Taker and Michaels: Too thin for their own good?

[Esteban Ochocinco]

Mainly with the Undertaker, but you can take a picture from him now, and ten years ago, and you can clearly see a BIG difference. That difference is, about 50 if not more pounds. Likewise with Shawn Michaels. Never a large guy, but clearly now is the thinnest he has ever been in his career.

There is a simple reason why these two have done this, in my opinion at least, more weight means more strain on aging joints, and it simply makes it too hard to move around at their ages. Both men have trimmed down, and arguably, have been at the best in their careers during the last several years.

But with all of the great matches, all of the great feuds these two have had the last few years, there has also been something else noticeable, or not so noticeable, and that's their mere presence. The last couple of years, both wrestlers have missed a good portion of the year either due to injury, or taking time off to recharge the battery.

As the title says, are these two now too thin for their own good? Professional wrestlers need weight on them, plain and simple. Either in the form of fat or muscle, guys need something to absorb the impact from taking bumps on that mat day in and day out. These two simply don't have that type of protection on them anymore, and I think that leads a big part to their abscense over the last few years. Now I will say, if they hadn't have taken this route, both of their careers may have been over at this point regardless.

[tehblogger]

Um, you'll excuse me for being cynical, but 10 years ago it was perfectly acceptable for wrestlers to stuff themselves full of roids. Now, in this post-Benoit/Guerrero new era of the Wellness Policy etc, it's less so. It shouldn't be a surprise that Taker and Michaels have a shrunk a bit.

Quite apart from this, both of them are getting old, and their careers are - I think - drawing to a close anyway. And old men do suffer from muscle mass decrease. Unless they're Triple H...

[Dragonslayer]

As for Michaels, he indeed is at his slimmest now - back when he debuted he had a stature reminiscent of Chris Jericho's (also especially at earlier stages of his career), and over the course of the 90ies he continuously slimmed down.

However with the Undertaker, I tend to disagree - please take a look at his earliest appearances: He was an incredibly pale (well he is a natural redhead I believe?), incredibly un-muscular guy in the early years. And to me, he wasn't THAT much more in his Ministry days. In fact, he only REALLY put on some heavy muscle when he took up the American Bad Ass Biker-Gimmick - compare his physique of those days (which are not yet 10 years ago) to his earlier physique... About now, I'd say that part of him putting off some weight will definitely be because of joints etc., but also simply because he is growing older and muscle structure isn't that easy to build up/maintain anymore for him. Especially now in the days of post-steroids, as was already pointed out.

[Slyfox696]

Um, you'll excuse me for being cynical, but 10 years ago it was perfectly acceptable for wrestlers to stuff themselves full of roids. Now, in this post-Benoit/Guerrero new era of the Wellness Policy etc, it's less so. It shouldn't be a surprise that Taker and Michaels have a shrunk a bit.

Quite apart from this, both of them are getting old, and their careers are - I think - drawing to a close anyway.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head here. The difference is the steroids they shove down their throats, not necessarily because of the Wellness Policy, but more so because they are just getting older, their spots are safe, and they've seen so many others die because of them.

And old men do suffer from muscle mass decrease. Unless they're Triple H...Not at their age they don't. They're still fairly young. Many men don't even start hitting their peak muscle mass until a little before their age, and can carry it through their age.

[Monkey Winchester]

I agree. I think they both need to start hitting the gym harder. Michaels looks sickly and ill whenever he comes out. The Undertaker is in the best shape of his career arguably, but yet he's still always injured. Maybe they need to add a little more mass to their physiques, it might make them a little less likely to get injured, or it might increase their chances. But they are way too thin and need to do something about it.

[Esteban Ochocinco]

I agree. I think they both need to start hitting the gym harder. Michaels looks sickly and ill whenever he comes out. The Undertaker is in the best shape of his career arguably, but yet he's still always injured. Maybe they need to add a little more mass to their physiques, it might make them a little less likely to get injured, or it might increase their chances. But they are way too thin and need to do something about it.

This is more of what I'm looking for. I think the debate of whether or not the Undertaker was on steroids is something for another thread. Michaels failed a drug test, so that's an open and shut case. With the Undertaker, much like the way people defend Cena, until he proves positive for it, he's clean.

