Is Undertaker the Best Big Man Ever? | Page 3 | WrestleZone Forums

Is Undertaker the Best Big Man Ever?

Is Undertaker the Best Big Man Ever?

  • Heck yea, 'Taker rules.

  • Arguably the best big man ever.

  • Couldn't care less.

  • Arguably not the best big man ever.

  • 'Taker sucks.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Hogan has always been physically limited. Watch him closely. You're right, Hogan revolutionized the business. I have never and will never discredit Hogan for that. Everything that we see today wouldn't be possible if Hogan hadn't have been huge, with that said, Hogan still can't wrestle.

Hogan wasn't known in the 80's and 90's for being able to go in the wrestling ring. He was known for his catch phrases and merchandise. Hogan was marketable and that is what made him revolutionize pro wrestling. "Well you know something brother." Things like that helped him revolutionize pro wrestling.

His in ring work, psycology, ability to tell a story, etc. is no better than 'Taker's. 'Taker has great ring presence and ring psycology. He knows what makes the crowd tick. Prime example, WM 25, the chants of "This is Awesome." 'Taker is an outstanding worker and if I am going to put him on the level of Hogan presence wise and psycology wise, then that only leaves their physical abilities and sorry to tell you Hulkamaniacs, but 'Taker has him out classed in every way.

BTW, don't simply state that Hogan has better ring presence and psycology, please, tell me why.

Hogan still was the most over person in the 80's and 90's without being known for wrestling as you erroneously put it. Watch his matches in the 70s and you will see that he was a great wrestler. Watch his matches with Antonio Inoki and tell me he wasn't a great wrestler.

If something isn't broke then why do you need to fix it? Hogan told a story during a match better than anybody in history. In a match he was dominated for 90% of it and made the crowd think he had no chance. Then he started to Hulk up and the crowd got into it and thought that maybe Hogan would win and when he did the crowd went wild. And the "awesome" chants you heard during that match were probably off of pure nostalgia because their match is terribly overrated.
 
Yes The Undertaker is the Greatest Big Man of All Time. He is arguabally the greatest WWE Superstar of All Time.

He will leave a Legacy of being the greatest big man of all time replacing Andre. Vader will be forgotten about later on down the road for who ever wants to say him & we could sit here and argue about it all day.

Whoever said Hogan is a better in ring performer than Taker needs to stop watching wrestling!

Hogan is not a wrestler. He is a CHEERLEADER that plays to the crowd!

Oh man...

I don't have the stomach to argue the merits of Vader with you, so we'll leave that be.

But Hogan is a cheerleader, not a wrestler? How ridiculous. First of all - if Hogan is a cheerleader, what is Undertaker? He's had ring entrances longer than many matches, with the arms in the air to turn the lights back on, the eyes rolling in the back of the head, etc. If you're gonna call Hogan a cheerleader, you'd best be prepared to point that finger at Undertaker as well.

Hogan is a wrestler, and one of the best wrestlers in the history of professional wrestling. 'Taker is great, but he's not on Hogan's level. If you say 'Taker is a big man and Hogan is not, that is acceptable. But other than that loophole, good luck.

'Taker is a top-5 big man, with Vader, Bigelow, Diesel, and either Norton or Sid.
 
Yes The Undertaker is the Greatest Big Man of All Time.
Not really. He is in the top 10, but he isn’t the greatest or best. That honor goes to Vader. There’s others that are better like Bam Bam Bigelow. But The Undertaker would definitely crack a top 10 list of the greatest Big Men in wrestling.

He is arguabally the greatest WWE Superstar of All Time.
What are you smoking? That honors goes to Hulk Hogan. And it’s not even something that’s arguable. I am an Undertaker fan and I wouldn’t even call him that.

He will leave a Legacy of being the greatest big man of all time replacing Andre.
Like it has already been said plenty of times, he isn’t the greatest “Big Man”. If you were to make a top 10 list, then The Undertaker is definitely going to be on it. He just isn’t going to be number 1. Number one would be either Vader or Bam Bam Bigelow.

Vader will be forgotten about later on down the road for who ever wants to say him & we could sit here and argue about it all day.
This is funny. Vader hasn’t done too much wrestling in the last couple of years and yet people still remember him. They remember his work in WCW and in other countries such as Japan, Mexico, and Germany. It’s been quite a long time since he has wrestled a match and people still remember him. He’s not going to be forgotten. If he hasn’t wrestled for a few years and people still remember him then he will continue to be remembered.
 
Yes The Undertaker is the Greatest Big Man of All Time. He is arguabally the greatest WWE Superstar of All Time.

