Has The Undertaker Turned Into Hulk Hogan?

[whoopin' ass]

this one is a little out there but follow along. One of the biggest complains about Hogan when he was wrestling in WWF/WCW was that he was out for himself and screwed over a lot of guys. If it made him look bad in any way, it didn't fly. That is why he wouldn't lose to guys like Bret and Shawn(too small) but it was okay for guys like Warrior and Goldberg. His antics are quite well known. Taker was vocal about this but take a look at Taker over the last few years. I don't care about him winning at Mania - that is Vince's decision and a good gimmick - but look at who he wrestled over the last 4 years - HBK and HHH. both guys were already established and he had wrestled both guys before on several occasions(you can take away one of HBK's matches since it was his retirement match and he should wrestle whoever he likes). why not a younger guy like a Ziggler? otherwise, he has wrestled very little in the last 5 years or so yet his returns are always promoted as a big deal and his Mania match is always fairly high on the card. throughout his career, he has wrestled just about anyone but how many guys does he actually lose to? Kane? Lesner? both big guys. yet look at DDP - a WCW world champ who got decimated by Taker. Again, i know the office decides who wins and loses but shouldn't Taker know that for good business, your opponent has to look credible and DDP didn't in their whole angle? I am not saying it was on purpose and i am not saying it is as bad as Hogan was, but does anyone else see Taker following the same pattern he complained about?

 

[WCW/WWF Halo 4]

No.

Taker is well respected by his peers, and will always be.

And WWE knows what's good for business, that's why the company exceeds.

 

[achillesforever6]

If anything Taker is the Anti Hogan, he really tries to push young talent (less now of course) And I have never heard a bad thing about him backstage.

 

[TheChampionOfTheWorld]

I do think The Undertaker could do more to help put over younger talent like The Miz, Dolph Ziggler, and others. But at the end of the day its Vince's call. He could have Cena or anyone else put over younger guys but he doesn't.

 

[enviousdominous]

You do have a point about DDP being screwed. It's my (limited) understanding that Taker was part of the posse that made Vince believe (as if he needed help) that the WCW talent was bringing the show down with their lack of ability in the ring. Thus, Undertaker and DDP get into the ring after a month of build into their match and Taker turns DDP into mat paste.

That, and possibly the firing of Brian Lee, are the only two occurrences where I would say that Undertaker went beyond the bounds of fair political conduct. His match with Kamala was a bit ridiculous as well, they paid Undertaker $500,000 for a three minute match if I'm not mistaken.

Comparing him to Hogan however? Umm, no.

Undertaker wasn't the type to flex creative control like Hogan did. Unlike Hogan, Undertaker was willing to put 100% into a match where he was going to lose. True, he took losses only from a select few, but his wins against most opponents weren't nearly as disrespectful as Hogan's wins.

Undertaker may have a Wrestlemania win streak to his name, but Hogan has that fucking stupid tower of doom to his name.

 

[avi01]

Taker and Hogan are complete opposite. As much as he is big, Hogan will never get the respect Taker gets. In terms of quality itself, Hogan pushed his career way way too long through blood baths and is not even a good wrestler. On the other hand, Taker is now a one time a year attraction and he is stealing the show every year. Some people say he looks old etc... but look at the quality of the matches, the guy is still creating classics,that`s not pushing a career too long, that`s being a privilege to the fans.
And Taker worked with a lot of youngsters. He put over Maven for god`s sake! He had a feud with that disaster Heidenreich.Put over Mr.Kennedy. Put over Kane. Help put over Orton. Put Brock lesnar over, big time. Help put John Cena on the map (that feud in 2003 was very important to Cena). Had feuds with the likes of Test, A-Train etc..Come on, is he even comparable? And that not even mentioning the whole creative control crap.

 

[RyanCallaway]

I think they've limited Taker's in ring opponents the last few years for his own safety. Shawn, HHH, and even Kane know well how to protect someone else in the ring. And after all the beatings and injuries Taker's dealt with, WWE is probably being careful with him. As for being like Hogan and not wanting to lose to small guys - off the top of my head, Taker's lost to Kurt Angle, Mr. Kennedy, Jeff Hardy, and Edge a few times. When he is full time he's constantly putting over the younger guys. As someone else mentioned there are full timers that can be used to put them over now - Taker's done it more than enough as far as I'm concerned. And aside from that, for the sake of realism, I don't imagine a guy of Undertaker's character constantly losing to even the bigger wrestlers.

