It's time to quit kidding ourselves.

[Steamboat Ricky]

Ok, well...pretend I'm FOTH, Sly. I want to be reminded of these epic 6 points. Or, if anyone digs up the old post, i'll rep.

 

[Murfish]

What is the vb code for making a url to a single post?

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

just quote it and then put er in here.

 

[Murfish]

My gift to you good sir.

Maybe I shall rephrase what I said.He can wrestle,but he can't outwrestle the likes of KENTA,Danielson,Joe,Punk,Benoit,Eddie,Hart,HBK,Sting,and prolly more.

LOL

You are getting to be borderline ridiculous.


It's one thing to throw in guys like Hart, HBK or even Sting, but when you start throwing in guys who couldn't catch heat with a tank of kerosene and a blowtorch, it's time to drop the charade.

First of all, let's take Samoa Joe. The guy is atrocious out of the ring, and barely passable in the ring. If you've seen one Samoa Joe match, you've seen them all. Which, isn't always a bad thing, except that Samoa Joe matches generally aren't that good, unless he has someone who is exceptional at bumping for him. Joe is a one trick pony. All high impact offense, and NOTHING to go with it. No selling, no storytelling, little charisma in the ring, and his matches look fake as hell. When he gets someone like AJ Styles with him, who bumps like a god, or even a Punk (who does sell well generally) then Joe looks good. Otherwise, Joe is exposed for the mundane worker he really is.

Then, remember the kerosene comment? Yeah, that means we're talking about Bryan Danielson. Sure, the guy can get a pop from the 150 smarks that sell out the local high school multi-purpose facility, but put the guy in front of an actual audience, and he'll bore people with his work. And, if you bore people, how can you be entertaining? And if you're not entertaining, how can you be good?

The simple fact is that so many misguided fans judge the quality of wrestlers based upon their offensive arsenal, and not on the things that truly determine quality wrestlers. Just because guys an do chain wrestling or flips or suplexes, doesn't make them a good wrestler. A wrestler's offensive repertoire has nothing to do with quality.

Instead, quality comes from the six tools of a professional wrestler; 5 are based on in-ring performance, and the sixth out of ring.

In-ring:

1. Storytelling
2. Psychology
3. Workrate
4. Selling
5. Charisma

Out-ring:

6. Promo ability


The better an individual is at each one of those things, the better worker they are. Notice NOTHING in there has to do with the style of a worker, or the offense he uses, but rather the abstract and deeper attributes of quality wrestling.

 

[klunderbunker]

Wow. You know, when I watch a wrestling match, its pretty much I liked it or not.......rarely go beyond that.

 

[proweeks]

I have to agree. No doubt about it, Undertaker is overrated. He's up there with Flair, HBK, HHH and Angle in the most overrated category. Undertaker, along with HBK and Angle are easily in my top 10 all-time favourites list, but that doesn't make me blind to how overrated they are. People need to learn how to differentiate between liking a particular wrestler, and thinking they're the greatest of all-time.

ok, if all those people you named are overrated, then who the hell IS good in your book, you throw Austin and Hogan and Bret in there and I dont know of anyone else you CAN call great, this whole thread sucks, up until i found this thread ive never heard anyone talk bad about taker or hbk or angle, ive heard some overrated comments about Flair, but about Angle and HBK and Taker, come on

 

[Shocky]

1. Storytelling: Check
2. Psychology: Check
3. Workrate: Check
4. Selling: Check
5. Charisma: Check

Promos: Well since he's supposed to be dead, and he rarely talks I guess I'll concede this, even though he doesn't cut promos but when he did they were bad ass.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Wow. You know, when I watch a wrestling match, its pretty much I liked it or not.......rarely go beyond that.

Best post in awhile from anyone.

 

[Murfish]

1. Storytelling: Check
2. Psychology: Check
3. Workrate: Check
4. Selling: Check
5. Charisma: Check

Promos: Well since he's supposed to be dead, and he rarely talks I guess I'll concede this, even though he doesn't cut promos but when he did they were bad ass.

Argue that with Sly. I was just pointing out that he does have criteria for a good wrestler.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

1. Storytelling: Check
2. Psychology: Check
3. Workrate: Check
4. Selling: Check
5. Charisma: Check

Promos: Well since he's supposed to be dead, and he rarely talks I guess I'll concede this, even though he doesn't cut promos but when he did they were bad ass.

Thanks for doing my work for me, Shocky. EXACTLY what I was going to say. No joke. Word for word.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

ok, if all those people you named are overrated, then who the hell IS good in your book, you throw Austin and Hogan and Bret in there and I dont know of anyone else you CAN call great, this whole thread sucks, up until i found this thread ive never heard anyone talk bad about taker or hbk or angle, ive heard some overrated comments about Flair, but about Angle and HBK and Taker, come on

You obviously aren't around here much.