He will leave a Legacy of being the greatest big man of all time replacing Andre. Vader will be forgotten about later on down the road for who ever wants to say him & we could sit here and argue about it all day.

Whoever said Hogan is a better in ring performer than Taker needs to stop watching wrestling!

Hogan is not a wrestler. He is a CHEERLEADER that plays to the crowd!

I know that you were siding with 'Taker and I'm sure that 'Taker and 'Taker fans appreciate that, but your arguement has no merit whatsoever. Did you not read the earlier posts? I have already been schooled on Vader, I implore you, please do not do this.

As to you IC, yes, 'Taker's entrance is designed to hype the crowd and it does just that. Even you have to agree that he has the best entrance in the history of wrestling. It is part of his mystique. I wouldn't, however, go as far to call either Hogan or 'Taker a cheerleader, that's just wrong.

I do have a question for you though. If you wanted to watch a good quality wrestling match, with all the fixings, would you pick a Hogan match or a 'Taker match?

BTW, did you read my criteria post? Hogan should no longer be in the subject.
 
Not really. He is in the top 10, but he isn’t the greatest or best. That honor goes to Vader. There’s others that are better like Bam Bam Bigelow. But The Undertaker would definitely crack a top 10 list of the greatest Big Men in wrestling.


What are you smoking? That honors goes to Hulk Hogan. And it’s not even something that’s arguable. I am an Undertaker fan and I wouldn’t even call him that.


Like it has already been said plenty of times, he isn’t the greatest “Big Man”. If you were to make a top 10 list, then The Undertaker is definitely going to be on it. He just isn’t going to be number 1. Number one would be either Vader or Bam Bam Bigelow.


This is funny. Vader hasn’t done too much wrestling in the last couple of years and yet people still remember him. They remember his work in WCW and in other countries such as Japan, Mexico, and Germany. It’s been quite a long time since he has wrestled a match and people still remember him. He’s not going to be forgotten. If he hasn’t wrestled for a few years and people still remember him then he will continue to be remembered.

I know that you keep saying that 'Taker is not the best big man ever(matter of opinion), but even if he wasn't and let's say that Vader is, Undertaker would have to be a close second, not only to Vader but to anyone who would put 1 on this list of yours. He wouldn't just crack a top ten, he would crack a top two. I'm still going with 'Taker is the best though. Definately the best in WWE history.

As for your Vader comment, well hell, Ahmed Johnson hasn't wrestled a match in quite a long time either, but I remember him. I remember IRS, Repo Man, Magnum T.A., Lex Luger, etc etc. I agree that Vader will continue to be remembered, especially by wrestling fans who know the history, but if you confront a new fan on this matter or even a fan that has only been a fan during the last 5 to 10 years or so, what would they say?
 
I know that you keep saying that 'Taker is not the best big man ever(matter of opinion), but even if he wasn't and let's say that Vader is, Undertaker would have to be a close second, not only to Vader but to anyone who would put 1 on this list of yours. He wouldn't just crack a top ten, he would crack a top two. I'm still going with 'Taker is the best though. Definately the best in WWE history.
If you’re going to make a list of greatest Big Men in wrestling Vader is number one. ‘Taker isn’t at number two. Number two is Bam Bam Bigelow. Some say Vader is second and Bam Bam is first. I consider Vader the best so he would at the top of the list. The Undertaker would probably be number 3 or 4. Not one or two.

As for your Vader comment, well hell, Ahmed Johnson hasn't wrestled a match in quite a long time either, but I remember him. I remember IRS, Repo Man, Magnum T.A., Lex Luger, etc etc. I agree that Vader will continue to be remembered, especially by wrestling fans who know the history, but if you confront a new fan on this matter or even a fan that has been fan in the last 5 to 10 years or so, what they say?
Well, I was responding to that camruds comment that Vader was going to be forgotten. And you proved me right. You remember all of these wrestlers who haven’t wrestled in many years. Vader hasn’t wrestled in a few years and he’s still remembered.

What a fan would say is that they don’t know who Vader is. But let me elaborate. They won’t know who he is because they either they have only seen videos from his time in the WWF or because they haven’t done any research on him. This would prompt me to tell them to look up some videos of him during his time in WCW and Japan. If they look up some of his stuff then they would probably learn something.
 
I still do not see the greatness that is Vader. I see a fat slob who was successful in a meaningless promotion. I just see an overrated worker who is regarded successful on this forum because he popped his eye back in to place. When I think of the best Big Man of all time, I think of someone like Andre the Giant. The man was huge, yet he was agile enough to compete with smaller heavyweights. The man had a huge impact on the business. His success happened everywhere. He was huge in the States, and in Japan.. He helped revolutionize the business, and he was just as big as anyone during his time in the WWF(E). So, when I think of the best big man I think of Andre the Giant.
 
