And if somebody less established had beaten him, people would be complaining that it was not believable after he had ploughed through relative deities like Shawn Michaels and Triple H year after year. Undertaker losing was a no-win situation in that there would be no scenario that everyone would accept. All they could do when Undertaker said "I can't do this any more" is use the impact of "I ended the streak" to give someone a massive boost. That's Lesnar now, and it enhances his already lofty status for when he says "I now demand that title shot I've been talking about." Which I expect they might put off until SummerSlam. People "up and coming" don't get to beat the Undertaker at WrestleMania when nobody else had. It simply wouldn't be believable. The Undertaker wants to call time on his career, so he went out on his back like you should, against a) a legitimate main event player, b) his friend and someone he respects. No complaints whatsoever here. Somebody "not needing" any win is one of the biggest myths in professional wrestling fandom. It's about telling stories. Did Daniel Bryan need to win the World title when he's already wildly popular and sells t-shirts? No. But he did, because it made for a good story. The Undertaker's story was that for 23 years he was invincible at WrestleMania, but time caught up to him in the end and a juggernaut ran him down. Did Lesnar "need" to beat him? No. But Lesnar is now an even bigger deal than he was 48 hours ago, and that means something when they next try and sell a PPV with him on top.
