It's time to quit kidding ourselves. [Archive]

Slyfox696

08-24-2008, 08:22 AM

klunderbunker

08-24-2008, 08:24 AM

To me, it's because he's a part of the past. He's no better in the ring than Hogan, and they both get massive pops, but Taker has never really left.

Rusty

08-24-2008, 08:32 AM

He can put on a decent match still in my opinion. He might not be as good as HBK right now, but I would rather sit through a Taker match than an Triple H match anyday.

Slyfox696

08-24-2008, 08:36 AM

He can put on a decent match still in my opinion. He might not be as good as HBK right now, but I would rather sit through a Taker match than an Triple H match anyday.So would I, but Triple H sucks too.

Basically, I'm saying the Undertaker sucks in the ring, and I'm showing 15+ years of proof.

Rusty

08-24-2008, 08:38 AM

He has proven he can still put on a decent match with the best of them. His matches with Batista and Edge were quite good in my opinion. I also liked the Festus vs Undertaker match from a few months ago. Undertaker sucks when hes wrestling an opponent bigger than him though. I must admit that.

Frank the Frowner

08-24-2008, 08:41 AM

The only time I've ever found The Undertaker interesting was while he was using the biker gimmick. I hate the zombie gimmick and always have. To me, I don't know why, but his matches using that gimmick were just a lot more watchable and when he was a heel in the later stages of that gimmick, he was very effective in the role.

I just wish he would retire at this point. The only match I've enjoyed of his in years was the Hell in a Cell vs. Edge, but that was a glorified spotfest more than anything else.

And that's another thing. I hate the supernatural stuff. I hate how he somehow had the power to make fire come from the hole in the ring he chokeslammed Edge through. I hate how they somehow had him go into a casket and then had him rise from the Titantron seconds later back in 94. That just scratches the surface.

I also hate his 5 minute entrance and how he never puts anyone over. People say shit about HHH and how he doesn't put people over. The problem with that is that HHH DOES put people over, and Taker RARELY does. I hate how his matches are slow and plodding. I hate that he has so much backstage clout that they created a title just for his anorexic girlfriend. I also hate the fact that he won't step aside and retire, and how he won't lose at Wrestlemania.

Plain and simple, he sucks, and now that he's back on Smackdown, I won't be watching as much as I have in the last couple of months.

Y 2 Jake

08-24-2008, 08:54 AM

Recently he's been great. But I'll never forgive him for the the years 1990-1996 & 1998-2005.

Green Ranger

08-24-2008, 10:44 AM

I have to agree. No doubt about it, Undertaker is overrated. He's up there with Flair, HBK, HHH and Angle in the most overrated category. Undertaker, along with HBK and Angle are easily in my top 10 all-time favourites list, but that doesn't make me blind to how overrated they are. People need to learn how to differentiate between liking a particular wrestler, and thinking they're the greatest of all-time.

The thing is, Taker's unique gimmick has attracted so many blind fanboys over the years. All of his fans try to justify how great he is, when in reality it's his gimmick that makes him seem great, not really his actual talent. He was gifted one of the best gimmicks ever, and it's because of that gimmick why he's so popular. Obviously it takes a lot talent to make the gimmick work for 20 years, but he still doesn't deserve all the praise he gets. In my opinion he is great, just not as great as how he's made out to be.

Uncle Sam

08-24-2008, 03:37 PM

The Undertaker's most likely had more bad matches than good ones. At the very least, he's terribly inconsistent. Personally, I'll say I do think all Undertaker/Edge matches have been overrated, with the exception of the Hell in a Cell. I really did think that was spank your aunt fantastic.

His gimmick's also ridiculous. I guess I fall on both sides when it comes to it, actually. The old school cloak at WrestleMania I loved. "I've come for your soul!", that's facepalm territory. Why do I like him? I guess it's because I can ignore the bad. I'd go with Jake in that between those dates (roughly) I'm not a big 'Taker fan at all.

RBH

08-24-2008, 03:46 PM

Well The Undertaker is not gonna do a moonsault or a sharpshooter but thats not why people like him. Slyfox, I can understand you wanting to play devil's advocate (yet again)....some people like different wrestkers with different characters and different moves. I could care less if Undertaker could do all his moves perfectly. He is entertaining. I don't think I have ever been bored with an Undertaker match (Great Khali matches being the exception)...I think it is mostly his gimmick that has caused people to like him or that or his veteran status. Plus, he has stayed with the company for 18 years. Can you imagine being with one company for that long and never leaving? it's almost unheard of in any kind of job.

Uncle Sam

08-24-2008, 03:53 PM

I don't think I've ever been bored at a Kurt Angle match. I honestly don't. But yeah, Undertaker, been bored at a ton of his matches. Did anyone actually watch his Mark Henry match? Cry, that's what I wanted to do.

RBH

08-24-2008, 03:55 PM

I forgot about that match,yeah u got a point Sam. But I dunno....at least during his matches, I do not go outside to barbeque like I did during 2 of the matches at Summerslam that I will not mention.

PysChoViSiOuS

08-24-2008, 04:10 PM

I may get flamed for this but in all honesty Hulk Hogan is considered one of the greatest and in all honesty in a wrestling stand point he really really sucks. I mean punch, punch, kick, kick body slam, big boot then leg drop, thats basically all he did but was way over. The Undertaker is that same sorta thing just not at that level, I mean Hogan is at a level of his own.

Mighty NorCal

08-24-2008, 04:14 PM

:disappointed:

yet another. gee man, your the first one to come out and say something like THAT

ianfromlondon

08-24-2008, 04:44 PM

you know i dont think the undertaker sucks,he has been in wwe for so long and some of his matches may suck BUT thats cause he sometimes gets put in matches with losers who cant wrestle,i dont agree with the list of matches from wm and ss being mostly sucky,thats not true,i think this has just been made up from some jelous dumb wrestling fan

i must add hbk has gone down hill a lot,he used to be so fun to watch but all his offence really now is chopping,,and it makes me mad cause he was so much better back in the day before he became just another rick flaire,,chop chop chop,,come on hbk get some wrestling moves back like u used to

takerfan120

08-24-2008, 04:57 PM

I guess that it is in the eye of the beholder. Taker will never be the most technical of wrestlers, but he is entertaining. I disagree with you on the list of matches that you say suck, but again it is in the eye of the beholder.

I agree that their is wrestlers that are more technically sound, but in my opinion there are very few wrestlers that can tell a story in the ring like the undertaker. He is in my opinion on of the best when it comes to telling a story with his actions.

and may i ask who qualifies as a good wrestler for you? this is just so I can see what it is you look for in a good wrestler.

:undertaker2:

Esteban Ochocinco

08-24-2008, 06:43 PM

Now this, this is the blind Slyfox said it so everyone agrees that people get pissed off about. The Undertaker doesn't suck, because if he sucked, he wouldn't be around for 18 years, plain and simple. He's over with the crowd young and old, and people pop like hell for him. He puts on great matches when he's in the ring with people that can go. It's not his fault that Vince decides to have the Undertaker squash guys taht are incapable of lacing their own boots, let alone wrestle a match.

jmt225

08-24-2008, 06:57 PM

The Undertaker is one of the best "big man" wrestlers in North Ameircan history. As a kid growing up, I absolutely hated the guy. From feuding to Hogan, throughout all his babyface runs. It was when he beat Diesel (keep in mind, who I was a HUGE mark for back in the day) at Wrestlemania 12 where I wish he would just die for real.

However, it was his match against Kurt Angle on an edition of Smackdown sometime in 2002 or 2003 where I became a fan. That's one of my favorite matches of all time (their match at No Way Out a couple of years later was just as good as well), and ever since then I've gotten the DVD's and what not, and realized what most people already have: He IS a great wrestler who does deserve respect.

Now, he's no where near being the greatest wrestler of all time like he was voted on this forum, but Sly... he's not half as bad as your claiming.

With the possible exception of Shawn Michaels, I don't think I've ever seen anyone get as much undeserved praise as the Undertaker does. Everyone wants to say he's some kind of great wrestler, but what's so great about him?

I agree that if someone is calling 'Taker the greatest ever, then that's definitely some "undeserved praise". However, if someone wants to call him a great wrestler or anything like that, 'Taker deserves it. He sure as hell doesn't suck. Dude has kept a job with WWE for over 15 years, and you haven't heard any politicking rumors about him. He's been in the company all this time not because he's a kiss ass, but because he's been able to stay over all these years and he knows how to put people over.

So, that alone is why he should be considered great in people's books. 'Net fans are obviously going to love him because he doesn't do the 'kiss ass' deal and he's had some great matches the last few years. And then you have casual fans, who love him because he's been around FOREVER it seems, and he has such a streak at Wrestlemania that it's hard to not believe he's as great as WWE says he is.

Has ANYONE had more matches bomb than the Undertaker? Has anyone ever had more terrible matches at major PPVs than the Undertaker?

Has anybody had as many shitty opponents as 'Taker has had over the years?

Let's just go through them, shall we? I'll just do WM and SuSl for time:

These aren't spoilers, so I'm going to get rid of that part in your post.

7 - Jimmy Snuka - sucked

'Taker was still green at this point, Snuka was well past his prime and this was basically just a squash match to begin with.

8 - Jake Roberts - sucked

Another squash match, basically. Jake was headed out the door, so of course Vince didn't want him looking strong.

9 - Giant Gonzalez - sucked

Please name person who ever could carry this piece of shit to a decent match?

11 - King Kong Bundy - sucked

Another guy way pasted his prime. Up to this point, 'Taker has gotten nothing but old geezers as his opponents, and you blame HIM for these matches being bad? Come on now..

12 - Diesel - sucked

Like I said at the beginning of my post, I hated the outcome of the match, but for two big men back in that time, it was a fairly decent match. I didn't think it "sucked" by any means.

13 - Sycho Sid - sucked

Another shitty opponent. But the match is still probably Sid's best outside his matches with Bret and HBK.

14 - Kane - sucked

Crowd was really into it, so it couldn't have sucked that bad.

15 - Big Bossman - sucked

Another, well past his prime, shitty opponent. Can't blame 'Taker for not being able to carry these motherfuckers.

17 - Triple H - passable, but still sucked

This is one of my favorite HHH matches, and there aren't a lot of those. It could've been better, but it did its purpose and left the crowd wanting more for the main event.

18 - Ric Flair - decent

A lot better then decent. By far Flair's best match since the early nineties, in my opinion.

19 - Big Show & A-Train - sucked

The booking sucked here.

20 - Kane - sucked

I wasn't a fan of this match either, but 'Taker was out for months and had to face someone who I find to be terrible. So yeah, I can understand why this match didn't turn out to be good.

21 - Orton - solid

Great match. Seriously. The only thing worth a damn from Wrestlemania 21 outside of HBK/Angle.

22 - Mark Henry - sucked

A lot better then what I was expecting, that's for sure. It wasn't a great match, but it sure as hell soared through my expectations.

23 - Batista - overrated, but solid

How is this overrated? It really is a great match. The excitement, false finishes... what more did you want out of this with the time and spot on the card they were given?

Besides, you can't name many Batista matches just as good. His matches against HHH at Backlash and Vengeance were okay (I hated their 'Mania match), and his match against Cena at this past Summerslam was good. However, none of those come close to Batista's shit against 'Taker. 'Taker brought the best we'll most likely ever see from Batista.

24 - Edge - overrated, but solid

Not overrated by any means. I didn't watch Wrestlemania 24 until the DVD came out, and when I was watching this match, I knew Undertaker won. However, there was at one point in the match where I'm thinking, "Maybe Edge does get a pinfall and the match gets restarted or something." Now that's how you pull off a false fucking finish. And there were a couple of good one's in that match. Can't imagine if you're a die-hard 'Taker fan and watching that match as it happens. It had to be exciting as hell.

[spoiler=Summerslam]

1992 - Kamala - sucked

Another shitty opponent.

1993 - Giant Gonzalez - sucked

Looked at what I said earlier.

1994 - Underfaker - sucked

Another shitty opponent.

1995 - Kama - sucked

Another shitty opponent who no one could carry to a good match.

1996 - Mankind - sucked

No, this was a fun match. These two did quite well considering what they were working with.