 

[Kong]

DDP was already in his 40s. In no way should have Taker helped him.

And NO NO NO on the Ziggler, Miz, Rhodes, etc...etc...etc They dont deserve the rub and are mid carders at best.

 

[SSJPhenom]

This is the most ridiculous thread that I have ever read and damn it that's saying something because, trust me, I've seen some bad ones.

Trying to say that 'Taker doesn't put over younger guys is one of the stupidest things that I have ever heard in my entire life. I guess some of you have never heard of people like Mick Foley, Randy Orton, Brock Lesnar, Kane, Edge, Jeff Hardy(2002), and countless others. Also, using HBK and HHH as examples is f'n ridiculous! Up until 'Maina 25, 'Taker had never, NEVER, beaten HBK a singles match.

You should have made this thread for people who actually do very little to try and put talent over. You know like HHH or someone else. Saying 'Taker is like Hogan in any way or saying that 'Taker doesn't put talent over shows me that you don't know very much at all about professional wrestling.

 

[RKOPUNK]

Taker comes back for 1-2 months a year for a marquee match at wrestlemania. That's nothing like Hogan and his inability to leave the spotlight..

 

[thebrownmenace]

I don't feel like Undertaker should ever be compared to Hogan as far as using creative control for his own benefit. Taker has put over Batista, Brock Lesnar, Kane, JBL, The Rock, Kurt Angle and various others.

As far as the Brian Lee situation, when it was reported that he asked Vince to can him, I don't blame him. The dude stabbed his friend in the back by sleeping with Taker's first wife.

 

[Syborgg]

If Undertaker would have faced Cody Rhodes at WM, you guys would be bitching that Undertaker was selfish for not allowing Rhodes to end the streak. HHH losing to 'Taker at WM continues the streak without hurting HHH's career. Alot of people give Undertaker flak for only wrestling at Wrestlemania, but really it's less selfish than one would think. Think about it, for the majority of the year his absence allows more T.V. time for the younger talent to get exposure and make a name for themselves. Undertaker uses his stroke backstage to get what he wants for sure, but in the end Vince and the creative still have the last say.

 

[Headman]

Here's a fact that some of the louder internet fans don't seem to understand. If you put everyone over you're putting no one over. A win over a guy who loses all the time means nothing. A win over a guy who never loses means a lot. This is why beating Mick Foley doesn't make you a star, but beating John Cena, Hulk Hogan or even the Undertaker will. As for the original topic, I don't see Taker as the politician that Hogan was. There really isn't any comparison.

 

[the_mighty_biggs]

Taker is in a league of his own

I just hope he has more than one match a year that we know he is going to win cause for sure undertakers streak will be on the card at wrestlemania 30 so whoever he fights next year is guaranteed to lose.

He should be back year long in multiple feuds

 

[drobs85]

this one is a little out there but follow along. One of the biggest complains about Hogan when he was wrestling in WWF/WCW was that he was out for himself and screwed over a lot of guys. If it made him look bad in any way, it didn't fly. That is why he wouldn't lose to guys like Bret and Shawn(too small) but it was okay for guys like Warrior and Goldberg. His antics are quite well known. Taker was vocal about this but take a look at Taker over the last few years. I don't care about him winning at Mania - that is Vince's decision and a good gimmick - but look at who he wrestled over the last 4 years - HBK and HHH. both guys were already established and he had wrestled both guys before on several occasions(you can take away one of HBK's matches since it was his retirement match and he should wrestle whoever he likes). why not a younger guy like a Ziggler? otherwise, he has wrestled very little in the last 5 years or so yet his returns are always promoted as a big deal and his Mania match is always fairly high on the card. throughout his career, he has wrestled just about anyone but how many guys does he actually lose to? Kane? Lesner? both big guys. yet look at DDP - a WCW world champ who got decimated by Taker. Again, i know the office decides who wins and loses but shouldn't Taker know that for good business, your opponent has to look credible and DDP didn't in their whole angle? I am not saying it was on purpose and i am not saying it is as bad as Hogan was, but does anyone else see Taker following the same pattern he complained about?