If you’re going to make a list of greatest Big Men in wrestling Vader is number one. ‘Taker isn’t at number two. Number two is Bam Bam Bigelow. Some say Vader is second and Bam Bam is first. I consider Vader the best so he would at the top of the list. The Undertaker would probably be number 3 or 4. Not one or two.

I just can't see how Vader or Bam Bam are better than 'Taker. You have explained Vader with some very strong arguements. What is the explanation from Bam Bam. Again, there is more to wrestling than wrestling itself. Where is Vader's and Bam Bam's legacy? Undertaker is by far more popular and more successful then they are. Doesn't that dictate that he is the best?


Well, I was responding to that camruds comment that Vader was going to be forgotten. And you proved me right. You remember all of these wrestlers who haven’t wrestled in many years. Vader hasn’t wrestled in a few years and he’s still remembered.

I was actually agreeing with you. I think that any wrestler who was a champion, not only will be remember, but deserves to be remembered. So yes, Vader will be remembered. If not by what he did in the ring, we can also look at the Boy Meets World episode that he was in(joke).

What a fan would say is that they don’t know who Vader is. But let me elaborate. They won’t know who he is because they either they have only seen videos from his time in the WWF or because they haven’t done any research on him. This would prompt me to tell them to look up some videos of him during his time in WCW and Japan. If they look up some of his stuff then they would probably learn something.

Yes, that is what a fan now would say. They would also say that 'Taker is the best big man ever. Yea, they might learn a thing or two about Vader(hell I did), but even if they did learn some of Vader's best moments, they would stop and ask themselves, "Where is Big Van Vader now?"
 
I agree that Vader will continue to be remembered, especially by wrestling fans who know the history, but if you confront a new fan on this matter or even a fan that has only been a fan during the last 5 to 10 years or so, what would they say?


Um, deadly flaw in your argument, and be careful of it; a new fan doesn't entirely encompass the amount of the contingency that is "wrestling fans". Sure, the fan will say The Undertaker, because he has only seen matches of that man's history. There's a common theory of War that the to the victor goes the spoils, and that losers of war tend to have their history erased from society. So happens to be the case of Vader. Most of Vader's prime was spent within the confines of WCW and Japan, where he worked as an absolute beast, and was undoubtedly the best big men on the planet. The man has put on matches the likes of which will probably never be duplicated, and while The Undertaker's matches included a few showings of agility, Vader was far deeper as an actual wrestler, and offered more than the one dimensional attack that plagued The Undertaker of his early career. Unfortunately, that multi-dimensional attack often becomes overlooked by Vince, because of Vince's tendency to overlook vanquished foes, and the overseas promotions.

Question... Have you ever heard the name Big Daddy? In England, this man amounted to same pop of Hulk Hogan in his prime, I kid you not. Look at my post on his archrival, Giant Haystacks, in the JTMFTG, and watch the Daddy/Haystacks match. You'll see it under the category Loch Ness. Anyway, unfortunately, Big Daddy tends to be overlooked by most fans, especially the ones that come down the street. However, to the intelligent fan, who's well read, and knows his stuff on Big Daddy, he'll be able to expound on this man, and exactly what he did for European wrestling. Without him, you wouldn't be hearing about names like Finlay, Regal, Davey Boy, and yes, Dynamite Kid. Yet, because he never worked with Vince, and Vince doesn't have his tapes to go by, most fans know nothing of him.

That same fate has befallen Vader... We may be aware of his stint in WCW and WWE, but the stint in WCW tends to be overlooked, as Vince did not create it. And surely you hear little to nothing regarding Japan, as Vince has no ties to it, nor does he hold any of the footage of Japanese promotions. If Vince did, we'd hear of names such as Big Daddy, and we'd be aware of men like Vader and Bam Bam, and their additions to the wrestling business. It ultimately boils down to the fact that Vince did not create them, and therefore, we have nothing to go by in terms of a new fan's descriptions of the names. We're aware of the name, yet because Vince doesn't hold the entire vault of footage, nor can he claim responsibility for the men, we're left out in the cold.