This is more of a thread has the weight loss led to the current string of injuries that both of these superstars have suffered the last few years. As I said in the first post, has the weight loss become a double edge sword. Has it elongated their careers, yet does the lack of mass cause their injuries to occur more frequently?

[MasterDebator]

I think the problem with Taker is that he's constantly involved in high-risk gimmick matches. His feud with Batista included a cage match on smackdown, a last man standing match, and a Hell in a Cell match. His feud with Edge involved a TLC match and a HIAC match. He's also frequently(not so much recently but they happen) in Casket matches. I don't think it has to do with his shape, because he is still able to perform intense, fast matches while utilizing the same moves he's used his whole career, in particular the tight-rope walk and the press where he jumps over the top-rope onto the outside. Taker is in the shape of his life for his age.

As for Michael's, his injury on Monday night looked to have stemmed from bad luck rather than bad shape or him being too thin. He took a tremendous bump at Mania when he moonsaulted onto the announcer's table and he was still able to perform. Extra mass wouldn't have made a difference after that move. He also has been involved in some brutal matches recently, namely the stretcher match, and he has walked away from them with no major injuries. I'm not sure if his lack of action recently has to do with a real injury, or the fake eye-injury that has a lot to do with his program with Jericho.

Either way, Michael's injury Monday night looked like bad luck. Taker is in the shape of his life. Both guys are tremendously hard workers and they are always willing to take that insane bump. To me, that's why they always turn up on the DL.

[Davi323]

I am inclined to agree with MasterDebator. Undertaker is always involved in these high risk matches, that increase his chances of getting injured, so it shouldn't be a shock when he gets injured. Further, I agree that Undertaker is in perhaps the best shape of his life right now.

MasterDebator is also correct about Shawn Michaels. No amount of additional muscle mass would have prevented him from cracking his ribs landing on the announcers table from that moonsault. Nor would an increase in bulk have prevented his eye injury.

In fact, I don't see the connection between their size and injuries. Triple H being bulky didn't prevent him from tearing two quads, John Cena being ripped didn't stop him from getting injured, Randy Orton's muscles didn't prevent him from breaking his collarbone, nor did the Boogeyman get a leg injury that has kept him out for more than half a year as a result of his "thinness".

Sorry Uncle Shocky, I think you took their weight, their injuries, and assumed a correlation between them, when the logic doesn't really support it. Taker and Michaels are thinner now than they were earlier in the careers at times, they do seem to get injured more often, but, it doesn't follow that the one follows the other here. I am inclined to think that their in-ring styles and types of matches they are in has more to do with it than anything else, and point out that no matter your size, wrestlers get hurt.

[arsens09]

Old age is the reason for these guys thinning over the years.

Michaels in particular is clearly not on the performance enhancing drugs that he was in the early to mid 90s.

As for Undertaker, he has lost considerable weight since he returned at WM 20. I suspect alot of this has to do with his injuries and training in a different way than before.

Both their knees and backs are shot, so that would also have an impact on their ability to lift weights at a level that they did 10 to 15 years ago.

Needless to say, the loss of muscle mass hasnt affected their workrate, as Michaels and Taker have had some of their best matches in years lately.

Take-Angle was a class a few years ago, while Michaels has had MOTY contenders 5 or 6times in the past 3 years, namely his matches with Cena.

[Dragonslayer]

What I also would like to add is that the Undertaker just has been injury-prone his entire career... I guess for most of the Ministry-phase his ankle was in really bad shape, and he had to take time off again and again... And he has maintained this habit of getting injured over the years. Part of it is definitely because he is in high risk matches maybe more often than anyone else; and the other part is that I believe some people are just much more likely to get injuries than others.

I mean, I feel in recent years, injuries have become a lot more common (or maybe it's just because we get more backstage newsfeeds on them?) than they used to... But some people I think are not injured as often as others - a good (unfortunately negative) example would be Kennedy - I believe he's been out A LOT more time in the past 2-3 years than he has been in, due to constantly being injured (and really heavily so, with injuries that take him out around 6-8 months at a time), while others simply are more lucky, or in some way less prone to injuries; I mean, I'm not that informed or up to date as injuries are concerned - but I don't think The Rock was injured so frequently? Or Y2J? I mean, I guess everyone has had their shares of injuries, it just comes with the territory in the wrestling business... But some people are just less lucky than others it seems.

