If The Undertaker never returned in 2000...

[Luten]

In the year 2000 The Undertaker returned to the WWF with his American Bad ass gimmick after quite a lengthy hiatus and we’ve seen over a decade of great deadman memories since then.. But back then the internet wasn’t as big a part of a Wrestling fans source of info/rumours as it is today so it was really unknown whether we’d seen the last of The Undertaker or not. Needless to say when he returned at Judgment day 2000 it was one of those amazing moments that are lacking IMO in todays product..

My question is this: If the deadman had indeed decided to hang up his boots way back then..
a) would he still be considered a legend?

b) In what way do you think the landscape of today's wwe would be different today?

 

[Ferbian]

a) would he still be considered a legend?

I would assume while his legacy might be smaller. He would still be considered somewhat of a legend. He still went on to be undefeated at Wrestlemania in his 10 years with WWE. As well as he won championships. He might not have won as many championships as he did in the 2000's but he still won them.

I definitely think that he would still be considered a legend. Or at least a worthy Hall of Fame inductee. Because of the fact that he had been a part of WWE for 10 years. Not 20 years as it would be now. But 10 years. Which is still a big deal.

Undertaker is a special case. He is one of the greater gimmicks ever to be used within WWE. Perhaps ever. And I think that would shine through no matter what.

b) In what way do you think the landscape of today's wwe would be different today?

It might be. Because Undertaker put over some talents back in those days. Brock Lesnar came out looking strong against The Undertaker. Randy Orton did as well. And of course Batista did just as well. These are 3 former or current stars at a level that very few could brag about.

These are 3 people that while they would get over either way. Undertaker definitely had a finger in on it all. There's no denying that. So I think the landscape might look a little bit different. But in the end I don't think it would've been as big of a deal if he hadn't been around. Because there were plenty of talent to put over these 3 guys. And any other given talent that Undertaker ever put over. Any other given talent Undertaker ever entertained us with at Wrestlemania. There's always a replacement.

However I do believe Wrestlemania might have been loosing a bit of it's grandeur. Because of the fact that it was in 2001 and on that the streak was being hyped more. Undertaker was still undefeated and the streak went on to spark a lot of interest with the fans every year. So in that term the landscape of Wrestlemania might have changed. Just a bit at least.

 

[Dum Dum Dudley]

In what way do you think the landscape of today's wwe would be different today?

Very different. For starters, Taker has been a mainstay on SD! after the brand extension and has filled in the role of legendary veteran. In order to make the brands seem more equal, i would imagine HBK would have had at least one year on SD!, and that HHH would have had more lenghty tenures on SD! than the year he had between '08-'09.

Secondly, a lot of guys that are viewed as 'top guys' would have lost the benefit of having a program with him. Think about it, after failing during his first WHC reign in '04, it took a feud with Taker to eventually help elevate Orton back up to where he was. After facing him at WM 21 and then during the Summer/Autumn of '05, Orton gained back some momentum and managed to get him self involved in a WHC title match at the following year's Wrestlemania. This could be extended to Batista, who, after injury appeared to have lost steam, not only had a criminally under-rated match at WM 23 with Taker, but a series of hard and brutal matches throughout '07.

Thirdly, i think Wrestlemania would lose some grandeur because Taker's streak is a big part of Wrestlemania today. Because the streak is nearing 20-0, his next Mania match is always interesting because we all know (realistically) that he will get there regardless of the opponent. Take this year's Mania. HBK-Taker II was last on the card because they were so intrigued as to whether the streak would be broken. Yes, you could argue that they also wanted to see if HBK would retire, but HBK-Flair wasn't last on the card at WM 24 so i'm assuming the only varying factor is that Taker was involved.

would he still be considered a legend?

Yes, i would say so. His 'American Badass/Big Evil' gimmick is usually disregarded by WWE TV as they really want to hammer home that he has been this undead character forever, so by not coming back as 'The American Badass' would not be a huge loss. His streak victims included Jimmy Snuka, Jake Roberts, Diesel, Sid and Kane, finishing up on 8-0 which is nothing to turn your nose up at. Feuds with Warrior, Savage and Hogan during his first year in WWE led to his first WWE title, albeit for 6 days. The creation of a huge stable like 'The Ministry' and he helped create the Hell in a Cell match which is so popular today, a PPV is dedicated to the match. So overall, yes he would still be classed as a legend but not as big as he will be after his current stint ends.