My advice; Don't buy into everything McMahon puts out. Read a lot, and read outside of the WWE. Watch some of Vader's matches on youtube, especially some of them with names like Chono, Hansen (Here's looking at you, Lariat), Bam Bam, Chono, Kawada, and other such names. Learn from a man like IC, who's extremely well versed in the ways of internationals, and Tastycles, who happens to be a very well versed man himself. I'd recommend spotting out Tasty myself, or IC in this case in particular. Nevertheless, read outside of Vince's creation, and you'll find wrestlers the likes of which you will never know.

PS. My vote's for John Tenta...... Ok, not really...
 
I just can't see how Vader or Bam Bam are better than 'Taker. You have explained Vader with some very strong arguements. What is the explanation from Bam Bam. Again, there is more to wrestling than wrestling itself. Where is Vader's and Bam Bam's legacy?
Vader’s legacy is all over the world. Bam Bam’s legacy is for the most part in The United States. But he also has a legacy in Japan. Bam Bam was also a very athletic and agile Big Man. Just look at some of the things he could so. Also take into account that he weighed in at 370 pounds and he wasn’t afraid to do of the things he did.

[youtube] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PkTiIvCKlQY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PkTiIvCKlQY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> [/youtube]

[youtube] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oVYP7dsD4Z8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oVYP7dsD4Z8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​
[/youtube]

[youtube] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EtOFP_xbwEg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EtOFP_xbwEg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​
[/youtube]

Undertaker is by far more popular and more successful then they are. Doesn't that dictate that he is the best?
The Undertaker is more popular in North America. The United States to be more specific. He isn&#8217;t more popular worldwide. Vader is known all over the world. He has wrestled and defeat legends like Riki Choshu, Tatsumi Fujinami, and others. He also has defeated one of the biggest legends of Japan in Antonio Inoki. As a matter of fact once Vader defeat Antonio, it caused a riot and got NJPW banned from the Sumo Hall.

Also just because someone is more popular in one specific place it does not dictate that they are the best. We are talking about their ability as &#8220;Big Man&#8221;, are we not?


Yes, that is what a fan now would say. They would also say that 'Taker is the best big man ever. Yea, they might learn a thing or two about Vader(hell I did), but even if they did learn some of Vader's best moments, they would stop and ask themselves, "Where is Big Van Vader now?"
Yes, they would say The Undertaker is the best Big Man ever. But that&#8217;s because they don&#8217;t know about guys like Vader and Bam Bam. I&#8217;m sure there would be a lot of people who would change their minds once they saw some of their matches.

While I&#8217;m talking about matches, here have another Bam Bam match:

[youtube] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZZEF74tZyA0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZZEF74tZyA0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​
[/youtube]

[youtube] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fnCeVBNBNWQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fnCeVBNBNWQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​
[/youtube]
 
Also just because someone is more popular in one specific place it does not dictate that they are the best. We are talking about their ability as &#8220;Big Man&#8221;, are we not?

See, I have said this a thousand times. There is more to professional wrestling than just wrestling itself. Everytime I say this, it is completely over looked until it can be used against me. If we are going to just discuss in ring ability, then, from what I have seen, Vader just might be better than 'Taker(I'm not going to say that Bam Bam is), but that's not all there is to wrestling.

How about mic skills, character play, and success?

Undertaker has a proven track record on the mic. We know the he is solid at cutting promos. I'm sure that many will agree that he plays the most interesting and intrigueing characters ever, and he is the most successful big man of all time.

So if he has done the best, in terms of success, does that not dictate that he is the best big man? You might not like the Boston Celtics, but they have won the most NBA championships of all time, so, by definition, they are the greatest franchise in NBA history.
 
And you might have had a point... If, you know, you didn't say this much earlier in your discussion...

If you want to talk about in ring ability then you can't put any big man above The Undertaker.

Back track much, eh? So you've gone from saying that he's the best in ring big man, to stating that it takes looking at promos and such? Sorry, can't let you off the hook now, especially when you've made your stance so clear earlier in the discussion. If you want to say he's the best in ring big man, than you have to stick by it.

As for Vader as a character, simply put, he made much more of less as compared to Taker. Vader's role as a character was to beat people the Hell up, and he did just that. Vader ended career's and was intimidating as Hell when you looked at him. Hell, even when The Hulkster entered WCW, he was scared as fuck by Vader, and ducked him for a pretty good portion of his early stint. Vader's character was a man that could rip your spinal cord from your anus, and shove it down your throat. That's actually the role that most SHWs and Big Men play, and god damn if he didn't play it better than any other character. Plus, he got his character over without relying on gimmicks. I could very easily make the point that without Paul Bearer, Taker's gimmick would be absolutely nothing. Sure, he was scary, because he had so much gimmick going on around him, and he was working with fucking death. Who isn't particularly afraid of death? Undertaker had so much to work with, where as all Vader was given was the command to just kick ass. Vader was given less, and made more of himself worldwide than The Undertaker.