1997 - Bret Hart - solid

Way better then "solid". Hart and 'Taker had great chemistry.

1998 - Steve Austin - passable

Not a huge fan of this match either, but it's okay.

1999 - w/ Big Show vs. X-Pac & Kane - sucked

I didn't see this one.

2000 - Kane - sucked

Wasn't this like two minutes long or some shit?

2008 - Edge - Seriously overrated, passable

What's overrated about it? I thought it was the best HITC match we've seen in quite some time. The shit afterwards was lame as hell, but other then that, I thought it was a great match and so do most people.

So yeah, looking at those lists, we can assure ourselves that the Undertaker now sucks.

The list doesn't prove shit except that most of his big match situations were against beyond crappy opponents. Then, the one's that were good, you just want to call "passable" or "solid", when most wrestling fans, not just on the net, completely disagree.

Skullz Crack'Em

08-24-2008, 07:40 PM

Yep, Taker definitely gets alot of "blind love" from the fans, he is one of those wrestlers that can't do no wrong in many fans' eyes, even though he does. He has way more crappy matches than good ones, but people overlook that until he finally gets a good one in and they praise the shit out of him for it. Also, he is even worse than Trips when it comes to burying people, but his fans don't mind that, it only bothers them when HHH does it.

Is Taker overrated? Yes.

Does he suck? No. The man has earned his place in history and I am not going to take that from him, I was never a big fan of Taker, but that doesn't mean he sucks, he probably has the largest fanbase in the WWE today out of all the current roster, so he is far from it.

Esteban Ochocinco

08-24-2008, 08:25 PM

Slyfox696

08-24-2008, 08:27 PM

The Undertaker...et al
Basically, your whole post was to make excuses for all the terrible matches Undertaker has had.

Esteban Ochocinco

08-24-2008, 08:30 PM

justinsayne

08-24-2008, 08:55 PM

Undertaker is as about as overrated as any wrestler that has ever stepped into the ring and enjoyed major success throughout the majority of his career

If Taker sucks so much then why is he loved by so many people?

Esteban Ochocinco

08-24-2008, 09:01 PM

Because justin that's what happens when you suck, you stay over longer then anyone in the history of the Vince McMahon owned WWE. Sucking must truly suck.

Matt Phoenix

08-24-2008, 09:42 PM

The Undertaker sucks. Really, he does.
No he doesnt

With the possible exception of Shawn Michaels, I don't think I've ever seen anyone get as much undeserved praise as the Undertaker does. Everyone wants to say he's some kind of great wrestler, but what's so great about him? Has ANYONE had more matches bomb than the Undertaker? Has anyone ever had more terrible matches at major PPVs than the Undertaker?

Ok, well how many people have had as many PPV matches as Taker? Because if you are talking about terrible matches counting as each one rather than a percentage of total matches then well Taker has had more opportunitities to have, in your words, terrible matches. If we are talking about percentage though as we should be, well there are dozens of people who have sucked worse at WM, Goldberg, 1 appearance, 1 suckage = 100% suckage. Even according to your list the UT has had 4 good appearances or 12 sucky matches= 12/16 = 75% suckage, which is less than Goldberg and you get the idea.

Let's just go through them, shall we? I'll just do WM and SuSl for time:
7 - Jimmy Snuka - sucked
8 - Jake Roberts - sucked
9 - Giant Gonzalez - sucked
11 - King Kong Bundy - sucked
12 - Diesel - sucked
13 - Sycho Sid - sucked
14 - Kane - sucked
15 - Big Bossman - sucked
17 - Triple H - passable, but still sucked
18 - Ric Flair - decent
19 - Big Show & A-Train - sucked
20 - Kane - sucked
21 - Orton - solid
22 - Mark Henry - sucked
23 - Batista - overrated, but solid
24 - Edge - overrated, but solid

Not aware of many, but to say WM14 v Kane sucked is really narrow minded. It was, to my knowledge, the culmination of a several month fued, in which The Undertaker had refused to fight Kane and this was the place where it happened. And I am sure it was about other stuff but I cant recall what.
Anyway personally I liked it.

And now, for Summerslam (I can only go to about 2000, as I haven't seen some of the ones after)
1992 - Kamala - sucked
1993 - Giant Gonzalez - sucked
1994 - Underfaker - sucked
1995 - Kama - sucked
1996 - Mankind - sucked
1997 - Bret Hart - solid
1998 - Steve Austin - passable
1999 - w/ Big Show vs. X-Pac & Kane - sucked
2000 - Kane - sucked
*haven't seen yet*
2006/2007 - No match
2008 - Edge - Seriously overrated, passable

Ok, again I havent seen many of these, but where are the following people - Diesel, Psycho Sid, Jake Roberts, Kamala, Giant Gonzalez, Underfaker, Kama? I mean, you claim that they had a crap match with The Undertaker and that the Undertaker is crap, but where are they? Either, TNA, National Wrestling Alliance, Rehab, A guest at a wedding, Dont know and managing strip clubs respectively.
Ok, so some had success following their apparent sucky matches, but none have been able to duplicate the success that the Undertaker has experienced and certainly have not been in the business for as long as him.

So yeah, looking at those lists, we can assure ourselves that the Undertaker now sucks.

No actually, what we can learn from your lists and self scoring system is that it does not matter if you think The Undertaker has sucky matches, what matters is that he is a great wrestler who does not allow his alledged sucky matches to ruin his momentum or credibility, and therefore is one of the greats in the squared circle and has indeed stood the test of time.

So, why does everyone suck
Because the Undertaker is better than most

his penis so hard?
And this is why I hate quote debates, is that when you breakdown quotes into small chunks they tend to lose their original meaning.

Ok, the Undertaker may not have had technical classics but he is still entertaining, and when you tend to focus on only two collections of PPV's you just forget the others.

What about Royal Rumble that year against Yokozuna in a casket match?
Or No Way Out against Kurt Angle in a match many people liked?
Or even the series of matches against Brock Lesnar (Who The Undertaker help put over therefore adding another person to the list of people he put over)?

Slyfox696

08-24-2008, 10:20 PM

Because they are valid excuses and no one has gotten good matches out of most of those giant turds, or the ones that had good matches at one point in there career were so far out of their primes when they faced the Undertaker that's is unfair to blame the Undertaker for their mishaps?
You could say the same thing about a lot of workers. Let's just take Cena, for example.

He's had to work with Lashley, Khali, RVD, and Sabu in the last two years, and got entertaining matches out of all of them. Where are those guys these days, even 2 years later?

A good worker makes talent around him better. A good worker will play to his opponents strengths and hide his weaknesses. It'd be one thing if those matches were passable, but those matches are matches you just can't watch more than once without wanting to inject cyanide into your veins.
Undertaker is as about as overrated as any wrestler that has ever stepped into the ring and enjoyed major success throughout the majority of his career

If Taker sucks so much then why is he loved by so many people?Great character. Cool and fancy storylines and introductions.

Piss bucket ring worker.

Papa Shango

08-24-2008, 10:23 PM

Great character. Cool and fancy storylines and introductions.

Piss bucket ring worker.

Same could be said for Hulk Hogan.

jmt225

08-24-2008, 10:32 PM

You could say the same thing about a lot of workers. Let's just take Cena, for example.

He's had to work with Lashley, Khali, RVD, and Sabu in the last two years, and got entertaining matches out of all of them. Where are those guys these days, even 2 years later?

A good worker makes talent around him better. A good worker will play to his opponents strengths and hide his weaknesses. It'd be one thing if those matches were passable, but those matches are matches you just can't watch more than once without wanting to inject cyanide into your veins.

Oh, give me a break. I would LOVE to see Cena get in the ring with Giant Gonzalez or a fucking 50-year-old King Kong Bundy and still come out with a decent match. For you to even compare the likes of 'Taker's opponents to guys like Lashley, RVD and Sabu is such a fucking joke. As far as Khali is concerned... 'Taker was able to carry him to good matches as well. 'Taker also had a good match with RVD at the show Jericho won the Undisputed Championship, and I'm 100% positive 'Taker would’ve had good matches against Sabu and Lashley were they ever to work together.

The fact of the matter is that WWE doesn't hire worthless pieces of shit today, like they did back then. You put Cena in the ring with a bunch of overweight dinosaurs and he’ll get just as bad of result as ‘Taker got, if not worse.

Y 2 Jake

08-25-2008, 02:00 AM

It's hard to judge Taker. If you look at him today and with his age, you can't help but think what he could have been like in the early/mid 90's. For most of the 90's he was total shit. But I guess that's what zombies wrestle like.

Moon Knight

08-25-2008, 02:05 AM

Same could be said for Hulk Hogan.

But Undertaker has a better more diverse arsenal. It could also be said undertakers gimmick was changed over a period of time while Hogan ran off of 2 basic gimmicks his entire career.

Y 2 Jake

08-25-2008, 02:09 AM

Moon Knight

08-25-2008, 02:12 AM

You know what you've done don't you DIAR? Now he'll say that Hogan is better because he never needed to change much over all those years, he'll just point out how stale Taker gets. Damn you, damn you to Hell.

No worries Jake, I got some replies as to why not altering your gimmick is a bad thing and why Taker altering his gimmick helped his career while not doing it hurt Hogans.

klunderbunker

08-25-2008, 02:13 AM

Taker does not suck. Is the the best in ring worker? Hardly. But like everyone has said, look back at his matches and his opponents. With the guys he was working with, the way he was booked, and the style of his character, it was by far better than anyone could get. If you're watching a Taker match and expecting a Malenko/Benoit display of athleticism, you're wasting your time. There is more to professional wrestling than getting on a mat and chain wrestling for 20 minutes. Pro wrestling is about entertainment. Taker is the best example ever of a gimmick that is so over the top that people get behind it. He has been around longer than anyone else consistently, and the people respect him for that. If you define that as sucking, then good luck finding a wrestler that meets your standards, because they don't exist.

Y 2 Jake

08-25-2008, 02:15 AM

Most of Takers opponents have sucked. But they suited him.

But would Taker be half as popular if it wasn't for that entrance?

klunderbunker

08-25-2008, 02:15 AM

When he does bring up that point, you might want to point out WCW in late 1995/pre 1996, especially the Doomsday Cage match. Hogan and Savage against pretty much every big heel on the roster save for the Giant, and they put on one of the worst matches of all time, and the fans let them have it that night. Hogan was getting booed out of the building because people were sick of the sight of him, so he was changed to Hollywood.

klunderbunker

08-25-2008, 02:17 AM

Most of Takers opponents have sucked. But they suited him.

But would Taker be half as popular if it wasn't for that entrance?

Very likely no. Same as Hogan, Cena, Rock or Austin with their entrances. Its the way the fans react to him that's kept him on top for so long.

Y 2 Jake

08-25-2008, 02:21 AM

Very likely no. Same as Hogan, Cena, Rock or Austin with their entrances. Its the way the fans react to him that's kept him on top for so long.

Hogan, Austin & The Rock always kept people throughout the match as well. A lot of times once Taker starts wrestling a lot of people are known to switch off.

I can't remember the WCW match you bought up. But Taker vs. Kane with Austin as ref at Judgment Dat 1998 got boos and this is boring chants. Intresting when it was duuring the Attitude Era, and Austin was a God to a lot of fans.

AnthonyMango/NoFate007

08-25-2008, 02:23 AM

Apparently the Undertaker is this month's "you know what, he really does suck" target.

A few months ago, everyone was busting a nut over MVP, then came the "MVP: Not Very Good" thread. Kennedy was the next best thing...people start paying more attention to him, now suddenly "I don't know why they don't just release the guy, he's terrible". Right now everyone is excited about Kendrick getting a push. What's the projection? One month? Two months? Hell chances are, people will go from "I'm glad he's in the title match at Unforgiven" to "why did they put him in there if he sucks so bad?" the day after.

Is it cool to like Cena again, or is he still just a 5-move drone? Is Hardy still overrated or is he the best thing going on Smackdown? Is Khali a sure-fire person to release, or is he putting on the best caliber matches? Christ I've even heard people switch their minds about TREVOR MURDOCH when he got fired.

