it would have been in place of him winning the WWE World Title at WrestleMania 30, but again, by that point, he had already been a World/WWE Champion three times, and was already the biggest face in wrestling. There really are a lot of options for who could defeat Taker. Anybody but John Cena.