As for success, well, I've already given my belief on it, which I feel has gone a bit ignored by you. So I'm posing it again to you;



Um, deadly flaw in your argument, and be careful of it; a new fan doesn't entirely encompass the amount of the contingency that is "wrestling fans". Sure, the fan will say The Undertaker, because he has only seen matches of that man's history. There's a common theory of War that the to the victor goes the spoils, and that losers of war tend to have their history erased from society. So happens to be the case of Vader. Most of Vader's prime was spent within the confines of WCW and Japan, where he worked as an absolute beast, and was undoubtedly the best big men on the planet. The man has put on matches the likes of which will probably never be duplicated, and while The Undertaker's matches included a few showings of agility, Vader was far deeper as an actual wrestler, and offered more than the one dimensional attack that plagued The Undertaker of his early career. Unfortunately, that multi-dimensional attack often becomes overlooked by Vince, because of Vince's tendency to overlook vanquished foes, and the overseas promotions.

Question... Have you ever heard the name Big Daddy? In England, this man amounted to same pop of Hulk Hogan in his prime, I kid you not. Look at my post on his archrival, Giant Haystacks, in the JTMFTG, and watch the Daddy/Haystacks match. You'll see it under the category Loch Ness. Anyway, unfortunately, Big Daddy tends to be overlooked by most fans, especially the ones that come down the street. However, to the intelligent fan, who's well read, and knows his stuff on Big Daddy, he'll be able to expound on this man, and exactly what he did for European wrestling. Without him, you wouldn't be hearing about names like Finlay, Regal, Davey Boy, and yes, Dynamite Kid. Yet, because he never worked with Vince, and Vince doesn't have his tapes to go by, most fans know nothing of him.

That same fate has befallen Vader... We may be aware of his stint in WCW and WWE, but the stint in WCW tends to be overlooked, as Vince did not create it. And surely you hear little to nothing regarding Japan, as Vince has no ties to it, nor does he hold any of the footage of Japanese promotions. If Vince did, we'd hear of names such as Big Daddy, and we'd be aware of men like Vader and Bam Bam, and their additions to the wrestling business. It ultimately boils down to the fact that Vince did not create them, and therefore, we have nothing to go by in terms of a new fan's descriptions of the names. We're aware of the name, yet because Vince doesn't hold the entire vault of footage, nor can he claim responsibility for the men, we're left out in the cold.

My advice; Don't buy into everything McMahon puts out. Read a lot, and read outside of the WWE. Watch some of Vader's matches on youtube, especially some of them with names like Chono, Hansen (Here's looking at you, Lariat), Bam Bam, Chono, Kawada, and other such names. Learn from a man like IC, who's extremely well versed in the ways of internationals, and Tastycles, who happens to be a very well versed man himself. I'd recommend spotting out Tasty myself, or IC in this case in particular. Nevertheless, read outside of Vince's creation, and you'll find wrestlers the likes of which you will never know.

PS. My vote's for John Tenta...... Ok, not really...

Simply put, revisionist history is what it is, and Vince has made it so that Japanese wrestling credentials and what you did in WCW is seemingly less. You can't discredit all of Vader's credentials around the world, even if Vince would like you to. expand your horizons, and try to see past merely Vince's creations.
 
I will repeat this one more time: Just because someone is more successful in one, I repeat ONE, specific place, it does NOT mean they are better.

If this were the case then Vader would be the more successful one. He has had success in Japan, Germany, and Mexico. The Undertaker has only had success in The United States. Meaning that according to your definition since Vader is the more successful one; he is the better Big Man.

Also, just because The Undertaker might be better on the mic and has a more intriguing character, it does not mean he is better. You see, Vader is not the type of wrestler that needs to talk on a microphone to get his points across for him. He lets the wrestling do the talking. He also didn't need a gimmick to get over. He just went out there and did his thing and he was immediately over.

So, Since Vader is the more successful one he is the better Big Man, according to your definition of why someone is better than the other.
 
And you might have had a point... If, you know, you didn't say this much earlier in your discussion...

Yea, I said that. I am willing to admit that I didn't know much about Vader at that time was blinded by my love for 'Taker.

Back track much, eh? So you've gone from saying that he's the best in ring big man, to stating that it takes looking at promos and such? Sorry, can't let you off the hook now, especially when you've made your stance so clear earlier in the discussion. If you want to say he's the best in ring big man, than you have to stick by it.

