Everyone that says Taker doesn't use his influence backstage is first of all 1)probably uninformed because none of us have ever really been there and 2) probably wrong because all we ever hear about is new guys having to pay their respects to Taker and basically kissing his ass because all he has done. I think he wil even tell you that he is realy lucky that he stumbled onto the "Zombie Lord" gimmick that has kept spectators gawking for seemingly generations even if it totally borderlines "Wrestlecrap" on a weekly basis. He is a deserving Legend no doubt though.
Undertaker = Greatest wwe superstar ever?
- Thread starter jrcongine
- Start date
I've said it many times, while I think he has a huge following on the internet of people that believe he is the best (both current and all-time), I think his influence has been underestimated.
Look at the championship reigns before and after his matches with Hogan. Before '91, title reigns were extremely long (Hogan had a 4 yr. reign). After their two championship matches (Taker won first, Hogan the second), title reigns became significantly shorter. His very short reign signalled a change in pacing for all of wrestling, not just the WWE. The entire title picture became much more volatile. I'm not saying that he's completely responsible for this, but this series between the two sort of became a marker for this change.
But what he (or I'll concede, his character) did do, is create the concept of a tweener character. While he did make a turn while in a feud with Jake Roberts, his character's persona never really changed. He was still a bad S.O.B. Unlike Hogan in '96, and Andre in '87, his turn did not mean a completely new direction in character as their turns did. And this was a time when you could clearly say who was heel or face.
But to be apart of the conversation of "the greatest of all time", you must have something completely unique. For him, this is his truly phenominal athleticism, and (most importantly) his ever evolving character. The entire look and mindset of the Deadman gimmick are mindblowing. And you can see that in every match, up to the present.
So, while he's not as popular of a choice as Hogan, Flair, Andre, Austin, Rock, or any other name you would place in the conversation, he still needs to be in the conversation.
I've read this post and everyone who has voiced their opinions are right. My opinion is, that Taker is the greatest of all time.
I could tell you a long story on how he is the greatest or how he has the best character or how he is a good wrestler for his size, we've all heard it. Just do some research and watch some interviews from ppl who have had the honor to wrestle the man. Many call him the greatest professional they have ever worked with and if you add in drawing power and the respect of fans and all of his peers(something no other wrestler has except for him) than he is the best of all time.
I could tell you a long story on how he is the greatest or how he has the best character or how he is a good wrestler for his size, we've all heard it. Just do some research and watch some interviews from ppl who have had the honor to wrestle the man. Many call him the greatest professional they have ever worked with and if you add in drawing power and the respect of fans and all of his peers(something no other wrestler has except for him) than he is the best of all time.
!br-marella!
Dark Match Jobber
He is definitely top 5 for sure.He puts people over,wrestles through injuries and always manages to put on a good match,some stealing the show.I wish there was someone to follow in his footsteps.
Dragonslayer
Getting Noticed By Management
Now I personally love the Undertaker, he definitely has to be one of my all-time favorites when it comes to wrestling, right up there with Hogan, Bret Hart and The Rock, which make up my personal pinnacle... but I would not go so far as to name him the greatest ever.
I feel that this title belongs to no other than Hulk Hogan, since he has done infinitely more for wrestling than anyone else has. Period.
However, I like to see The Undertaker as probably the "Greatest supporting character" in wrestling of all time. Sure, he had his runs as champion, he had his time as "main man" - but his gimmick simply would never allow him to be THE face of the entire business the way Hogan, Bret Hart, HBK, Stone Cold were or now John Cena is made out to be. He is whacky, but that is part of his appeal; he is a freak sideshow character, and the greatest one ever to set foot into a wrestling ring. I think for his size, he is an amazing in-ring competitor (I've never seen any other guy his size do a rope walk or that scary suicide dive over the top rope), and this skill supports his "slightly supernatural" gimmick just perfectly. It really looks a bit out of this world when this huge guy just litterally takes off and flies over the top rope.
But I guess Taker's biggest advantage (his gimmick) is also the thing that will keep him from being the "greatest ever". He is just too much "out there" for people to be able to relate to him in a personal way the way they can relate to guys like Austin, Hogan, or even The Rock and John Cena. Those characters, by all their over-the-top attitudes (but hey, it IS pro wrestling we're talking here, after all), still seem like "one of us" - even if they are technically "improved/better/volume-turned-up" versions of the persons we are or we would like to be.
However, I don't think anyone really would want to identify with an Undertaker, of all people, who at one time was leader of some pseudo-satanic sect, who crucified his opponents, who of course buried his opponents in caskets under tons of earth, and who has other supposedly supernatural abilities. That just doesn't work. But he played his part as a side character, as an antagonist to so many great stars throughout the generations so well, no matter if he was on the face or heel side of the pairing, that this is what makes him so great.
Every superhero needs a great villain, or else he is boring. I feel Undertaker became such a huge star by being a great villain in the beginning, and later by being just a great opponent for anyone - for even when he is the face of a feud (e.g. his feud with Edge), the simple fact of Edge fighting The Undertaker and matching him (almost) step for step also makes Edge stand out even more. I believe Undertaker thrives off being a great opponent to his adversaries, no matter if "good or evil", and less off being THE "main superstar", the main focus himself.