If you genuinely dislike a gimmick or a wrestler, fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But I swear, this "person to attack of the month" shit has got to stop. Once this thread goes 3 pages back and nobody wants to look for it, everyone will change their minds again and move on to....well, I guess the next target will be Edge since he's winning fans over, and you know how the trend goes: if you start winning more fans over, then chances are you'll be badmouthed and people will randomly discover that "you never really were that talented to begin with".

Is there a point to defending the Undertaker, then? No, because it must not be the cool thing to do this week to still enjoy his performance. But I'll gladly say it: I think Undertaker is one of the best wrestlers to ever hit professional wrestling, and although he might not do backflips off the top of the building, he might not be a part of the "Angle/Benoit/etc can do no wrong" alliance, and he might have been screwed over the years in having to put up with bad feuds with monster-characters that went as quickly as they came in, he's on top for a reason, and if it were just for nostalgia purposes, it would've died out a long, long time ago.

klunderbunker

08-25-2008, 02:25 AM

That's very true about Taker losing people during his matches, but somehow Taker matches are always viewed in retrospect as classics. He's an odd character in that his matches in the ring when first viewed aren't the greatest some times, but in the end he has more classics under his belt than any other big man.

Y 2 Jake

08-25-2008, 03:33 AM

If somebody is rated so highly and never gets any criticism then it stands to reason they must be overrated. Nobody can live up to that sort of hype. Certainly not somebody like The Undertaker who spent a heavy portion of his career having awful matches.

But the general consensus with slyfox is that if somebody is well liked or hated he has to tell people they're wrong.

Mighty NorCal

08-25-2008, 03:35 AM

that would be the argument i would side with, if anything. NO ONE ever says the Undertaker has holes in his game. thats impossible. so if everyone rates him to be so fantastic, he must be overrated. I dunno.

klunderbunker

08-25-2008, 03:38 AM

I'd say Taker follows the formula that Heyman laid on for ECW: Accentuate the positives, hide the negatives. Taker can get a crowd into his character and promos so much that his in ring skills are sometimes overlooked. That's not to say they're bad, but moreso his weakest point. He can still put on great matches with just about anyone. His matches have been bad because a lot of his opponents are bad. Look at what he does with Edge, Michaels, HHH, Orton etc. There's no way to argue that they carried him to good matches. Its the mystique of Taker that's made him the legend he is today.

Y 2 Jake

08-25-2008, 03:42 AM

I think Undertakers in ring work is really great at the moment. But currently his character is stale, and out of the 18 years he's been in WWE I'd give his good years as 1996, 1997, 2006, 2007 & 2008.

klunderbunker

08-25-2008, 03:44 AM

His first 5 years or so were very bad, but I think that was more who he was booked against and that WWF flat out had no idea what to do with him.

Y 2 Jake

08-25-2008, 03:48 AM

Mighty NorCal

08-25-2008, 03:50 AM

I enjoyed his first few years only becuase of Bobby Heenans commentary. there is nothing more wildly entertaining than early Taker + Heenan commentary

klunderbunker

08-25-2008, 03:50 AM

That's true about his early years. He certainly was green back then, no question about it. His style was almost like Goldberg in a sense. Get hit a few times, one move, match over. Why bother really trying to improve? Now he has a much more expanded moveset and I agree, his matches are better.

Esteban Ochocinco

08-25-2008, 02:30 PM

You could say the same thing about a lot of workers. Let's just take Cena, for example.

He's had to work with Lashley, Khali, RVD, and Sabu in the last two years, and got entertaining matches out of all of them. Where are those guys these days, even 2 years later?

A good worker makes talent around him better. A good worker will play to his opponents strengths and hide his weaknesses. It'd be one thing if those matches were passable, but those matches are matches you just can't watch more than once without wanting to inject cyanide into your veins.
Great character. Cool and fancy storylines and introductions.

Piss bucket ring worker.

You can't be seriously comparing Lashley, RVD, and Sabu with the likes of King Kong Bundy, Giant Gonzalez, Kamala or any other of the giant monster slugs that the WWF force fed to the Undertaker. All of those guys mentioned were at least athletic enough to have someone lead them to a decent match. No one, and I say no one, could get a good match out of any of those fat bastards that were in the ring with the Undertaker.

The Undertaker did more for Khali's career in one match then Khali has done since.

Esteban Ochocinco

08-25-2008, 02:32 PM

But if he's as great as everyone say he is then some of those matches would have been good. The only thing that stands out to me is the Yokozuna feud. And only watching them again recently have I discovered that they weren't the abominations I thought they once were.

It wasn't until Mankind & Goldust came and made him more human that he started to improve. But only that lasted two years. In 1998 he was awful. Absolute fat ass. Then until 2006 he had the occasional quality match, but not frequent like he does today.

You answered your own question Jake. The first five years of the Undertaker were meant not to create a new Hogan, but a new Andre. That's why everyone was scared the shit out of him, and every monster possible was force fed to him.The Undertaker became a special attraction, he was never meant to be a main eventer. He was supposed to be the new Andre, and he became that. A guy bigger then the belt, and reliable story line to get through every pay per view based on his name.

klunderbunker

08-25-2008, 02:35 PM

I never thought about the Andre thing and its a great point. Andre really never had a storyline aside from a big guy picking a fight with him over who the real giant was and then his haircut. He got over because of his mystique. Excellent point.

Starchild

08-25-2008, 03:32 PM

Are you kidding me?
The Undertaker sucks? I think not, in fact I know.
I don't care if there is talk about he and Michaels all the time...there's a reason. These are guys that don't need the title to get over as is evidenced by their very low number of world championship reigns with respect to their age and time in the company as compared to guys like HHH, Cena, Edge, Batista, Orton.
These are the two guys in the company I'd go to if I want to have a good match at a ppv, because they can both pull almost anyone to a good if not great match.

Yes, like anyone else Taker has his low points but that was just how he was booked. Especially at the beginning of his career, the landscape and booking was totally different than now and they just threw completely idiotic gimmicks out there in hopes that they'd work.

And his gimmick has to be one of the all-time greats in general, but especially in terms of a really "out there" gimmick. The only one that even rivals it would be Kane or Sting.

Undertaker has had thousands of matches with hundreds of guys...not every single match is gonna be a classic. But just look at the matches you can just pick out of the air as classic...the HIACs, the Buried Alive matches, the match against Angle from NWO '06, Ladder match against Jeff Hardy, WM against Bret, or Batista, almost any match in the Edge feud. There are plenty of matches left out there and then some matches we don't remember as well that were surely great. The man is an absolute legend and has given an upsure amount to the business and fans, and yea after 18 years he is STILL one of the best wrestlers that WWE and the business in general have to offer.

Slyfox696

08-25-2008, 04:40 PM

Same could be said for Hulk Hogan.
Wouldn't make it true. http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm6/iwcfreedomforum/shrugbetter.gif

Oh, give me a break. I would LOVE to see Cena get in the ring with Giant Gonzalez or a fucking 50-year-old King Kong Bundy and still come out with a decent match.Great Khali and Viscera.

Done.

For you to even compare the likes of 'Taker's opponents to guys like Lashley, RVD and Sabu is such a fucking joke.I agree. Bryan Clark, Mick Foley, Jimmy Snuka and Jake Roberts were all far better workers than Lashley, RVD, and Sabua...even in their advanced ages and sometimes altered states.

As far as Khali is concerned... 'Taker was able to carry him to good matches as well. ...
There is more to professional wrestling than getting on a mat and chain wrestling for 20 minutes. LOL

Look who you're trying to tell that to. But what was entertaining about all those piss bucket matches Undertaker has had? What was entertaining about the Summerslam 1994 main-event?

But would Taker be half as popular if it wasn't for that entrance?Not a chance.

Hogan, Austin & The Rock always kept people throughout the match as well. A lot of times once Taker starts wrestling a lot of people are known to switch off.

I can't remember the WCW match you bought up. But Taker vs. Kane with Austin as ref at Judgment Dat 1998 got boos and this is boring chants. Intresting when it was duuring the Attitude Era, and Austin was a God to a lot of fans.That's pretty much what I was going to say.

Rep...maybe.

Apparently the Undertaker is this month's "you know what, he really does suck" target.
This actually came up because I'm watching the Summerslam Anthology, and every match of his thus far has been boring as can be, both to me AND the live crowd.

Freedom 35

08-25-2008, 04:59 PM

meh Ive never thought of Undertaker as hot shit so this type of shit doesnt phase me

Murfishes Can Use Calculus and Physics

08-25-2008, 05:06 PM

I don't see why people keep bringing up backflips. It really doesn't help their argument when noone has tried to use that against Undertaker. I was just annoyed by the undeserved amount of love he got in the WZ tourny.

PWAQfan

08-25-2008, 05:11 PM

i love watching undertaker period, he never does anything different but i am not fussed.
he occasionally mixes up his moveset a little and the mystique of it all makes him fun to watch.

i'll put someone down who i think has been WAY overrated, MVP everyone is sucking on MVP's d*ck and i personally don't think he's got jack going for him

Uncle Sam

08-25-2008, 05:18 PM

If the Undertaker never does anything different, no one ever does anything different.

midgensa

08-25-2008, 05:48 PM

I definitely agree that Undertaker's career as a whole is overrated. But I do like the guy.
I like the mystique of his character that a lot of people here seem to be bashing. I do like that he was successful with multiple gimmicks. And I personally think he has put on a decent show quite a few times.
While some of the WM and SS matches listed were not fabulous ... he definitely has put on some spectacular matches with HBK and Mankind and has definitely put on a handful of other exciting matches with Rock, Austin, Hart, Batista, Hardy, Orton, Brock and even Hogan.
I don't think he is top 10 in wrestling history like many people seem to, but to say he sucks is definitely going overboard.
He clearly has been willing to put Edge over in this feud and this feud has been absolutely grade A great. So to see him have such a great feud late in his career is kind of nice. I also think he has been better in the ring recently than he has in the past ... seems he likes to work when in there with other hard workers like Edge (and even Batista, who might suck in the ring, but definitely works at it).
I have few problems with Taker. I like his long drawn out entrance, I like his goofy lighting people on fire shit, I like his tombstone piledriver finisher, I like that he has reinvented himself a couple of times, I like that even though he is banged up beyond belief he took that spot in the TLC match and I in general like watching any segment that he is a part of.
And I think that the majority of fans are with me.

DeadMan5000

08-25-2008, 06:10 PM

Some of you guys are so stupid. Undertaker Overated? Must be coming from a person that likes John Cena. Undertaker is a LEGEND, and is one of the best. The Mystique of his charcter makes him great. From the dark days of the Ministry, to even before that and after that, Undertaker has been amazing. How can you say he is overated? He has had Hundreds of excellent classic matches with so many guys. Just to name a few, Austin, The Rock, Kurt Angle, HHH, Bret Hart, and even Kane.

His gimmick is one of a kind. Their will never be another Undertaker.:undertaker2:

Uncle Sam

08-25-2008, 06:21 PM

His gimmick is stupid and he's only had dozens of good matches, mostly in the last three years.

Esteban Ochocinco

08-25-2008, 06:23 PM

The gimmick is great, it's not your cup of tea, but it's over with the majority of the crowd, and big time over at that.

DeadMan5000

08-25-2008, 06:40 PM

Wow youre an idiot

DeadMan5000

08-25-2008, 06:41 PM

The gimmick is great, it's not your cup of tea, but it's over with the majority of the crowd, and big time over at that.

I agree

ronthony717

08-25-2008, 06:57 PM

Hmm let's see here... Other then shawn michaels who from the far back can still walk through an entrance and make the crowd go insane and at time get goose bumps.. Who from that era other then michaels can go into the ring with the young guys and fly, lift, sell, and put over every single time... His matches has put asses in the seat and buy rates were insane when hyped around him... His matches with foley orton kane (not all but some lol) edge shawn michaels bret hart ect have been exciting and gets people at the edge of their seats.. No not everyone is gonna like you look at cena... But he's had the biggest fan base since he debuted in 91... I really enjoyed him facing fake undertaker.. That was a fun match btw lol

jmt225

08-25-2008, 07:51 PM

Great Khali and Viscera.