 

[klunderbunker]

Bets on how long it takes Sly to come up with enough BS and one line insults to refute this?

 

[HBK-aholic]

ok, if all those people you named are overrated, then who the hell IS good in your book, you throw Austin and Hogan and Bret in there and I dont know of anyone else you CAN call great, this whole thread sucks, up until i found this thread ive never heard anyone talk bad about taker or hbk or angle, ive heard some overrated comments about Flair, but about Angle and HBK and Taker, come on

Repped. What you don't understand about a few people on this board is that anyone that isn't Cena or Hogan is overrated. That especially goes to those everyone else likes. Wow, you're totally not allowed to call Flair, HBK or HHH great. Stupid, I know.

 

[Slyfox696]

Snuka and Roberts were at the ends of their main runs in WWE when they fought taker and well beyond their primes.

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

Great point.

They were jobbers when he beat them.

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

How great a match do you expect in that case? They were made to make Taker look dominant.

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.

The Bolier Room match wasn't about the quality of the match, it was about the angle that it furthered.

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

Please Sly, enlighten us as to how the HIAC was bad.

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

WIth the idea of the match to be that two men hate each other so much they're willing to enter "hell" to fight each other, what kind of a masterpiece are you expecting? Its supposed to be a wild brawl.

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.

I remember their match on Smackdown getting mostly praise. I know I for one, thought it was good. It turned out a lot better then I expected, anyway.

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

We also have to remember that this was when Khali was still getting adjusted. He didn't have much experience. By the time he wrestled Cena, he learned tons more.

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.

Numerous terrible matches against numerous terrible wrestlers? No, it doesn't.

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.

It's funny though how you keep going to these matches and keep ignoring the fact that 'Taker has been in WWE longer then ANYONE, and he has stayed over with the fans the entire time. Yet, he still sucks to you? That makes no sense.

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.

Also, just the fact that you choose to ignore all his other great matches outside those "BIG PPVs"

OK, lay it on me. What are they?

and his longevity in the company and his ability to get over and stay over all this time as either heel or face and the fact that he did it without kissing ass... there's really no word to describe how ridiculous that is.

Huh?

Take Foley out of the equation, and saying that we're talking about Jake and Snuka in the mid-nineties, then yes... RVD, Sabu and Lashley were better then them. Jake was terrible back then and Snuka didn't do anything worth noting.

Yes, because it is. First of all, RVD is not one of the worst wrestlers of all time like you're making it out to be. Sabu, while a bit botchish at time, can still have, what most people consider, to be exciting matches. Lashley, by the time he wrestled Cena, was starting to come to his own.

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.

Yeah, but millions and millions of people think different.

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.

You forgot to add the word "valid" before excuse.

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?

Sly i dont think squash matches are made to be entertaining. Shit, i've never watched a squash match and said wow that was impressive. They're there to make one look strong and the other one look weak. They are bad matches because Taker was made to look dominant.

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.

Wow. You know, when I watch a wrestling match, its pretty much I liked it or not.......rarely go beyond that.

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.

1. Storytelling: Check
2. Psychology: Check
3. Workrate: Check
4. Selling: Check
5. Charisma: Check

Promos: Well since he's supposed to be dead, and he rarely talks I guess I'll concede this, even though he doesn't cut promos but when he did they were bad ass.

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?

Repped. What you don't understand about a few people on this board is that anyone that isn't Cena or Hogan is overrated.

You forgot Bret Hart.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Eh?

 

[klunderbunker]

Gone? Yes they were gone. For drug issues, not talent issues. Snuka retired from mainstream, and Roberts was nowhere near what he used to be.

Better than RVD and Sabu? That sounds like you being bitter because they got bigger pops than your man Cena ever dreamed of at ONS 06.

I've watched that HIAC match more times than I can count, and I enjoy it, as the majority of fans seem to.

Sly either you're doing this to get attention, or you're blinder than I thought. That match stole the show that night, and was match of the year.

 

[klunderbunker]

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?

Explain why his matches were terrible and I'll answer that.

 

[Slyfox696]

Gone? Yes they were gone. For drug issues, not talent issues. Snuka retired from mainstream, and Roberts was nowhere near what he used to be.

For drug issues, right?

Better than RVD and Sabu? That sounds like you being bitter because they got bigger pops than your man Cena ever dreamed of at ONS 06.

This is a joke right?

I've watched that HIAC match more times than I can count, and I enjoy it, as the majority of fans seem to.