TAKER has lost to a variety of talent over the years, so I kinda don't understand the logic. And he probably could do alot if he was around but he simply isn't.

 

[covieo81]

takers mania matches arent about putting someone over win or lose. he is an icon and theyre only gonna put him in with people guaranteed to have a good match. ie hhh and michaels. they are wrestlemania. its what most people tune in for is to see taker and his opponent go at it. guys like ziggler or cm punk although love em both are not gonna sell a mania. taker is beyond having to put someone over. his matches are now like a special exhibition match.

 

[Peoples_Champ]

I see what the OP was trying to get at, but the connection is very weak. Taker has been known to be a locker room general, rallying the troops and resolving conflict. He is the polar opposite to power-hungry Hogan.

That being said, Taker hasn't lost a match in years, so that furthers the OP's point. But it's not like he's getting pinfalls on the Zack Ryders and Dolph Zigglers of the world, he beat HBK and HHH.

I'm okay with how Taker is running his career. It's nothing like Hogan. However, I do want to see him going 20-1.

 

[Defekt]

I really hate these kind of topics.

The Undertaker is a wrestler. He is not the WWE booker. He likely has considerable say over the direction of his character, but that can only go so far. Hardcore Holly talked about UT lobbying to work a program with him, and Vince refusing.

The UT has lost to pretty much all major WWE stars at one point. It's true he has few clean losses, but major WWE faces rarely lose clean anyway. It's part of wrestling.

And why would Ziggler (a guy who regularly loses to other midcarders) be booked in the second biggest match of the year against someone who is undefeated at Wrestlemania?

It's like saying Cena should have fought Heath Slater at Wrestlemania, since Slater is younger than the Rock.

 

[JakeAdams]

I don't like taker because I think his character is stale no matter what they do. I have seen him put over guys kinda... But even when he does, it really does nothing because at some point he squashed them. Kurt angle comes to mind. Orton to an extent. But I don't think you can ever compare him to hogan. Hogan is pure evil, he will bury his own children if it means 5 secs of spotlight. Tna has systematically shot themselves with the worst asshole bookers, dusty, russo, bischoff, hmmm correlation? Anyways atleast Taker can eat a pin and bump.

 

[GameOver]

Summing up what others said
Taker isn't hogging any spotlight for one thing
Taker puts over other talent
Taker doesn't ruin companies by living in a fantasy world of 30yrs ago
Taker is respected for who he is, Hogan is slammed for who he is and was.
Lastly even in his weakened state, given he only actively participates 2months a year the last few years Taker is pacing himself and proves every year he can still go, Hogan can not.


Otherwise yes if you mean both of them are big names in the business Hogan is the antithesis of Wrestling in the 80's-2000's Taker and the Streak is a big reason WrestleMania continues to sell out every year and he is the soul of WWE.

Both are icons in Sports Entertainment and Both are Immortal....

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Undertaker was putting younger guys like John Cena and Jeff Hardy over YEARS ago when he still just as legendary. 15-0, or 20-0 hasn't really made much of a difference in my opinion... His career has transcended the WWE - the name Undertaker is pretty much synonymous with the word "wrestling". If he's only got a handful of matches, maybe one or two (at most) a year, WWE is smart enough to book them as "money matches" instead of using them to build up the younger talent. Use John Cena for that. Use CM Punk, Big Show, or any other veteran; Undertaker is at a point where his feuds, when they DO happen, are legendary. To be "granted" a match with him is almost a victory in itself. And remember, the last time he actually did a non-wrestlemania match, he DID put Kane over as the World Heavyweight Champion. He allowed Kane to beat him within an inch of his life, actually.

Would it benefit Dolph Ziggler to go over the Undertaker at say, SummerSlam? Sure it would! But after beating Triple H and Shawn Micahels in four straight WrestleMania matches, do you really think any feud could make a Ziggler win believable against the Deadman? He's almost TOO big to be going at it with "regular" wrestlers; anything but a clear victory when all is said and done seems too unrealistic. The Undertaker as a character is now just as much a gimmick as his streak or legacy.

