It's time to quit kidding ourselves.

[Uncle Sam]

I think people should also bring up Undertaker making Edge look like God himself at SummerSlam.

 

[BooCocky]

As opposed to RVD and Sabu...who were gone just a few weeks after their matches with Cena?

Great point.

Who cares? They were still better workers than Sabu or RVD.

So was Umaga's matches with a ton of guys. And they were far superior to the garbage we had to watch from Undertaker. Take Umaga vs. HBK from Raw a few years back. Head and shoulders above those two WM matches. WRESTLEMANIA matches.

Another excuse, in a long line of excuses for the pitiful work of the Undertaker.

I have a better idea. Watch the match first, and then that'll be all I need to do.

It wasn't though. It was a match of like 4 spots. That was it. Seriously. Match over.

Sucked ass. The HBK vs. Undertaker HIAC match was good, and still showed the "hellish" nature of the Cell. The Mankind match blew monkey chunks.

Quit making excuses.

You mean the one they had on Smackdown because all their other work sucked so bad?

Oh I know. Those 7 months between Taker and Cena, a couple of which he wasn't even on TV, was a VERY important step in Khali's development.



Jake Roberts is a terrible wrestler? Mick Foley is a terrible wrestler? Hulk Hogan is a terrible wrestler? Steve Austin is a terrible wrestler?

I smell excuses coming.

Sure it does.

Being over for 18 years just gives more terrible matches to criticize. Do you REALLY think that the Undertaker has been around for 18 years because he puts on matches that bore the live crowd? You know, like the matches I've already gone through and talked about? People want to always talk about Hulk Hogan and his "in-ring ability", and yet, like Jake said earlier, you never saw a dead crowd during a Hogan match. It happens all the time in Taker matches.

OK, lay it on me. What are they?

Huh?



LOL

You just said RVD wasn't terrible and Sabu was exciting. I'm not sure I should even bother with anything else you say.

No, millions and millions of people who watched the HIGHLIGHTS of the HIAC match think differently. Anyone who has actually watched the match knows how bad it sucks.

Using your theory, Brock vs. Goldberg was only bad because the crowd knew they were leaving.

See, that's a valid excuse. The tag match where Trish and Molly Holly botch all the time was only bad because those two women weren't used to working together. See, it wasn't a bad match because there is a "valid" excuse.

Do you not see how ridiculous that line of thinking is?

Where's this thinking come from that a squash match can't be entertaining?

Goldberg squashed people all the time in WCW, and he was still entertaining as hell doing it.

Those factors are what MAKE you like it though, and determine whether or not you could keep watching that match and still like it.

By the way, thanks for quoting that for me, so I didn't have to retype it.

If that were true, how come so many of his matches are so terrible?

Remember the old saying "Ric Flair could put on a great match with a broomstick" or whatever it was? While, Ric Flair wasn't very good, the concept remains the same. I mean, Hulk Hogan went up against some of the worst workers in history, and STILL was able to have the crowd into it.

Why can't the Undertaker?
You forgot Bret Hart.

Sly i watched WCW for years and i never found a goldberg match entertaining let a lone a squash match.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Was Undertaker vs. Austin the worst feud of 1998? I think it might be. For somebody so great Taker sure did his best to make Austin look like shit.

 

[klunderbunker]

I thoguht it was an ok feud, but the ending was just crap. Austin pinning taker clean was just a letdown. It always seemed to me like Taker had no direction that year. You're right, he was the weaker link of the two, but Idk if I'd call it awful.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

In the Buried Alive match?

 

[Shocky]

Meh, they had a great match in 1997.

Austin broke his jaw at Summerslam, so that took away from that match.

Buried Alive is a dumb contest.

Judgment Day and Fully Loaded 1999 were solid.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Meh, they had a great match in 1997.

Very good, but not memorable.

Austin broke his jaw at Summerslam, so that took away from that match.

It's pretty good.

Buried Alive is a dumb contest.

Dumb. But I don't see how it's hard to have a good one.

Judgment Day and Fully Loaded 1999 were solid.

Only solid from Austin, Mankind & Undertaker? Tut.

 

[j.hardy for wwe champ]

Honestly ive only been watching wrasslin for about 3 years on a regular basis, but from the first time i saw undertaker i was entertained. I mean sure sometimes his gimmick is pretty corny but his entrances are great and he usually puts on good matches from what ive saw of him, overated maybe, but very entertaining all the same.