Why can't I admit that I was wrong and move on from that? Everyone else has.

As for Vader as a character, simply put, he made much more of less as compared to Taker. Vader's role as a character was to beat people the Hell up, and he did just that. Vader ended career's and was intimidating as Hell when you looked at him. Hell, even when The Hulkster entered WCW, he was scared as fuck by Vader, and ducked him for a pretty good portion of his early stint. Vader's character was a man that could rip your spinal cord from your anus, and shove it down your throat. That's actually the role that most SHWs and Big Men play, and god damn if he didn't play it better than any other character. Plus, he got his character over without relying on gimmicks. I could very easily make the point that without Paul Bearer, Taker's gimmick would be absolutely nothing. Sure, he was scary, because he had so much gimmick going on around him, and he was working with fucking death. Who isn't particularly afraid of death? Undertaker had so much to work with, where as all Vader was given was the command to just kick ass. Vader was given less, and made more of himself worldwide than The Undertaker.

You have made your point, but don't just say that 'Taker had more. 'Taker got the opprotunity and made it work. Could you honestly see anyone else take that character/gimmick and make it work?
 
I will repeat this one more time: Just because someone is more successful in one, I repeat ONE, specific place, it does NOT mean they are better.

So 'Taker is more successful here in the States. Maybe I should have called it, "Is Undertaker the best big man in North American wrestling history?"

If this were the case then Vader would be the more successful one. He has had success in Japan, Germany, and Mexico. The Undertaker has only had success in The United States. Meaning that according to your definition since Vader is the more successful one; he is the better Big Man.

You say that Vader is very successful in Japan, maybe he was, but who was more successful in the biggest wrestling organization in the WORLD? Undertaker is the more successful one, just because he didn't wrestle in Japan does not mean they don't know who he is. Last I heard, they do tours over seas all the time and Undertaker remains one of the largest attractions.

Also, just because The Undertaker might be better on the mic and has a more intriguing character, it does not mean he is better. You see, Vader is not the type of wrestler that needs to talk on a microphone to get his points across for him. He lets the wrestling do the talking. He also didn't need a gimmick to get over. He just went out there and did his thing and he was immediately over.

But it does doesn't it? Every other thread on this site, when dealing with how good someone is or who is the best, mic skills and character seem to always come up. So why is it not relevant here? Because it doesn't support your point?

So, Since Vader is the more successful one he is the better Big Man, according to your definition of why someone is better than the other.

Again, this is debatable. I happen to think that 'Taker is more successful and by definition, means he is the best big man ever.
 
So 'Taker is more successful here in the States. Maybe I should have called it, "Is Undertaker the best big man in North American wrestling history?"
It still doesn&#8217;t change the fact that he isn&#8217;t and I don&#8217;t know why you don&#8217;t understand that. Even in North America there have been better &#8220;Big Men&#8221;.

You say that Vader is very successful in Japan, maybe he was,
No. He is more successful. It&#8217;s not a maybe type of situation. The answer is that he was.

but who was more successful in the biggest wrestling organization in the WORLD?
The Undertaker. Who was the more successful wrestler worldwide?

Undertaker is the more successful one, just because he didn't wrestle in Japan does not mean they don't know who he is.
No one said that they didn&#8217;t know him over in Japan. It has just been stated that Vader is the more successful one, and his success includes Japan. I don&#8217;t believe anyone ever said that they didn&#8217;t know who The Undertaker is.

Last I heard, they do tours over seas all the time and Undertaker remains one of the largest attractions.
You are right about them doing tours overseas all the time. But did you also know that The Undertaker doesn&#8217;t go on all of the tours. He just goes on some of them. The same with House Shows, he only goes on some of them.

But it does doesn't it? Every other thread on this site, when dealing with how good someone is or who is the best, mic skills and character seem to always come up. So why is it not relevant here? Because it doesn't support your point?
You asked who the best big man is. You didn&#8217;t include anything about mic skills or how someone plays their character. And who said it&#8217;s irrelevant?

Again, this is debatable. I happen to think that 'Taker is more successful and by definition, means he is the best big man ever.

And again I say, if we go by your definition then Vader is the best Big Man.
 
It still doesn’t change the fact that he isn’t and I don’t know why you don’t understand that. Even in North America there have been better “Big Men”.

Name a better big man in North America.

No. He is more successful. It’s not a maybe type of situation. The answer is that he was.

Can this be proven?

The Undertaker. Who was the more successful wrestler worldwide?

If you want to go by worldwide popularity, then I think we could agree to disagree. 'Taker is, again a huge attraction when they go over seas to Japan, Italy, London, Germany, so on.