 

[MayorMcCheese]

Taker isn't screwing anyone over, WWE WANTS THE STREAK. Taker is old school, he has offered to put people over in the past but WWE builds WM around the streak.

I will say this, the people that criticize ROCK for coming back, but not TAKER for doing his one match a year are hypocrites

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

This is the most ridiculous thread that I have ever read and damn it that's saying something because, trust me, I've seen some bad ones.

Trying to say that 'Taker doesn't put over younger guys is one of the stupidest things that I have ever heard in my entire life. I guess some of you have never heard of people like Mick Foley, Randy Orton, Brock Lesnar, Kane, Edge, Jeff Hardy(2002), and countless others. Also, using HBK and HHH as examples is f'n ridiculous! Up until 'Maina 25, 'Taker had never, NEVER, beaten HBK a singles match.

You should have made this thread for people who actually do very little to try and put talent over. You know like HHH or someone else. Saying 'Taker is like Hogan in any way or saying that 'Taker doesn't put talent over shows me that you don't know very much at all about professional wrestling.

You are dumb. HHH lost at Wrestlemania 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28 and have put over guys like Batista, Randy Orton, John Cena who all became top stars and whom did Undertaker put over ?

Randy Orton should have ended the streak at Wrestlemania 21 if Undertaker really wanted to put someone over.

 

[Ryyu]

If taker could roll back the clock on his body he would more than likely be helping put over new guys, His Programs with guys like angel, Lesnar hell even punk gave them good heat (punks was sadly dropped when the big slow joined the party) but the sad fact is this guy has 3-4 matches in him full stop, people WILL pay for manias to see his defend the streak, with guys like Cena, B/Rock and even Sting being the permanent rumor lining up for that one big match using taker outside that would be stupid and wasteful and hell, if someone gets to the level where a Win/Loss to taker could make them a Mega star then why waste that kind of match on Raw or some nothing PPV.

Also, No, NO. Read any wrestling book or watch any interview, Taker is the king back stage and more respected than anyone else in history from a workers perspective, when guys had problems or needed advice taker would help and shape them, From Bret to Jechrio to Regal to Goldust ALL of them have said that Taker was a guy there for them when they needed his, His actions both after the Screw job (kicking down Vince's door and Demanding that he go talk to Bret) and before the WM14 Main event (threatening to beat the ever living shit out of the old Shawn who was threatening too not job for Austin, even to the point of standing at the top of the ramp with his hands taped in case Shawn pulled a fast one) and then people like Jericho and Big show saying how he would come to them, give them advice and criticism when they fucked up and good feedback when they did well. And in the case of the NWO's run in WWE took no shit and stoped them from being the cancer they were in WCW (Read; Undisputed)

Taker is not and could never be a Hogan, guarding his own spot of land and undermining anyone who challenges his, Taker helps build and create, and IF he's gotten more selfish in recent years? IF, hes earned it. If you can find a negative shoot about him from someone who is not some two bit hack, then i will say otherwise, but they are always, ALWAYS positive.

Its the main reason taker is one of the greatest of all time. (Also one of the last guys i will honestly mark out over)

Edit; Taker apparently wanted Angle to beat him clean at maina but WWE wanted the streak intact, I know it was Kurt saying this, but if Lord Drugington Angry the hacked can say nice things, then something must be true.

Also Lord Drugington Angry the hacked is now what you must call Angle

 

[Cookie14]

Taker only comes back to defend the streak. Whoever he faces has to be a big name to make us think that there is even a small chance that he might lose. Not only this, but it is also about making the streak seem more presigious by putting all the big names on the list. We all remember HHH, Flair, HBK, Kane are streak victims because they are big names. Miz, Ziggler etc could end up being like A-Train, JYD etc, the forgotten victims, the ones not good enough to think about.

WWE knows the streak is a huge deal, one of the biggest attractions at WM,what advantage would there be in putting him up against a younger guy? Taker vs HHH sells. Taker vs HBK sells. Taker vs Miz/Ziggler/Del Rio etc, wouldn't sell.

And what possible advantage would there be as a young guy? You're going into a match everyone knows you're going to lose, against a star so much brighter. There really is no upside.