Over the years of course, we have grown to like the Deadman, and he has rightfully achieved his legendary status, and now definitely deserves praise as one of the greatest ever. Not THE greatest ever, in terms of overall statistics, but in my book, definitely the greatest supporting character in the history of wrestling.
I feel that this title belongs to no other than Hulk Hogan, since he has done infinitely more for wrestling than anyone else has. Period.
However, I like to see The Undertaker as probably the "Greatest supporting character" in wrestling of all time. Sure, he had his runs as champion, he had his time as "main man" - but his gimmick simply would never allow him to be THE face of the entire business the way Hogan, Bret Hart, HBK, Stone Cold were or now John Cena is made out to be. He is whacky, but that is part of his appeal; he is a freak sideshow character, and the greatest one ever to set foot into a wrestling ring. I think for his size, he is an amazing in-ring competitor (I've never seen any other guy his size do a rope walk or that scary suicide dive over the top rope), and this skill supports his "slightly supernatural" gimmick just perfectly. It really looks a bit out of this world when this huge guy just litterally takes off and flies over the top rope.
But I guess Taker's biggest advantage (his gimmick) is also the thing that will keep him from being the "greatest ever". He is just too much "out there" for people to be able to relate to him in a personal way the way they can relate to guys like Austin, Hogan, or even The Rock and John Cena. Those characters, by all their over-the-top attitudes (but hey, it IS pro wrestling we're talking here, after all), still seem like "one of us" - even if they are technically "improved/better/volume-turned-up" versions of the persons we are or we would like to be.
However, I don't think anyone really would want to identify with an Undertaker, of all people, who at one time was leader of some pseudo-satanic sect, who crucified his opponents, who of course buried his opponents in caskets under tons of earth, and who has other supposedly supernatural abilities. That just doesn't work. But he played his part as a side character, as an antagonist to so many great stars throughout the generations so well, no matter if he was on the face or heel side of the pairing, that this is what makes him so great.
Every superhero needs a great villain, or else he is boring. I feel Undertaker became such a huge star by being a great villain in the beginning, and later by being just a great opponent for anyone - for even when he is the face of a feud (e.g. his feud with Edge), the simple fact of Edge fighting The Undertaker and matching him (almost) step for step also makes Edge stand out even more. I believe Undertaker thrives off being a great opponent to his adversaries, no matter if "good or evil", and less off being THE "main superstar", the main focus himself.
Over the years of course, we have grown to like the Deadman, and he has rightfully achieved his legendary status, and now definitely deserves praise as one of the greatest ever. Not THE greatest ever, in terms of overall statistics, but in my book, definitely the greatest supporting character in the history of wrestling.
Backlash1RKONick
Dark Match Winner
its really tough to chose between hbk or undertaker 
Maybe 10 years ago I would say this, but looking back at it now I am stuck between Bret The Hitman Hart & HBK. Either one of those two men I just mentioned are far more superior than Taker. I'm not talking about number of title wins, or Royal Rumble victories, or even Wrestlemania matches and or streaks. For me it boils down to feuds, actual wrestling matches, and how their character was acted out, you know the depth of character, believability.
When it comes to this kind of entertainment you have to say to yourself "Who makes me believe that this shit means something", because it is all just an act, in tights, rubbing up against another man, and mediocre acting for most. Notice I said most, and not all. When I think of all those things coming together the only two people I can name are Bret and Shawn. Fuck the Rock & Austin feud. Neither of those two men had long WWE careers. Yes, Bret retired as a former WCW wrestler, but the WWE own's rights to that company forever, so in all honesty he is still a WWE(F) superstar.
Anyhow I remember the classic feuds Bret had over the IC title, and his matches against solid wrestlers like Bulldog, Piper, and HBK were classic. The feuds to those matches were great. Go back and think how solid was that IC title feud Piper, and Bret had back in the day. Shawn had an epic match with Razor in a ladder match for the IC title amongst other matches over that same title. Both men were invovled in two well known tag teams during their WWE careers. We watched them both blossom over long periods of time.
Taker has none of those things going for him. Taker is like "The Devils Hulk Hogan". He is not your typical big man wrestler though, as he is very gifted for a man his size period. Easily the "greatest wrestler" over 6'5 to ever walk the face of this earth period. Taker came in and he was an immediate gimmick, but he wasn't too over done. I was a huge Taker fan, but as I got older I realized how unentertaing he was, but still respected the character as it evolved. It was practically a year, and Taker was already facing Hogan in a title match. HBK, and Bret didn't receive pushes like this so early in their career.
That being said I can't sit here and say that he is the greatest superstar of all time. He is in the top 5, but not number one. His character grew, and I would have to say that he was actually the first "bad-good guy" character, and not Stone Cold Steve Austin. Taker set that bar first imo. The only classic feud that sticks out with Taker for me is his feud with Foley as Mankind. That was classic, because Foely was literally the perfect fit for Takers character. Mankind enjoyed pain, and Taker easily delivered it. Yes, all the stars had their shot at Foley, but his Taker feud was gold. The characters clashed well.