So, you consider Cena's match with Visecra, which only lasted like 3 or 4 minutes long, a good match? The only thing worth remembering in that was Cena's FU. That's all the match was. To show Cena's strength. How can you consider that Cena carrying Viscera to a good match?

And I agree, Cena matches with Khali were really good. However, like I already mentioned, so were 'Taker's matches against him. You can't deny that The Undertaker was able to carry Khali to good matches as well.

I'm a huge Cena fan and if you want to say Cena is all around a better wrestler then 'Taker, I won't argue that because I think Cena's one of the greatest in the World (though I do think it's debatable who is better, but that's not the argument here). However, there is nothing you can say that will justify your thoughts on why 'Taker "sucks".

I agree. Bryan Clark, Mick Foley, Jimmy Snuka and Jake Roberts were all far better workers than Lashley, RVD, and Sabua...even in their advanced ages and sometimes altered states.

Wow. Ignoring the ridiculousness of this statement, let's just look at the matches you decided to bring up outside of Foley's (I haven't seen a 'Taker/Foley match that was on a big card that "sucked").

Brain Clark, who I like, had a gimmick that made it impossible to have a good match with 'Taker. Two Taker's working together isn't going to go well, period. Could you imagine if Hogan ever face Mr. America?

'Taker's match against Snuka, like I already mentioned, was a SQUASH match.

And 'Taker's match against Jake was again, like I already mentioned, another SQUASH match.

So, how can you blame 'Taker for not having excited matches when these are the circumstances he is working with? You can call it "excuses" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that these "excuses" are 100% valid.

Y 2 Jake

08-25-2008, 08:24 PM

Rep...maybe.

This is how excited I am through the medium of smiley:

:007:

Steamboat Ricky

08-25-2008, 08:43 PM

Sly sly sly...I'll be back on later tonight to take you on if you wish. This is a wretchedly horrible thread that Undertaker should chokeslam straight to hell.

Just remember that if this gets put in the archives...the archives will undoubtedly catch on fire.

Slyfox696

08-25-2008, 09:27 PM

So, you consider Cena's match with Visecra, which only lasted like 3 or 4 minutes long, a good match? The only thing worth remembering in that was Cena's FU. That's all the match was. To show Cena's strength. How can you consider that Cena carrying Viscera to a good match?No, I consider it a decent match. Which was the condition you placed upon it.

And I agree, Cena matches with Khali were really good. However, like I already mentioned, so were 'Taker's matches against him. You can't deny that The Undertaker was able to carry Khali to good matches as well.Sure I can deny it. When did it happen? I mean, they had such piss bucket chemistry, they were kicked off PPV, and moved to free TV.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their matches.

However, there is nothing you can say that will justify your thoughts on why 'Taker "sucks".Numerous terrible matches don't justify it?

I mean, take the four BIG PPVs that the WWF/E puts on. How many horrible matches can he have at those things?

Wow. Ignoring the ridiculousness of this statement, let's just look at the matches you decided to bring up outside of Foley's (I haven't seen a 'Taker/Foley match that was on a big card that "sucked").Are you trying to say that Lashley, RVD and Sabu were better workers than Snuka, Roberts, and Foley?

And you're calling MY statement ridiculous?

By the way, both the Boiler Room Brawl and the HIAC match blew monkey balls. Both Taker vs. Mankind.

Brain Clark, who I like, had a gimmick that made it impossible to have a good match with 'Taker. :rolleyes:
You're making excuses again. Just admit it, it was a terrible match.

'Taker's match against Snuka, like I already mentioned, was a SQUASH match. And not entertaining at all.

And 'Taker's match against Jake was again, like I already mentioned, another SQUASH match. And still not entertaining.

So, how can you blame 'Taker for not having excited matches when these are the circumstances he is working with? How can you keep making excuses for every match that Undertaker has had that sucked and feel as if I should take your position seriously?

klunderbunker

08-25-2008, 09:47 PM

Are you trying to say that Lashley, RVD and Sabu were better workers than Snuka, Roberts, and Foley?

By the way, both the Boiler Room Brawl and the HIAC match blew monkey balls. Both Taker vs. Mankind.

Snuka and Roberts were at the ends of their main runs in WWE when they fought taker and well beyond their primes. They were jobbers when he beat them. How great a match do you expect in that case? They were made to make Taker look dominant.

The Bolier Room match wasn't about the quality of the match, it was about the angle that it furthered. Please Sly, enlighten us as to how the HIAC was bad. Exciting match that set the standard for matches that end feuds in the company, made Foley a permanent main event worker, and has one of the most famous scenes in the history of the company. WIth the idea of the match to be that two men hate each other so much they're willing to enter "hell" to fight each other, what kind of a masterpiece are you expecting? Its supposed to be a wild brawl.

jmt225

08-25-2008, 11:00 PM

Sure I can deny it. When did it happen? I mean, they had such piss bucket chemistry, they were kicked off PPV, and moved to free TV.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their matches.

I remember their match on Smackdown getting mostly praise. I know I for one, thought it was good. It turned out a lot better then I expected, anyway.

We also have to remember that this was when Khali was still getting adjusted. He didn't have much experience. By the time he wrestled Cena, he learned tons more.

Numerous terrible matches don't justify it?

Numerous terrible matches against numerous terrible wrestlers? No, it doesn't.

It's funny though how you keep going to these matches and keep ignoring the fact that 'Taker has been in WWE longer then ANYONE, and he has stayed over with the fans the entire time. Yet, he still sucks to you? That makes no sense.

I mean, take the four BIG PPVs that the WWF/E puts on. How many horrible matches can he have at those things?

You're unwillingness to just admit that he had shit opponent after shit opponent is so petty and dumb. Also, just the fact that you choose to ignore all his other great matches outside those "BIG PPVs" and his longevity in the company and his ability to get over and stay over all this time as either heel or face and the fact that he did it without kissing ass... there's really no word to describe how ridiculous that is.

Are you trying to say that Lashley, RVD and Sabu were better workers than Snuka, Roberts, and Foley?

Take Foley out of the equation, and saying that we're talking about Jake and Snuka in the mid-nineties, then yes... RVD, Sabu and Lashley were better then them. Jake was terrible back then and Snuka didn't do anything worth noting.

And you're calling MY statement ridiculous?

Yes, because it is. First of all, RVD is not one of the worst wrestlers of all time like you're making it out to be. Sabu, while a bit botchish at time, can still have, what most people consider, to be exciting matches. Lashley, by the time he wrestled Cena, was starting to come to his own. All three of these wrestlers can take bumps, give bumps, add excitement with big moves, ALL WERE OVER WITH THE AUDIENCE, ect. For you to think these three are harder to carry then a fake Undertaker or 50-year-old Snuka is fucking unbelievable. Fact is that RVD doesn't need to be carried; Sabu, while he might botch and lack psychology at time, still adds excitement to every match; and Lashley was becoming a better wrestler with each passing day.

By the way, both the Boiler Room Brawl and the HIAC match blew monkey balls. Both Taker vs. Mankind.

Yeah, but millions and millions of people think different.

You're making excuses again. Just admit it, it was a terrible match.

You forgot to add the word "valid" before excuse. Do you even know what that word means, by the way?

And not entertaining at all.

And still not entertaining.

Because it's a squash. Have many squashes have you seen that you would consider entertaining?

How can you keep making excuses for every match that Undertaker has had that sucked and feel as if I should take your position seriously?

Every match? Umm... no. Just the matches that have valid excuses as to why they weren't good. There were a few of matches on your precious list that you said "sucked" and I said otherwise. Then you want to say the really good matches are "passable" or "solid". Do you think I'm going to take you seriously with a mindset like that? Besides, to be completely honest, your opinions on matches really shouldn't count for anything. I mean, you say 'Taker vs. Mankind HITC blew money balls, but I vividly remember you calling Hogan vs. Giant at Hog Wild a good match. That pretty much takes all credibility away from your opinions when it comes to matches. While I'm not a big fan of 'Taker vs. Foley in HITC either, I'd much rather watch that then Hogan vs. Giant at Hog Wild. And I'd be willing to be bet everything I own that 95% of wrestling fans feel the exact same way.

Big Beck-ah Roethlisberger

08-26-2008, 12:37 PM

Sly i dont think squash matches are made to be entertaining. Shit, i've never watched a squash match and said wow that was impressive. They're there to make one look strong and the other one look weak. They are bad matches because Taker was made to look dominant.

AngryGrandpa

08-26-2008, 12:44 PM

I wouldn't say taker... SUCKS... He still draws a fan base, and for his age he even takes a few bumps.... I don't like him... But I don't think he SUCKS..I don't even think John Cena sucks.. It takes alot of dedication to do what these guys do.

undertakerrulesmania20

08-26-2008, 12:54 PM

Undertaker Is Far From Sucking Is That Why He Has 3 Top Match Of The Year Awards. He Can Still Go For His Age Alot Better Then Some Of The Younger Talent. Taker Hbk For Wm25 Match Of The Decade

simpsons_fanatic742

08-26-2008, 01:16 PM

This is probably one of the stupidest things I've heard on these boards. The Undertaker sucks? What the hell are you smoking? He's put on great matches, has lasted a hell of a long time with the same gimmick and is still over with the crowd. He's not the greatest wrestler in the ring, but to say his in-ring work sucks is ignorant. Also to the people who say that the Undertaker buries wrestlers more than anyone, leave the forums and don't watch wrestling anymore because you clearly don't watch the same wrestling as all of us here do. He's put over countless wrestlers throughtout his whole career. Idiotic statement to make.

Also, comparing him to Cena is ridiculous. You make a list of matches the Undertaker has sucked in, but I'll bet you that you can make a list bigger for Cena and the Undertaker has been around WAY longer. So don't try to compare Cena to Undertaker.

Ya, the Undertaker isn't the best in the ring, but I'll be damned if his in-ring skills suck and he isn't one of the best and most memorable wrestlers ever.

Steamboat Ricky

08-26-2008, 02:41 PM

Sly, I would really like to hear what your opinion of "good in ring skills" are.

Murfishes Can Use Calculus and Physics

08-26-2008, 02:48 PM

Sly, I would really like to hear what your opinion of "good in ring skills" are.

I think in one Foth demolishing post he brought up 6 points that make up a good wrestler. 5 of them pertained to in ring skill and one pertained to out of the ring skill.

Steamboat Ricky

08-26-2008, 02:51 PM

Ok, well...pretend I'm FOTH, Sly. I want to be reminded of these epic 6 points. Or, if anyone digs up the old post, i'll rep.

Murfishes Can Use Calculus and Physics

08-26-2008, 03:01 PM

What is the vb code for making a url to a single post?

Steamboat Ricky

08-26-2008, 03:05 PM

just quote it and then put er in here.

Murfishes Can Use Calculus and Physics

08-26-2008, 03:06 PM

My gift to you good sir.

Maybe I shall rephrase what I said.He can wrestle,but he can't outwrestle the likes of KENTA,Danielson,Joe,Punk,Benoit,Eddie,Hart,HBK,Sti ng,and prolly more.

LOL

You are getting to be borderline ridiculous.

It's one thing to throw in guys like Hart, HBK or even Sting, but when you start throwing in guys who couldn't catch heat with a tank of kerosene and a blowtorch, it's time to drop the charade.

First of all, let's take Samoa Joe. The guy is atrocious out of the ring, and barely passable in the ring. If you've seen one Samoa Joe match, you've seen them all. Which, isn't always a bad thing, except that Samoa Joe matches generally aren't that good, unless he has someone who is exceptional at bumping for him. Joe is a one trick pony. All high impact offense, and NOTHING to go with it. No selling, no storytelling, little charisma in the ring, and his matches look fake as hell. When he gets someone like AJ Styles with him, who bumps like a god, or even a Punk (who does sell well generally) then Joe looks good. Otherwise, Joe is exposed for the mundane worker he really is.

Then, remember the kerosene comment? Yeah, that means we're talking about Bryan Danielson. Sure, the guy can get a pop from the 150 smarks that sell out the local high school multi-purpose facility, but put the guy in front of an actual audience, and he'll bore people with his work. And, if you bore people, how can you be entertaining? And if you're not entertaining, how can you be good?