No one said that they didn’t know him over in Japan. It has just been stated that Vader is the more successful one, and his success includes Japan. I don’t believe anyone ever said that they didn’t know who The Undertaker is.

Well your entire arguement is predicated around Vader's time in WCW and Japan. So I just assumed that you were saying that 'Taker isn't relevant in Japan.

You are right about them doing tours overseas all the time. But did you also know that The Undertaker doesn’t go on all of the tours. He just goes on some of them. The same with House Shows, he only goes on some of them.

No, Taker doesn't appear at all of them. Neither does HHH or HBK, but when he does go, he is one of, if not the biggest attraction.

You asked who the best big man is. You didn’t include anything about mic skills or how someone plays their character. And who said it’s irrelevant?

I just assumed that we would be talking about this kind of stuff(more to wrestling than the actual wrestling). By you completely writing it off as a non factor in your previous post, you kinda made it irrelevant.

And again I say, if we go by your definition then Vader is the best Big Man.

I'm sticking with The Phenom, The Deadman, Big Evil, Deadman Inc., Demon of Death Valley, Most Dangerous Entity in the WWE, Lord of Darkness, The Big Dog in the Yard, etc. etc!
 
Name a better big man in North America.
Andre the Giant. But that&#8217;s something that&#8217;s arguable. Unfortunately, most people won&#8217;t believe it because he passed away early and they didn&#8217;t see any of his earlier work. Some people won&#8217;t even bother looking for his earlier work, which is a shame. Also, most people who have seen his work probably have seen the time when he was slow and a shell of his former self. I haven&#8217;t seen much of his work from when he was good, but I have seen enough to formulate and opinion and decide whether he is a better big man or not. But like I said, that&#8217;s something that is arguable.
Can this be proven?
Absolutely. Vader was involved in legendary feuds with many people in Japan. I already mentioned 3 legends from Japan that he feuded with but there&#8217;s many more. And it wasn&#8217;t only Japanese legends that he feuded with. There have also been American&#8217;s that he has had feuds with over in Japan. Some of those Americans are Stan Hansen and Bam Bam Bigelow. Vader was a top draw in Japan and I think I have proved it already.

If you want to go by worldwide popularity, then I think we could agree to disagree. 'Taker is, again a huge attraction when they go over seas to Japan, Italy, London, Germany, so on.
I believe we could agree to disagree. &#8216;Taker like Vader is a huge attraction when they go to places overseas and it&#8217;s something that can&#8217;t be denied.
Well your entire arguement is predicated around Vader's time in WCW and Japan. So I just assumed that you were saying that 'Taker isn't relevant in Japan.
&#8216;Taker is relevant. He just isn&#8217;t as relevant as Vader is.

No, Taker doesn't appear at all of them. Neither does HHH or HBK, but when he does go, he is one of, if not the biggest attraction.
He is one of the attractions. Some would say he is but I would disagree with that statement.

I'm sticking with The Phenom, The Deadman, Big Evil, Deadman Inc., Demon of Death Valley, Most Dangerous Entity in the WWE, Lord of Darkness, The Big Dog in the Yard, etc. etc!
And I&#8217;ll be sticking with Vader. He has nicknames too, but I&#8217;m not going to post them all because there&#8217;s no need to do that.
 
This entire debate is making my jock itch. I don't think that either side of the debate is lacking arguments or isn't making their points come across clearly. The biggest problem in this debate is that the original poster didn't realize how vague their original question actually was.

To your everyday wrestling fan, the original question would probably be a glorified popularity contest. But, we at Wrestlezone don't allow vague questions to get our stamp of approval. We stay as realistic, as fair as possible, and give the most justified, fact-filled answer that we can give.

This reminds me of the Grammy Awards. I'm sure that during the inception of the Grammy's there were only broad categories such as "Best Artist" and "Best Song". But, over the years, so much new criteria has been introduced music to the point where even the Grammy's had to create new justification and depth to their awards system by creating categories such as "Best Rock Vocal Performance, Duo."

I'm geniunely curious as to everyone's views on this subject. I've often asked myself the same question about "Big Men" in the sport of professional wrestling. So, with all of this being said, I believe that the only way this debate can end is if the original poster takes what they have learned in the past 7 pages of this thread and asks us their question again. Only this time, I'm sure the question will be asked the right way.
 
I don't think that my question is vague at all. I wanted to know if people thought that The Undertaker was the best big man ever, so that is what I asked. If so, great, tell me why, if not, then tell me why. That is exactly what has been happening.