But I agree - even if Taker has lost some mass since his return at WM20, he still is in tremendous shape (esp. considering his age), and still able to deliver at much the same level, if not better, than he used to in the 90ies.

[LigerBomb]

As a CSCS and USAW coach who has a little background with Performance Enhancing Drugs and pro-hormones I can say there is a wide divide between different classes of drugs and what they can do. That said I believe there may be some truth to what some of you above have said in regards to the drug use prolonging the careers of Michaels and 'Taker.

PEDs are a double edged sword. On one hand while I'm sure many wrestlers use them primarily for aesthetic reasons the other significant benifit of the drugs are that they aid in the prevention, recovery, and repair of injuries so from a day to day aspect they can be very beneficial to those that do what wrestlers do night in and night out. These classes of PEDs are what I believe the smaller sized guys got busted for as you don't actually have to looked jacked, ripped, cut, or Huoooge to be on steroids or pro-hormones. The extra mass helps but its not the safety cushion some might think it is. And as body builder type mass increases, speed and stability, usually decrease.

On the other hand PEDs can also CAUSE injuries. When training for quick mass these substances can cause an imbalance between muscle fiber and ligament/tendon strength. Simply put the muscle gets stronger and tighter about 6-8x faster than the tissues that connect them to bones/muscles and then they tear off do to the increased tension. I figure this explains the quad injuries of Trips n Vince (the leg extension machines they use in the gym dont help either). Also this is what I think happened to Taker a while back when he was out with an injury, was set to come back, and then tore a different muscle off the bone. He was probably using all the free time to do a mass cycle put on too much too fast to prep for his return to the ring and pulled something else in the process. FYI this CAN happen drug free for the same reasons but is much harder/rarer due to the slower mass gain of natural training.

Cena's tear IMO was probably due to a muscle imbalance that in a round about way was made worse by possible drug use but was more dependent on mobility, training, and recovery habits. If he trained differently and included more functional recovery drills for his push/pull muscles, the injury probably either wouldn't have happened or happened much later. Kenndy's labrum and "wear and tear" stuff was also probably due to poor training methodologies, but I digress.

Back on point and to finish up I also want to mention body composition --ration of body fat to lean tissue bone density/water/muscle glucose etc-- in relation to appearance and "mass". I'll start with Michaels who had for lack of a better term a lot of baby fat on him in his younger days. Later when he lost his fat his muscle stayed roughly the same yet he looked bigger due the new muscle definition. PEDs can also bulk giving a dry seperated look or a wet soft look depending on what you take. So that also affected his appearance through the years. The same can be said of 'Taker who got very heavy in his American Bad Ass days. While I will agree some of it was muscle most was increased body fat and water weight that gave him that bloated look. When he came back he kept all the muscle if not added a slight bit more but actually lost a big amount of fat. Today they both have kept the fat off. In Michaels case he no longer trains for size as he has stated and has lost some mass instead opting for a more functional athletic training system which IMO has been hands down better for his in ring work. The lack of massive recovery drugs probably has hurt him but as already said not as much as one may think and I suspect he stays on something to boost testosterone even if its OTC stuff. Taker has also maintained his muscle mass, for the most part kept the fat and water weight off, and also sports a more sleek functional look. I would suspect that at his age and because of prior injuries he does still use some pro-hormones but at lower maintenance doses. This stuff isn't banned per se but it all in the dosing/cycling.

Anyway I'm rambling a bit. Apologies. Lemme know if any of you have any other PED or training questions lol

[Mighty NorCal]

Eh Shock, its a litany of things I belive. Physiques are just harder to keep up with age, ,and the lesser weight allows more flexibilty and avoidance of injury. Its arguable that both men are at the top of their games right at the moment, and for my money, Taker "LOOKS" as good as he ever has, as far as being cut, strong looking. HBK looks hilarious, but hey, he never was "BIG" guy, so why not allow him a weight that allows him the best felxibility and preformance. So to answer the question of the thead, no, I dont belive either guy is too thin by a long shot.