The simple fact is that so many misguided fans judge the quality of wrestlers based upon their offensive arsenal, and not on the things that truly determine quality wrestlers. Just because guys an do chain wrestling or flips or suplexes, doesn't make them a good wrestler. A wrestler's offensive repertoire has nothing to do with quality.

Instead, quality comes from the six tools of a professional wrestler; 5 are based on in-ring performance, and the sixth out of ring.

In-ring:

1. Storytelling
2. Psychology
3. Workrate
4. Selling
5. Charisma

Out-ring:

6. Promo ability

The better an individual is at each one of those things, the better worker they are. Notice NOTHING in there has to do with the style of a worker, or the offense he uses, but rather the abstract and deeper attributes of quality wrestling.

klunderbunker

08-26-2008, 03:07 PM

Wow. You know, when I watch a wrestling match, its pretty much I liked it or not.......rarely go beyond that.

proweeks

08-26-2008, 03:23 PM

I have to agree. No doubt about it, Undertaker is overrated. He's up there with Flair, HBK, HHH and Angle in the most overrated category. Undertaker, along with HBK and Angle are easily in my top 10 all-time favourites list, but that doesn't make me blind to how overrated they are. People need to learn how to differentiate between liking a particular wrestler, and thinking they're the greatest of all-time.

ok, if all those people you named are overrated, then who the hell IS good in your book, you throw Austin and Hogan and Bret in there and I dont know of anyone else you CAN call great, this whole thread sucks, up until i found this thread ive never heard anyone talk bad about taker or hbk or angle, ive heard some overrated comments about Flair, but about Angle and HBK and Taker, come on

Esteban Ochocinco

08-26-2008, 03:54 PM

1. Storytelling: Check
2. Psychology: Check
3. Workrate: Check
4. Selling: Check
5. Charisma: Check

Promos: Well since he's supposed to be dead, and he rarely talks I guess I'll concede this, even though he doesn't cut promos but when he did they were bad ass.

Steamboat Ricky

08-26-2008, 03:55 PM

Wow. You know, when I watch a wrestling match, its pretty much I liked it or not.......rarely go beyond that.

:lmao:

Best post in awhile from anyone.

Murfishes Can Use Calculus and Physics

08-26-2008, 03:59 PM

Steamboat Ricky

08-26-2008, 04:01 PM

Steamboat Ricky

08-26-2008, 04:02 PM

klunderbunker

08-26-2008, 04:02 PM

Bets on how long it takes Sly to come up with enough BS and one line insults to refute this?

HBK-aholic

08-26-2008, 04:06 PM

ok, if all those people you named are overrated, then who the hell IS good in your book, you throw Austin and Hogan and Bret in there and I dont know of anyone else you CAN call great, this whole thread sucks, up until i found this thread ive never heard anyone talk bad about taker or hbk or angle, ive heard some overrated comments about Flair, but about Angle and HBK and Taker, come on

Repped. What you don't understand about a few people on this board is that anyone that isn't Cena or Hogan is overrated. That especially goes to those everyone else likes. Wow, you're totally not allowed to call Flair, HBK or HHH great. Stupid, I know.

Slyfox696

08-26-2008, 04:53 PM

Snuka and Roberts were at the ends of their main runs in WWE when they fought taker and well beyond their primes. As opposed to RVD and Sabu...who were gone just a few weeks after their matches with Cena?

Great point. :rolleyes:

They were jobbers when he beat them.Who cares? They were still better workers than Sabu or RVD.

How great a match do you expect in that case? They were made to make Taker look dominant.So was Umaga's matches with a ton of guys. And they were far superior to the garbage we had to watch from Undertaker. Take Umaga vs. HBK from Raw a few years back. Head and shoulders above those two WM matches. WRESTLEMANIA matches.

The Bolier Room match wasn't about the quality of the match, it was about the angle that it furthered. Another excuse, in a long line of excuses for the pitiful work of the Undertaker.

Please Sly, enlighten us as to how the HIAC was bad.I have a better idea. Watch the match first, and then that'll be all I need to do.

WIth the idea of the match to be that two men hate each other so much they're willing to enter "hell" to fight each other, what kind of a masterpiece are you expecting? Its supposed to be a wild brawl.It wasn't though. It was a match of like 4 spots. That was it. Seriously. Match over.

Sucked ass. The HBK vs. Undertaker HIAC match was good, and still showed the "hellish" nature of the Cell. The Mankind match blew monkey chunks.

Quit making excuses.

I remember their match on Smackdown getting mostly praise. I know I for one, thought it was good. It turned out a lot better then I expected, anyway. You mean the one they had on Smackdown because all their other work sucked so bad?

We also have to remember that this was when Khali was still getting adjusted. He didn't have much experience. By the time he wrestled Cena, he learned tons more.Oh I know. Those 7 months between Taker and Cena, a couple of which he wasn't even on TV, was a VERY important step in Khali's development.

:rolleyes:

Numerous terrible matches against numerous terrible wrestlers? No, it doesn't.Jake Roberts is a terrible wrestler? Mick Foley is a terrible wrestler? Hulk Hogan is a terrible wrestler? Steve Austin is a terrible wrestler?

I smell excuses coming.

It's funny though how you keep going to these matches and keep ignoring the fact that 'Taker has been in WWE longer then ANYONE, and he has stayed over with the fans the entire time. Yet, he still sucks to you? That makes no sense.Sure it does.

Being over for 18 years just gives more terrible matches to criticize. Do you REALLY think that the Undertaker has been around for 18 years because he puts on matches that bore the live crowd? You know, like the matches I've already gone through and talked about? People want to always talk about Hulk Hogan and his "in-ring ability", and yet, like Jake said earlier, you never saw a dead crowd during a Hogan match. It happens all the time in Taker matches.

Also, just the fact that you choose to ignore all his other great matches outside those "BIG PPVs" OK, lay it on me. What are they?

and his longevity in the company and his ability to get over and stay over all this time as either heel or face and the fact that he did it without kissing ass... there's really no word to describe how ridiculous that is. Huh?

Take Foley out of the equation, and saying that we're talking about Jake and Snuka in the mid-nineties, then yes... RVD, Sabu and Lashley were better then them. Jake was terrible back then and Snuka didn't do anything worth noting. :blink:

Yes, because it is. First of all, RVD is not one of the worst wrestlers of all time like you're making it out to be. Sabu, while a bit botchish at time, can still have, what most people consider, to be exciting matches. Lashley, by the time he wrestled Cena, was starting to come to his own.LOL

You just said RVD wasn't terrible and Sabu was exciting. I'm not sure I should even bother with anything else you say.

Yeah, but millions and millions of people think different. No, millions and millions of people who watched the HIGHLIGHTS of the HIAC match think differently. Anyone who has actually watched the match knows how bad it sucks.

You forgot to add the word "valid" before excuse. Using your theory, Brock vs. Goldberg was only bad because the crowd knew they were leaving.

See, that's a valid excuse. The tag match where Trish and Molly Holly botch all the time was only bad because those two women weren't used to working together. See, it wasn't a bad match because there is a "valid" excuse.

Do you not see how ridiculous that line of thinking is?

Sly i dont think squash matches are made to be entertaining. Shit, i've never watched a squash match and said wow that was impressive. They're there to make one look strong and the other one look weak. They are bad matches because Taker was made to look dominant.Where's this thinking come from that a squash match can't be entertaining?

Goldberg squashed people all the time in WCW, and he was still entertaining as hell doing it.

Wow. You know, when I watch a wrestling match, its pretty much I liked it or not.......rarely go beyond that.Those factors are what MAKE you like it though, and determine whether or not you could keep watching that match and still like it.

By the way, thanks for quoting that for me, so I didn't have to retype it.

1. Storytelling: Check
2. Psychology: Check
3. Workrate: Check
4. Selling: Check
5. Charisma: Check

Promos: Well since he's supposed to be dead, and he rarely talks I guess I'll concede this, even though he doesn't cut promos but when he did they were bad ass.If that were true, how come so many of his matches are so terrible?

Remember the old saying "Ric Flair could put on a great match with a broomstick" or whatever it was? While, Ric Flair wasn't very good, the concept remains the same. I mean, Hulk Hogan went up against some of the worst workers in history, and STILL was able to have the crowd into it.

Why can't the Undertaker?
Repped. What you don't understand about a few people on this board is that anyone that isn't Cena or Hogan is overrated. You forgot Bret Hart.

Uncle Sam

08-26-2008, 04:58 PM

Eh?

klunderbunker

08-26-2008, 04:59 PM

Gone? Yes they were gone. For drug issues, not talent issues. Snuka retired from mainstream, and Roberts was nowhere near what he used to be.

Better than RVD and Sabu? That sounds like you being bitter because they got bigger pops than your man Cena ever dreamed of at ONS 06.

I've watched that HIAC match more times than I can count, and I enjoy it, as the majority of fans seem to.

Sly either you're doing this to get attention, or you're blinder than I thought. That match stole the show that night, and was match of the year.

klunderbunker

08-26-2008, 05:00 PM

Slyfox696

08-26-2008, 05:08 PM

Gone? Yes they were gone. For drug issues, not talent issues. Snuka retired from mainstream, and Roberts was nowhere near what he used to be.For drug issues, right?

Better than RVD and Sabu? That sounds like you being bitter because they got bigger pops than your man Cena ever dreamed of at ONS 06.This is a joke right?

I've watched that HIAC match more times than I can count, and I enjoy it, as the majority of fans seem to.It's terrible. What's so great about it? Some guy can kill himself, big deal. Where's the wrestling aspect to it? The intricate storyline to the match, the binding pull to each of the characters, the story that makes you sit in your seat spellbound by who is going to win and how?

There's none of that. It's just "Let's see what insane stunt Foley will do next". Big deal.

Sly either you're doing this to get attention, or you're blinder than I thought. That match stole the show that night, and was match of the year.That match was terrible, and anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge and objectivity will tell you so.
Explain why his matches were terrible and I'll answer that.Which ones?

klunderbunker

08-26-2008, 05:19 PM

No I'd say that they were gone for being old and not needed in the company anymore.

Excellent job at dodging the question, which I'm now dubbing the Sly Special.

Or there's the story of this match is going to end the feud. Vince has called out the Undertaker to step up his game and be more ruthless. How far is he willing to go? Is he willing to destroy someone to accomplish what he wants to do? The wrestling aspect would be that they were able to pull off a match that is still seen as great today by many fans and while the wrestling may have been subpar, people liked it, therefore, it accomplished its goal.

A few opinions on that match....

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=19677&highlight=match+1998

So, everyone who said good things about the match here have no knowledge? That would be people such as Sam, Xfear, Ricky, IC, and Shocky. All total idiots if I've ever seen them. Even the people that say its bad claim it has good spots in it as well, so pretty much either they're all correct, or by your standards they know nothing.

And yet again, another Sly Special to end things with.

RBH

08-26-2008, 05:21 PM

Because of this thread, I might just go rewatch the entire match. I for one think the match accomplished what needed to be done. It was not a match designed to show the wrestling aspect. It was a match designed for Mick Foley to get the crap beaten out of him and that is what happened. I do not understand why you miss that point Slyfox, it was entertaining and the whole crowd was into it because it was a good glorfied storytelling stuntfest and it made the Undertaker-Mankind fued better. Undertaker has had some good matches and he has had some bad matches. Every wrestler who is not a technical genius has had their share and you should know that. A wrestler is like an athlete, the longer the career, the more you see the mistakes no matter how great they are. Sound familiar?

08-26-2008, 05:26 PM

The Undertaker sucks. Really, he does.

With the possible exception of Shawn Michaels, I don't think I've ever seen anyone get as much undeserved praise as the Undertaker does. Everyone wants to say he's some kind of great wrestler, but what's so great about him? Has ANYONE had more matches bomb than the Undertaker? Has anyone ever had more terrible matches at major PPVs than the Undertaker?

.....

So, why does everyone suck his penis so hard?

The old Sly: Putting the nerves of millions AND MILLIONS of WZ posters into a chaotic state.
(It's good to know from you man, still a Mizzou fan? ;) )

Now, about the Undertaker...