I guess that I could post the question: Who is the best big man of all time? Do this one without a poll at all and just see what people have to say, but why do that? The Vader fans would just invade that one aswell and we would be back at square one. I think that this debate is going quite well and I am enjoying it.
 
The Vader fans would just invade that one aswell and we would be back at square one. I think that this debate is going quite well and I am enjoying it.

As am I, but I am bothered by something. If a new poll was posted, and Vader was voted more than Undertaker - wouldn't that actually SOLVE the problem? Or is it that you will ONLY feel the issue closed if Undertaker wins the voting? WHy are "Vader fans invading?" If Undertaker fans were posting more / voting, then you'd probably state that the truth was being bought to the surface, no? Are you so proud of your favorite wrestler than you're blind to accepting someone else is superior?

Anyway, this thread has been good mainly because of you, UTNOF. You've kept it alive, even fighting 3-on-1. Bravo. I've alrerady repped you for it, but I figure I'll say it too.
 
I don't think that my question is vague at all. I wanted to know if people thought that The Undertaker was the best big man ever, so that is what I asked. If so, great, tell me why, if not, then tell me why. That is exactly what has been happening.

And that's what's happening on this thread. You asked whether The Undertaker is the best "Big Man" in wrestling, and people came in here and told you he isn't. They also told you why Vader is the best "Big Man" in wrestling and gave you sufficient proof as to why he is the best "Big Man".

I guess that I could post the question: Who is the best big man of all time? Do this one without a poll at all and just see what people have to say, but why do that?

Even if you decided to do it without the poll, it's still going to have the same effect. People are still going to come on here and tell you why Vader is the best "Big Man". Also, a lot of people will just vote on a poll and not read the arguments.

The Vader fans would just invade that one aswell and we would be back at square one.

Well, last time I checked this is a discussion forum. People are going to come in here and try to debate with you why one someone isn't better than someone else, an example would be this thread.

I think that this debate is going quite well and I am enjoying it.

I actually enjoyed the debate too.
 
As am I, but I am bothered by something. If a new poll was posted, and Vader was voted more than Undertaker - wouldn't that actually SOLVE the problem? Or is it that you will ONLY feel the issue closed if Undertaker wins the voting? WHy are "Vader fans invading?" If Undertaker fans were posting more / voting, then you'd probably state that the truth was being bought to the surface, no? Are you so proud of your favorite wrestler than you're blind to accepting someone else is superior?

You actually have a point. If I make it a poll between Vader and Taker and Taker wins, that would be the end of it. Of course, you Vader fans might come up with, "Well the people on this site arent familiar with Vader's over seas work and therefore can't properly debate this issue." We know that Taker is more popular here and if we were to start this poll, I think that we all know that 'Taker would win.

Anyway, this thread has been good mainly because of you, UTNOF. You've kept it alive, even fighting 3-on-1. Bravo. I've alrerady repped you for it, but I figure I'll say it too.

Thank you. I really appreciate that, especially coming from someone so well versed in Professional Wrestling such as yourself.
 
And that's what's happening on this thread. You asked whether The Undertaker is the best "Big Man" in wrestling, and people came in here and told you he isn't. They also told you why Vader is the best "Big Man" in wrestling and gave you sufficient proof as to why he is the best "Big Man".

Yes, the point on Vader has been made loud and clear. You know something that really gets me down though? I never seem to have help in these threads. It's me against the masses, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

Even if you decided to do it without the poll, it's still going to have the same effect. People are still going to come on here and tell you why Vader is the best "Big Man". Also, a lot of people will just vote on a poll and not read the arguments.

You don't think that someone might have another big man in mind besides Vader or 'Taker. Vader isn't the be all end all for big men wrestlers..........'Taker is!!!!!!! LOL.

Well, last time I checked this is a discussion forum. People are going to come in here and try to debate with you why one someone isn't better than someone else, an example would be this thread.

I know and I love it. I just wish that some more people would come in and debate aswell as you and IC about someone else. Sly attempted with Hogan, but I expected that.

I actually enjoyed the debate too.

It was amazing and hopefully, we will debate more in the future.
 
The Undertaker is just as good now as he had ever been. The last couple of years, he has been in the best shape of his career and trust me, without Taker, Smackdown would be just like ECW. He is still a headliner and he is the Best Big Man EVER!

tha undertaker aint had a solid fued on smackdown for idk how long. tha only reason he a headliner wut he did in his prime. dont get me wrong undertakers great an he was my favortie at a time but i hate seeing him out off shape like that. eva body knos taker dont have it no more. he like ric now
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top