I always felt that Taker's gimmick was "gimmicky" at times. It wasn't over the top, but it was still a gimmick that stood out. HBK, nor Bret have characters like this. They have characters that are more realistic. Both of these men were able to make you feel like it was meaningful. Not that Taker couldn't do this, but Hart/Michaels were household names just as Taker's immediate push came about, or were on the verge of.
If Hart, and HBK hadn't become main eventers, then the matches with Taker would have meant less. Taker, and Hart had classic matches. Many fans were wishing to see them fight, and the only way we could was through a video game on the SuperNES. Once they had a match it was a classic, because they went a few years without stepping in a ring. Could Hart make Taker tap? How would Taker's character tapout. It was intriguing because yes Taker's character provided that what if, but if Hart wasn't a household name it wouldn't have happened.
In that match we saw just how well of a technical wrestler the Undertaker was. Bret was able to wrestle with anyone, but Taker kept his pace. We don't have that scenario today with any two wrestlers. Taker lost to HBK in the HIAC match, and no one knew that would happen. We don't have that type of match today, and the last time it happened it was with Taker/HBK at WM 25. Other than that we won't have something that original again.
Both Michaels, and Bret have these types of impacts on the history of the WWE, that Taker does not have. Taker's story is more fantasy which is cool, and I'm glad his character came in to the WWE. However I like the characters of Hart, and HBK much more. They were more realistic characters that didn't rely on such a non-realistic type character.
When it comes to this kind of entertainment you have to say to yourself "Who makes me believe that this shit means something", because it is all just an act, in tights, rubbing up against another man, and mediocre acting for most. Notice I said most, and not all. When I think of all those things coming together the only two people I can name are Bret and Shawn. Fuck the Rock & Austin feud. Neither of those two men had long WWE careers. Yes, Bret retired as a former WCW wrestler, but the WWE own's rights to that company forever, so in all honesty he is still a WWE(F) superstar.
Anyhow I remember the classic feuds Bret had over the IC title, and his matches against solid wrestlers like Bulldog, Piper, and HBK were classic. The feuds to those matches were great. Go back and think how solid was that IC title feud Piper, and Bret had back in the day. Shawn had an epic match with Razor in a ladder match for the IC title amongst other matches over that same title. Both men were invovled in two well known tag teams during their WWE careers. We watched them both blossom over long periods of time.
Taker has none of those things going for him. Taker is like "The Devils Hulk Hogan". He is not your typical big man wrestler though, as he is very gifted for a man his size period. Easily the "greatest wrestler" over 6'5 to ever walk the face of this earth period. Taker came in and he was an immediate gimmick, but he wasn't too over done. I was a huge Taker fan, but as I got older I realized how unentertaing he was, but still respected the character as it evolved. It was practically a year, and Taker was already facing Hogan in a title match. HBK, and Bret didn't receive pushes like this so early in their career.
That being said I can't sit here and say that he is the greatest superstar of all time. He is in the top 5, but not number one. His character grew, and I would have to say that he was actually the first "bad-good guy" character, and not Stone Cold Steve Austin. Taker set that bar first imo. The only classic feud that sticks out with Taker for me is his feud with Foley as Mankind. That was classic, because Foely was literally the perfect fit for Takers character. Mankind enjoyed pain, and Taker easily delivered it. Yes, all the stars had their shot at Foley, but his Taker feud was gold. The characters clashed well.
I always felt that Taker's gimmick was "gimmicky" at times. It wasn't over the top, but it was still a gimmick that stood out. HBK, nor Bret have characters like this. They have characters that are more realistic. Both of these men were able to make you feel like it was meaningful. Not that Taker couldn't do this, but Hart/Michaels were household names just as Taker's immediate push came about, or were on the verge of.
If Hart, and HBK hadn't become main eventers, then the matches with Taker would have meant less. Taker, and Hart had classic matches. Many fans were wishing to see them fight, and the only way we could was through a video game on the SuperNES. Once they had a match it was a classic, because they went a few years without stepping in a ring. Could Hart make Taker tap? How would Taker's character tapout. It was intriguing because yes Taker's character provided that what if, but if Hart wasn't a household name it wouldn't have happened.
In that match we saw just how well of a technical wrestler the Undertaker was. Bret was able to wrestle with anyone, but Taker kept his pace. We don't have that scenario today with any two wrestlers. Taker lost to HBK in the HIAC match, and no one knew that would happen. We don't have that type of match today, and the last time it happened it was with Taker/HBK at WM 25. Other than that we won't have something that original again.
Both Michaels, and Bret have these types of impacts on the history of the WWE, that Taker does not have. Taker's story is more fantasy which is cool, and I'm glad his character came in to the WWE. However I like the characters of Hart, and HBK much more. They were more realistic characters that didn't rely on such a non-realistic type character.