Come on sly, you are biting your tongue on this one. Even one year after, I still know what your standards are for a superstar to being a good wrestler overall.

I might forget some points, so help me after this:

1-Marketable image
Ok, do we still have a doubt on this one? Call it a Zombie or an American Badass Biker, Undertaker is an instant Win for marketability purposes: Intimidating physical image = wrestler who kick everyone else assses. So, if you take that premise and you mix it with the bizarre, but eternal human fascination for the unknown and the death = Instant Win + bonu$$

2-Wrestling skills
He might not be Bret Hart, but probably knows 2 or 3 holds and moves, dont ya think? (also: see attachment)

3-Wrestling Psychology and story telling.
(see attachment)

4-Drawing Power and live crowd reaction
I've only watched 2, maybe 3 people who might compete with Taker's awe inspiring pops: Steve Austin and Hulk hogan (and Cena comes in a close 3rd place...) of course, this is intimately close to number 3, but still. (also: see attachment)

-THE attachment-

Here is some Sly-Original material for you kids out there, because I don't know what the hell happened, but suddenly, "The Undertaker Sucks".

>>INSTRUCTIONS AND NOTES
Quite simple: Replace the Words "John Cena" with "The Undertaker". (i've done it for you guys. You're welcome!)
This post is from the Official John Cena thread, and has been slightly edited for continuity purposes. Terms edited:
Raw--> SD, Cena--> The Undertaker, People-->SLyfox696
<<

You must not watch much The Undertaker. His SD matches don't count because everyone has the same SD match. You have to. Watch his PPV matches, and tell me they are all the same.

This is only begging the question though.

Then Shawn Michaels and Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin weren't "true" wrestlers.

***Name me a match and tell me how he was carried. Give me specifics of how he was carried since being WH champion.***

I know plenty of women who seem to understand wrestling a whole hell of a lot better than you are making yourself sound like. Could you be any more insulting to women or children?

Why is Hulk Hogan not a good wrestler now? Because it's no longer cool to like Hogan? Because he doesn't have 2235 different moves, illogically placed in his matches? Because his workrate is unparalleled and amazing, and even though everyone in the building knows he's going to "Hulk Up", the crowd STILL goes nuts for it? It's amazing that so many people just don't understand what great wrestling truly is.

Professional wrestling isn't about a bunch of moves. It's about storytelling, drama, pageantry. It's like any other entertainment medium. When it's good, it draws you in, captivates you, and makes you a part of the entertainment. It's something that you can't quit watching, and you find yourself feeling the emotions that the artist wants you to feel. THAT'S what Pro Wrestling is about. If you want to watch a bunch of grapples and holds, go watch NCAA Wrestling. Go watch Olympic wrestling. But, don't confuse that with Professional Wrestling. Bret Hart was great, not because he knew a bunch of holds, but because he knew how to draw people in, make them care about him, his opponent, and the match. The same with Hogan. The same with The Undertaker.

The Undertaker is very good, because his storytelling is so fine. It's like someone said earlier. They know he's going to win, but they keep watching anyways because for some reason they have this hunch that he's going to lose this time. THAT is called storytelling. THAT is working a crowd. You don't need a million moves and holds to do it. Hell, look at Steve Austin from 97-99. The guy has three moves essentially. Punch, kick, and Stunner. But, the way he did it was so masterful that it drew you in, and made you watch.

If you want to talk about TRUE wrestling, then you need to talk about Olympic or NCAA wrestling. If you want to talk about true PROFESSIONAL wrestling, then you need to talk about entertainment qualities.

The Undertaker is never lost in the ring, he is always aware of whats going on. The spots in his match are RARELY obvious, and his transitions are generally very well done. He draws a crowd into a match, and his selling is one of the best in the WWE (and before you say it, I've already discussed WM 23...many times). His moveset psychology is solid, and is in-ring psychology is very good. He knows how to tell a story in the ring, and his matches are always hot. He doesn't rely on big spots to entertain a crowd, and he can play the offensive wrestler in the match or the seller in the match.

I still don't understand why SLYFOX696 thinks The Undertaker sucks. The Undertaker is one of the best wrestlers in the WWE, and the world, today.

Just, please don't tell me that Cena is better than Taker. My eyes could explode after reading that. (not that Cena is garbage, he is not... but thats something for another thread)

Bottomline is: are YOU kidding YOURSELF? or this is some side effect from watching too much Hogan knows best?? ;)

Esteban Ochocinco

08-26-2008, 05:34 PM

If that were true, how come so many of his matches are so terrible?

Remember the old saying "Ric Flair could put on a great match with a broomstick" or whatever it was? While, Ric Flair wasn't very good, the concept remains the same. I mean, Hulk Hogan went up against some of the worst workers in history, and STILL was able to have the crowd into it.

Why can't the Undertaker?

So what you're saying is that the Undertaker should have taken command in a match against Jake Roberts, Jimmy Snuka, Kamala, or any of the other guys that he had "terrible" matches with at that time. Sly, those guys were the veterans, those guys were the ring generals, and those guys should have been calling the match. If there is any fault for the quality of those matches, it wouldn't be on the Undertaker, it would be on the veterans at the time.

I have failed to see an Undertaker match that has dead crowds as you keep referring too. People pop like crazy for the Undertaker, people get into his matches. As stated, if this was the case, and vince was so concerned that no one cared about Undertaker matches why in the last 2 years pushing 50 has he won the Royal Rumble in 2007, Been involved at a title match at WM 23, Main evented Survivor Series, he and Shawn Michaels being the focal point of the Royal Rumble 2008, Main Eventing WM 24, and Main Eventing Summerslam. Those are the WWE's Big four pay per views each year, yet a guy that gets no heat miraculously headlines those events.

Slyfox696

08-26-2008, 05:34 PM

No I'd say that they were gone for being old and not needed in the company anymore.

Excellent job at dodging the question, which I'm now dubbing the Sly Special.You didn't ask a question. How am I supposed to answer something you didn't ask?

Or there's the story of this match is going to end the feud. Vince has called out the Undertaker to step up his game and be more ruthless. How far is he willing to go? Is he willing to destroy someone to accomplish what he wants to do? The wrestling aspect would be that they were able to pull off a match that is still seen as great today by many fans and while the wrestling may have been subpar, people liked it, therefore, it accomplished its goal. It was a sucky match. Terrible.

Let me ask you this. If Foley hadn't been thrown off the top of the Cell, and hadn't been thrown through the Cell, how many people would have called it a good match?

A few opinions on that match....

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=19677&highlight=match+1998

So, everyone who said good things about the match here have no knowledge? That would be people such as Sam, Xfear, Ricky, IC, and Shocky. All total idiots if I've ever seen them. Even the people that say its bad claim it has good spots in it as well, so pretty much either they're all correct, or by your standards they know nothing.Jake said the match sucks, Sam said it wasn't a great match, Xfear said the match action sucked, Ricky only said it was MOTY because of what Foley did, not because of the quality...you're not making a good point here.

And yet again, another Sly Special to end things with.And yet another Klunder Fuck-Up. That's the term I use whenever you think you one up me, and you really make zero sense.
It was a match designed for Mick Foley to get the crap beaten out of him and that is what happened. I do not understand why you miss that point Slyfox, it was entertaining and the whole crowd was into it because it was a good glorfied storytelling stuntfest That's not what makes a good match though. What makes a good match is the emotional ties to the workers and your genuine caring for what happens to the character. Not cheering a guy who nearly kills himself.

Slyfox696

08-26-2008, 05:35 PM

Aerandier and Shocky, I'll respond to you when I get back. Got open gym in 40 minutes and need to eat supper.

Esteban Ochocinco

08-26-2008, 05:40 PM

klunderbunker

08-26-2008, 05:41 PM

You mean the question where I asked if you really thought they were better than RVD and Sabu? That one?

No, and without the slam on Andre, Hogan and Andre would have been terrible too. One moment can make or break any match at any time. Those two made that match. You think it's terrible? You're in the very small majority on it.

Jake also says it's entertaining, Sam says its impressive, Xfear says match of the year, Ricky still says MOTY, meaning they all said it had something. You said anyone with knowledge would say it was terrrible. If something is entertaining, impressive, or match of the year, I'd hardly call that terrible.

RBH

08-26-2008, 05:43 PM

You didn't ask a question. How am I supposed to answer something you didn't ask?

It was a sucky match. Terrible.

Let me ask you this. If Foley hadn't been thrown off the top of the Cell, and hadn't been thrown through the Cell, how many people would have called it a good match?

Jake said the match sucks, Sam said it wasn't a great match, Xfear said the match action sucked, Ricky only said it was MOTY because of what Foley did, not because of the quality...you're not making a good point here.

And yet another Klunder Fuck-Up. That's the term I use whenever you think you one up me, and you really make zero sense.
That's not what makes a good match though. What makes a good match is the emotional ties to the workers and your genuine caring for what happens to the character. Not cheering a guy who nearly kills himself.

People did care about Mick Foley in that match. He got an ovation at the end for his actions. His character was made that day. Before that match, Mick Foley was meh, that match officially made him the psychopathic hardcore legend.

klunderbunker

08-26-2008, 05:45 PM

good deal sly. People can argue and gripe about the cell match all they want, fact of the matter is, it's one of the top 5, if not top talked about match of the last 25 years. It's left an impression on everyone.

Plus, if Foley didn't get thrown off the cell, then who knows what type of direction that match would have gone into. You're dealing with what ifs, not facts. The fact is, Foley wanted to outdo the first Cell match, and they did. If they didn't, they could have put on a great match a different type of way. They chose to do the match that way, and people still go crazy and talk about it ten years later, they must have done something right.

Another factor is that it catapulted both of them to a higher level in the company. It led to Taker's heel turn, leading to a big feud with Austin, which was part of the biggest period WWE ever had, meaning it helped the company make money, meaning that it was successful, as you have said is what wrestling is all about. It may not have been the best in ring action, but to say it was terrible is just wrong.

undertakerrulesmania20

08-26-2008, 05:47 PM

You Are Unbelievable I Still Dont See Whitch Of His Matches Have Sucked.
Eithier Your Not Watching The Same Show As Everyone Else Or You Need To Have Your Head Examined. Undertaker Has More Ring Skills Then The Current Whc Punk And Wwe Champ Hhh As Well As Batista, Kane, Cena, Did I Miss Any Of The Big Draws Here. He Also Can Push A Mach Or Storline Better Then All The Above People.

Esteban Ochocinco

08-26-2008, 05:51 PM

Don't get me wrong guys, Taker has had bad matches, everyone has. You shouldn't get so blind to think that he isn't capable of having a bad match. That being said, everyone has has had bad matches, Taker has had his share, but not enough to warrant the term of him sucking.

klunderbunker

08-26-2008, 05:53 PM

Absolutely he's had bad matches. Everyone from Bret to Taker to HHH has. I've been bored by him before. But overall sucking? Hardly.

undertakerrulesmania20

08-26-2008, 05:57 PM

Yeah And He Is Far From The Worst To On Any Of The 3 Shows

Slyfox696

08-26-2008, 09:05 PM

The old Sly: Putting the nerves of millions AND MILLIONS of WZ posters into a chaotic state.
(It's good to know from you man, still a Mizzou fan? ;) )

Now, about the Undertaker...

Come on sly, you are biting your tongue on this one. Even one year after, I still know what your standards are for a superstar to being a good wrestler overall.

I might forget some points, so help me after this:

1-Marketable image
Ok, do we still have a doubt on this one? Call it a Zombie or an American Badass Biker, Undertaker is an instant Win for marketability purposes: Intimidating physical image = wrestler who kick everyone else assses. So, if you take that premise and you mix it with the bizarre, but eternal human fascination for the unknown and the death = Instant Win + bonu$$

2-Wrestling skills
He might not be Bret Hart, but probably knows 2 or 3 holds and moves, dont ya think? (also: see attachment)

3-Wrestling Psychology and story telling.
(see attachment)

4-Drawing Power and live crowd reaction
I've only watched 2, maybe 3 people who might compete with Taker's awe inspiring pops: Steve Austin and Hulk hogan (and Cena comes in a close 3rd place...) of course, this is intimately close to number 3, but still. (also: see attachment)

-THE attachment-

Here is some Sly-Original material for you kids out there, because I don't know what the hell happened, but suddenly, "The Undertaker Sucks".

>>INSTRUCTIONS AND NOTES
Quite simple: Replace the Words "John Cena" with "The Undertaker". (i've done it for you guys. You're welcome!)
This post is from the Official John Cena thread, and has been slightly edited for continuity purposes. Terms edited:
Raw--> SD, Cena--> The Undertaker, People-->SLyfox696
<<

Just, please don't tell me that Cena is better than Taker. My eyes could explode after reading that. (not that Cena is garbage, he is not... but thats something for another thread)

Bottomline is: are YOU kidding YOURSELF? or this is some side effect from watching too much Hogan knows best?? ;)

Yes, I'm still a Mizzou fan. As for anything else to answer...you need to make a valid point. No one is criticizing the Undertaker for his number of moves, and no one can show me his great storytelling ability in all the matches I've named that sucked. All people ever want to do is tell me how bad his opponents are, a red herring argument if I've ever seen one.

Please make a valid and original point, and then we'll talk.

So what you're saying is that the Undertaker should have taken command in a match against Jake Roberts, Jimmy Snuka, Kamala, or any of the other guys that he had "terrible" matches with at that time. Sly, those guys were the veterans, those guys were the ring generals, and those guys should have been calling the match. If there is any fault for the quality of those matches, it wouldn't be on the Undertaker, it would be on the veterans at the time.What I'm saying is that I've seen entertaining Snuka matches, I've seen entertaining Roberts matches, hell I've seen entertaining Kamala matches. I know those guys can put on a good match. Why couldn't they with the Undertaker?

I mean, how many bad matches can we make excuses for.

I have failed to see an Undertaker match that has dead crowds as you keep referring too.Summerslam 1994, 1995, and 1998. That's three matches at Summerlsam in 5 years time. And Taker was in the Boiler Room Brawl in 1996 which sucked as well.

Also note that the 1998 was against Steve Austin, when Austin was really starting to hit his stride. And the crowd STILL struggled to find a way to get into the match. It was actually that match that got me thinking about this topic.

and vince was so concerned that no one cared about Undertaker matches why in the last 2 years pushing 50 has he won the Royal Rumble in 2007, Been involved at a title match at WM 23, Main evented Survivor Series, he and Shawn Michaels being the focal point of the Royal Rumble 2008, Main Eventing WM 24, and Main Eventing Summerslam. Those are the WWE's Big four pay per views each year, yet a guy that gets no heat miraculously headlines those events.
Because he is still drawing crowds. No one is saying that he doesn't. But, once they get to the show, what happens? Dud city. Then, Undertaker takes a few months off, shows up again right before a major PPV, and we do it all over again.

No one is saying he isn't one of the bigger draws for the WWE, although he doesn't draw as well as people think. But, I think his history of terrible matches speak for themselves.
good deal sly. People can argue and gripe about the cell match all they want, fact of the matter is, it's one of the top 5, if not top talked about match of the last 25 years. It's left an impression on everyone.So did Brock vs. Goldberg.

Plus, if Foley didn't get thrown off the cell, then who knows what type of direction that match would have gone into.The same that it is now? I mean, this last HIAC was terrible, but did have some bigger bumps. But, when was the last HIAC before that which featured major bumps?

You're dealing with what ifs, not facts. The fact is the match sucked.

The only reason people gush over is because of Foley's dive off the Cell. A respectable feat, sure, but that doesn't make it a good match.

If they didn't, they could have put on a great match a different type of way. Who's doing the "what ifs" now?

They chose to do the match that way, and people still go crazy and talk about it ten years later, they must have done something right.Again, just because of Foley, not because of anything Undertaker did. I mean, when you think of that match, what's the first three images that come to mind? Foley off the top, Foley through the top, and Foley sticking his tongue through his lip making it look like he's smiling. Do any of those feature the Undertaker?

You mean the question where I asked if you really thought they were better than RVD and Sabu? That one?Oh, you asked a question which I had already answered several times?

Klunder Fuck-Up.

No, and without the slam on Andre, Hogan and Andre would have been terrible too.It wasn't that great of a match. But, at least the crowd was into it.

Jake also says it's entertaining, Sam says its impressive, Xfear says match of the year, Ricky still says MOTY, meaning they all said it had something. You said anyone with knowledge would say it was terrrible. If something is entertaining, impressive, or match of the year, I'd hardly call that terrible.Did you even read the thread? I even posted exactly what they said.

Watching a kid get hit in the head with a basketball is entertaining, but it's not good ball handling skills.

People did care about Mick Foley in that match. He got an ovation at the end for his actions. His character was made that day. Before that match, Mick Foley was meh, that match officially made him the psychopathic hardcore legend.They cared about the major bumps he had taken, not whether or not his CHARACTER would win the match.

Big difference.

Don't get me wrong guys, Taker has had bad matches, everyone has. You shouldn't get so blind to think that he isn't capable of having a bad match. That being said, everyone has has had bad matches, Taker has had his share, but not enough to warrant the term of him sucking.But when some of your worst matches consistently come on the two biggest shows of the year? You don't find that worrisome?

jtbsoon2b

08-26-2008, 09:05 PM

Slyfox696

08-26-2008, 09:10 PM

This from the same guy who started the thread: "some intelligently refute this logic"?

WOW!!

U've got to be kidding me!

Taker has drawn tons of money for WWE and himself. This is possibly one of the most important facts in his' history, because many people feel the more you draw the greater of a wrestler you are.

So thats why in many's eyes he is great and he also draws in the casual fan. Which also helps him.

And he has had some great matches.
Anyone see NWO 06?

See he wrestled Kurt Freakin' Angle but it takes two great wrestlers to put on a legendary match.
Don't get confused. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I'm not talking about Undertaker, the employee.

I'm talking about Undertaker, the in-ring worker only. The guy is over, the guy is cool, and the guy is a draw. No question. But, I'm talking about his abilities once he gets between the ropes.

Minor League Brian

08-26-2008, 09:13 PM

Sly, I'm not positive but I think some of the problem lies in the fact this isn't exactly like you (from what I've seen). Normally you're the person talking about drawing and all that, not the in-ring worker. Maybe that's why it seems people aren't responding how you want them too.

Course, I disagree with you but in the end I think its just a personal thing.

proweeks

08-26-2008, 09:21 PM

people seem to contradict themselves a hell of a lot, they go from snubbing Takers wrestling skills to saying that the cell match with Mankind was in the top 5 greatest of all time, im gonna go out on a limb and say the match had hardly any "wrestling" whatsoever, but it had some of the best "spots" of all time, look a guy doesnt have to be Jack Brisco or Kurt Angle, but if he knows how to make a match "entertaining", and keep the crowd involved and make you say holy shit every once in a while then he can be called a good wrestler.

Hogan is arguably #1 of all time, and he was a horrible "wrestler", but as long as your charisma and psychology are great and as long as you don't wrestle as bad as the Great Khali or Giant Gonzalez, then you are good to go

and another point, how come no one has pointed out that Taker has remained on top for so long maybe because he's dedicated, maybe because he remained loyal as hell to WWE during the Monday Night War, maybe because he reinvents his character completely every couple of years and it certainly doesnt hurt that he's 6' 8" and 305 and can walk the top rope (lol):flair:

ortonchamp28

08-26-2008, 09:28 PM

this hole thread makes no sense, sly ur main point in almost every argument uve ever had is that it doesnt matter how good your in ring work is, it matters how entertaining u are and how much money you draw. i think the only reason u even made this thread is to get someone to try and defend taker and say how it doesnt matter how good your in-ring work is as long as your a draw, to further your arguments about guys such as cena and hogan. either that or your entire outlook on what matters and what doesnt has completely changed.

Slyfox696

08-26-2008, 09:30 PM

Sly, I'm not positive but I think some of the problem lies in the fact this isn't exactly like you (from what I've seen). Normally you're the person talking about drawing and all that, not the in-ring worker. Maybe that's why it seems people aren't responding how you want them too.Yeah, that's kind of what I talked about in my last post. I probably should have been more clear.

No one (at least I'm not) is arguing that Undertaker isn't pulling in fans. But, once those fans are there...then what?

Esteban Ochocinco

08-26-2008, 09:31 PM

One day I'll learn the quote technique. I'm about to go to bed, so forgive the rushness of this post.

What I'm saying is that I've seen entertaining Snuka matches, I've seen entertaining Roberts matches, hell I've seen entertaining Kamala matches. I know those guys can put on a good match. Why couldn't they with the Undertaker?

I mean, how many bad matches can we make excuses for.

Snuka was at least 8 years removed from his prime. He's most famous for the Cage matches in the Garden, and he was fairly far removed from that. Robers was arguably 4 or 5 years removed from his prime. Arguably his last good match was against Rude at WM4. And I've failed to have watch a Kamala match that got me pumped up.

As for the second liine, when I get more time, I'll go into more.

Summerslam 1994, 1995, and 1998. That's three matches at Summerlsam in 5 years time. And Taker was in the Boiler Room Brawl in 1996 which sucked as well.

Also note that the 1998 was against Steve Austin, when Austin was really starting to hit his stride. And the crowd STILL struggled to find a way to get into the match. It was actually that match that got me thinking about this topic.

The Summerslam 1994 match shouldn't have been the main event, and that's obvious. The Cage match stole the show, if you can steal the show being in a cage and being in a title match featuring two brothers. The Undertaker vs. Underfaker was just a gimmick that went too far, and was destined to fail. Plus the logistics of putting up, and tearing down the cage. That time delay will kill the live energy out of the crowd, no doubt.

Summerslam 1995 I barely remember, but if he was facing Kama, then I would have fell asleep too.

Summerslam 1998 was against Austin, who suffered a broken jaw in that match. That took the momentum out of that match, and people new something was wrong. They both put on a great match a year and a half earlier at Cold Day in Hell, and had great matches the next year when Austin was healthy. It was a bad situation with an injury in the main event, and Austin wasn't in that match 100%. Again, not Takers fault.

As far as the Boiler Room Brawl, to each there own I suppose. I enjoyed that match myself. It was differnt, it was unique, but think of yourself being in the live crowd. You paid to watch a match in the ring, and these two are fighting for twenty minutes in the back room, I'm not going to be too thrilled in the stands myself. It played out well on the TV, but not for the live crowd. Again, I enjoyed the match, but understand why the live crowd took so long to get involved in it.

Because he is still drawing crowds. No one is saying that he doesn't. But, once they get to the show, what happens? Dud city. Then, Undertaker takes a few months off, shows up again right before a major PPV, and we do it all over again.

No one is saying he isn't one of the bigger draws for the WWE, although he doesn't draw as well as people think. But, I think his history of terrible matches speak for themselves.

Agreed, that he's not as big of a draw as he is made out to be, but doesn't mean he's not super over. There's something to be said of a guy that has won titles at 3 Wrestlemanias, something only Hogan and Austin have done at this point. Pretty illustrious company. Obviously he's doing something right. If the crowds are as dead as you say they are, the Undertaker wouldn't be in the WWE for as long as he is at the level he is.

So did Brock vs. Goldberg.
Isn't that the point though, to entertain the crowd. Regardless of great match or not, the crowd was entertained in a weird way. They took what they had, and ran with it. Likewise with HITC, it left an impression.

The fact is the match sucked.

The only reason people gush over is because of Foley's dive off the Cell. A respectable feat, sure, but that doesn't make it a good match.

Like the only people remember Hogan vs. Andre for the Bodyslam. Without that match and symbolic passing of the torch, you have a very mediocre match. People remember that spot like they remember this spot.

Again, just because of Foley, not because of anything Undertaker did. I mean, when you think of that match, what's the first three images that come to mind? Foley off the top, Foley through the top, and Foley sticking his tongue through his lip making it look like he's smiling. Do any of those feature the Undertaker?

I think of Undertaker throwing Mick Foley from the top of the cell, I think of Undertaker chokeslamming Foley threw the cage, I think of Undertaker making Foley look like a pin cushion...

But when some of your worst matches consistently come on the two biggest shows of the year? You don't find that worrisome?

More to come...

Minor League Brian

08-26-2008, 09:32 PM

Yeah, that's kind of what I talked about in my last post. I probably should have been more clear.

No one (at least I'm not) is arguing that Undertaker isn't pulling in fans. But, once those fans are there...then what?

I don't think it has anything to do with you not being clear, mate. I think its just more peoples perceptions on what you're saying. You know, after time people sorta just grow use to how people approach things and expect it to remain that way.

jmt225

08-26-2008, 10:22 PM

You mean the one they had on Smackdown because all their other work sucked so bad?

Yes, and regardless, the match turned out to be good.

Oh I know. Those 7 months between Taker and Cena, a couple of which he wasn't even on TV, was a VERY important step in Khali's development.

As opposed to 'Taker being the very FIRST person to feud with Khali on the big stage? Yes, it was.

Jake Roberts is a terrible wrestler? Mick Foley is a terrible wrestler? Hulk Hogan is a terrible wrestler? Steve Austin is a terrible wrestler?

When did I say that? Jake was terrible IN THE MID-NINETIES; that is a fact. Foley, I've praised a couple of times, so obviously I don't think he's terrible. Hogan has nothing to do with anything. And you said that Austin's match against 'Taker was "passable", not that it "sucked", so why are you brining up his name in the first place?

Being over for 18 years just gives more terrible matches to criticize. Do you REALLY think that the Undertaker has been around for 18 years because he puts on matches that bore the live crowd? You know, like the matches I've already gone through and talked about? People want to always talk about Hulk Hogan and his "in-ring ability", and yet, like Jake said earlier, you never saw a dead crowd during a Hogan match. It happens all the time in Taker matches.

Fact is Sly that 'Taker has provided us with some of the most memorable matches of all-time. His matches with HBK, Mankind, Bret (One Night Only), Lesnar, Angle, Batista, Edge, ect. are all legendary and are a huge bright spot in WWE's history as far as in-ring work is concerned. You can talk about his shitty matches against his shitty opponents all you want, but the fact of the matter is that when it comes to Taker's matches, 97% of wrestling fans will first think of the good ones, not Taker's squash matches or his shit against trash like Giant Gonzalez.

You just said RVD wasn't terrible and Sabu was exciting. I'm not sure I should even bother with anything else you say.

RVD is no where near being terrible, and Sabu got over in WWE only because of the excitement he brings.

No, millions and millions of people who watched the HIGHLIGHTS of the HIAC match think differently. Anyone who has actually watched the match knows how bad it sucks.

Do you have proof of this?

Using your theory, Brock vs. Goldberg was only bad because the crowd knew they were leaving.

See, that's a valid excuse.

Actually, the crowd is what made that match watchable. But honestly, I'm surprised that's not one of your favorite matches. I mean, if you watch it, all it is, is Hogan vs. Warrior from 'Mania 6 all over again. They did the exact same thing in that match that Hogan and Warrior did in their match. You know, with the test of strength and all that other garbage. And I know you've said on multiple occasions that Hogan vs. Warrior is one of the greatest matches of all time.

The tag match where Trish and Molly Holly botch all the time was only bad because those two women weren't used to working together. See, it wasn't a bad match because there is a "valid" excuse.

How is two people not being able to work together the same as a SQUASH match?

The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh

08-27-2008, 03:45 AM

So would I, but Triple H sucks too.

Basically, I'm saying the Undertaker sucks in the ring, and I'm showing 15+ years of proof.

No sly, you're giving your opinion. Your opinion is not proof.

I personally loved Taker/Big Show v Kane/X-pac in 99, that's my opinion.

Secondly, you're saying that ALL of those matches sucked bcoz of Taker, which is just stupid. You're saying that Taker v Mark Henry at WM was bad bcoz of Taker? Taker v Giant Gonzalez sucked bcoz of Taker?

I can't talk about any WM matches b4 12 having not seen them, but lets take Taker v Sid for example.

In that match Sid repeatedly put Taker in a bear hug, and then did 4 elbow smashes off the second rope incredibly slowly. That's Taker's fault? Both of them decide how to conduct the match, it's the finish that they have no control over.

Taker v Kane at 14? None of their initial matches were that good, and you could blame that on Kane. He was no rookie, but he was trying to wrestle as Taker and obviously didn't do his homework properly, but if i recall correctly, Taker managed to jump onto Kane's shoulders for a victory roll and took an electric chair drop! That's the sort of combination you see cruiserweights and mid heavyweights attempting, not heavyweights, and as i recall, Taker also dived over the top rope through the announce table. Those were damn good spots imo

Taker v Batista was overrated? That's probably one of the best Batista matches i've ever seen. Only Edge and now Cena have gotten a decent match out of him imo

My point is, it takes 2 to tango.

How many 300pound guys dive over the top rope these days? The guy has become incredibly injury prone and STILL does the dangerous spots. He also tends to ADD more moves to his repetoire frequently as well, which is more than can be said for HBK, and he's more than willing to put guys over. There is only one night of the year where he won't lose and who rally know's if that's down to him or creative suddenly realised he'd never lost and decided to roll with it.

You can say that i have an uber biased opinion because i'm a Taker mark. I watch WWE because of the Undertaker and the Undertaker alone, and some of the great memories and matches he's been a part of with some of the best the business has had to offer.

Has he had a bunch of shit matches? Yes he has. Everyone has. HBK has had bad matches, HHH has had bad matches. both Austin and Foley had a 5 move repetoire and they also had bad matches. But regardless of that, you can't put say Taker (or any of those guys i just said) is shit, because his matches suck purely due to him because that's simply not fair to them or anybody who steps inside the ring.

Just out of interest, who do you like on the WWE roster, past or present?

STENA

08-27-2008, 04:02 AM

The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh

08-27-2008, 04:33 AM

It's terrible. What's so great about it? Some guy can kill himself, big deal. Where's the wrestling aspect to it? The intricate storyline to the match, the binding pull to each of the characters, the story that makes you sit in your seat spellbound by who is going to win and how?

There's none of that. It's just "Let's see what insane stunt Foley will do next". Big deal.

That match was terrible, and anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge and objectivity will tell you so.
Which ones?

Did you actually watch this match live or did you watch a video of it after hearing about it?

You weren't shocked that Foley got up and continued to wrestle after falling 15 foot to the floor through the announce table? You weren't shocked after Foley got up AGAIN after falling 10 foot and getting smashed in the face with a chair. You weren't mesmerised by the fact that we saw his delirious face with something pierced through his lip, and then continued to wrestle? The fact that despite all of that damage, he even made a comeback and came close to beating Taker after a piledriver on the chair and then the mandible claw? With all that damage after the first 5 minutes of the match, did you really expect them to be able to use ring chemistry and sell without people knowing that Foley was legitimately hurt?

You must be one of those "they know how to fall" kinda guys right?

Esteban Ochocinco

08-27-2008, 04:55 AM

I would have to agree with sly on this one taker does indeed suk , he takes ten years to get to ring ,his move set is basic,his slow overated and boring hey at least HHH puts people over i havent seen taker put someone over for ages and only reason he did in TLC so he cud take break then win edge in HIAC and put im out and look bigger man old shit shud just retire and put someone over before he does

maybe one of the worst post ever on any forum. So Undertaker has wrestled only one match his entire career I presume. You know, it does take ten years to get to the ring, so he's wrestled one match, and I guess he's almost on his way for his second match.

Undertaker never put anyone over, pal, try watching a wrestling match and some wrestlign before you make such stupid ass comments. Instead of making such a baseless hit and run post, how about trying to prove a point. Until you provide any evidence, or at least attempt to, you're statement has no merit.

Moon Knight

08-27-2008, 05:12 AM

maybe one of the worst post ever on any forum. So Undertaker has wrestled only one match his entire career I presume. You know, it does take ten years to get to the ring, so he's wrestled one match, and I guess he's almost on his way for his second match.

Undertaker never put anyone over, pal, try watching a wrestling match and some wrestlign before you make such stupid ass comments. Instead of making such a baseless hit and run post, how about trying to prove a point. Until you provide any evidence, or at least attempt to, you're statement has no merit.

Well said, what about Khali, or have people forgotten the disrespectful way Taker was pinned by him? I could also mention other people like Brock Lesnar and Batista who both beat him in a hell in a cell match, Lesnar pinning him clean inside of it. Saying Taker doesn't put people over is just plain false.

klunderbunker

08-27-2008, 05:19 AM

Might want to throw in Orton at SS and Edge at ONS.

Moon Knight

08-27-2008, 05:25 AM

Might want to throw in Orton at SS and Edge at ONS.

He also lost to Shawn Michaels, Mr. Kennedy twice, Kurt Angle, JBL, HHH. The list goes of names he has helped put over during his long career.

The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh

08-27-2008, 05:33 AM

The only person i've seen Taker bury was Muhammed Hassan who had to be fired after the London bombings (rather than just wait a while and give him a new gimmick, stranger still was that Davairi was allowed to stay)

Uncle Sam

08-27-2008, 05:49 AM

I think people should also bring up Undertaker making Edge look like God himself at SummerSlam.

Big Beck-ah Roethlisberger

08-27-2008, 07:39 AM

As opposed to RVD and Sabu...who were gone just a few weeks after their matches with Cena?

Great point. :rolleyes:

Who cares? They were still better workers than Sabu or RVD.

So was Umaga's matches with a ton of guys. And they were far superior to the garbage we had to watch from Undertaker. Take Umaga vs. HBK from Raw a few years back. Head and shoulders above those two WM matches. WRESTLEMANIA matches.

Another excuse, in a long line of excuses for the pitiful work of the Undertaker.

I have a better idea. Watch the match first, and then that'll be all I need to do.

It wasn't though. It was a match of like 4 spots. That was it. Seriously. Match over.

Sucked ass. The HBK vs. Undertaker HIAC match was good, and still showed the "hellish" nature of the Cell. The Mankind match blew monkey chunks.

Quit making excuses.

You mean the one they had on Smackdown because all their other work sucked so bad?

Oh I know. Those 7 months between Taker and Cena, a couple of which he wasn't even on TV, was a VERY important step in Khali's development.

:rolleyes:

Jake Roberts is a terrible wrestler? Mick Foley is a terrible wrestler? Hulk Hogan is a terrible wrestler? Steve Austin is a terrible wrestler?

I smell excuses coming.

Sure it does.

Being over for 18 years just gives more terrible matches to criticize. Do you REALLY think that the Undertaker has been around for 18 years because he puts on matches that bore the live crowd? You know, like the matches I've already gone through and talked about? People want to always talk about Hulk Hogan and his "in-ring ability", and yet, like Jake said earlier, you never saw a dead crowd during a Hogan match. It happens all the time in Taker matches.

OK, lay it on me. What are they?

Huh?

:blink:

LOL

You just said RVD wasn't terrible and Sabu was exciting. I'm not sure I should even bother with anything else you say.

No, millions and millions of people who watched the HIGHLIGHTS of the HIAC match think differently. Anyone who has actually watched the match knows how bad it sucks.

Using your theory, Brock vs. Goldberg was only bad because the crowd knew they were leaving.

See, that's a valid excuse. The tag match where Trish and Molly Holly botch all the time was only bad because those two women weren't used to working together. See, it wasn't a bad match because there is a "valid" excuse.

Do you not see how ridiculous that line of thinking is?

Where's this thinking come from that a squash match can't be entertaining?

Goldberg squashed people all the time in WCW, and he was still entertaining as hell doing it.

Those factors are what MAKE you like it though, and determine whether or not you could keep watching that match and still like it.

By the way, thanks for quoting that for me, so I didn't have to retype it.

If that were true, how come so many of his matches are so terrible?

Remember the old saying "Ric Flair could put on a great match with a broomstick" or whatever it was? While, Ric Flair wasn't very good, the concept remains the same. I mean, Hulk Hogan went up against some of the worst workers in history, and STILL was able to have the crowd into it.

Why can't the Undertaker?
You forgot Bret Hart.

Sly i watched WCW for years and i never found a goldberg match entertaining let a lone a squash match.