It's terrible. What's so great about it? Some guy can kill himself, big deal. Where's the wrestling aspect to it? The intricate storyline to the match, the binding pull to each of the characters, the story that makes you sit in your seat spellbound by who is going to win and how?

There's none of that. It's just "Let's see what insane stunt Foley will do next". Big deal.

Sly either you're doing this to get attention, or you're blinder than I thought. That match stole the show that night, and was match of the year.

That match was terrible, and anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge and objectivity will tell you so.

Explain why his matches were terrible and I'll answer that.

Which ones?

 

[klunderbunker]

No I'd say that they were gone for being old and not needed in the company anymore.

Excellent job at dodging the question, which I'm now dubbing the Sly Special.

Or there's the story of this match is going to end the feud. Vince has called out the Undertaker to step up his game and be more ruthless. How far is he willing to go? Is he willing to destroy someone to accomplish what he wants to do? The wrestling aspect would be that they were able to pull off a match that is still seen as great today by many fans and while the wrestling may have been subpar, people liked it, therefore, it accomplished its goal.

A few opinions on that match....

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=19677&highlight=match+1998

So, everyone who said good things about the match here have no knowledge? That would be people such as Sam, Xfear, Ricky, IC, and Shocky. All total idiots if I've ever seen them. Even the people that say its bad claim it has good spots in it as well, so pretty much either they're all correct, or by your standards they know nothing.

And yet again, another Sly Special to end things with.

 

[RBH]

Because of this thread, I might just go rewatch the entire match. I for one think the match accomplished what needed to be done. It was not a match designed to show the wrestling aspect. It was a match designed for Mick Foley to get the crap beaten out of him and that is what happened. I do not understand why you miss that point Slyfox, it was entertaining and the whole crowd was into it because it was a good glorfied storytelling stuntfest and it made the Undertaker-Mankind fued better. Undertaker has had some good matches and he has had some bad matches. Every wrestler who is not a technical genius has had their share and you should know that. A wrestler is like an athlete, the longer the career, the more you see the mistakes no matter how great they are. Sound familiar?

 

[Mexican Geek]

The Undertaker sucks. Really, he does.

With the possible exception of Shawn Michaels, I don't think I've ever seen anyone get as much undeserved praise as the Undertaker does. Everyone wants to say he's some kind of great wrestler, but what's so great about him? Has ANYONE had more matches bomb than the Undertaker? Has anyone ever had more terrible matches at major PPVs than the Undertaker?

.....

So, why does everyone suck his penis so hard?

The old Sly: Putting the nerves of millions AND MILLIONS of WZ posters into a chaotic state.
(It's good to know from you man, still a Mizzou fan? )

Now, about the Undertaker...

Come on sly, you are biting your tongue on this one. Even one year after, I still know what your standards are for a superstar to being a good wrestler overall.

I might forget some points, so help me after this:

1-Marketable image
Ok, do we still have a doubt on this one? Call it a Zombie or an American Badass Biker, Undertaker is an instant Win for marketability purposes: Intimidating physical image = wrestler who kick everyone else assses. So, if you take that premise and you mix it with the bizarre, but eternal human fascination for the unknown and the death = Instant Win + bonu$$

2-Wrestling skills
He might not be Bret Hart, but probably knows 2 or 3 holds and moves, dont ya think? (also: see attachment)

3-Wrestling Psychology and story telling.
(see attachment)

4-Drawing Power and live crowd reaction
I've only watched 2, maybe 3 people who might compete with Taker's awe inspiring pops: Steve Austin and Hulk hogan (and Cena comes in a close 3rd place...) of course, this is intimately close to number 3, but still. (also: see attachment)

-THE attachment-

Here is some Sly-Original material for you kids out there, because I don't know what the hell happened, but suddenly, "The Undertaker Sucks".

>>INSTRUCTIONS AND NOTES
Quite simple: Replace the Words "John Cena" with "The Undertaker". (i've done it for you guys. You're welcome!)
This post is from the Official John Cena thread, and has been slightly edited for continuity purposes. Terms edited:
Raw--> SD, Cena--> The Undertaker, People-->SLyfox696
<<

You must not watch much The Undertaker. His SD matches don't count because everyone has the same SD match. You have to. Watch his PPV matches, and tell me they are all the same.

This is only begging the question though.

Then Shawn Michaels and Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin weren't "true" wrestlers.

***Name me a match and tell me how he was carried. Give me specifics of how he was carried since being WH champion.***

I know plenty of women who seem to understand wrestling a whole hell of a lot better than you are making yourself sound like. Could you be any more insulting to women or children?

Why is Hulk Hogan not a good wrestler now? Because it's no longer cool to like Hogan? Because he doesn't have 2235 different moves, illogically placed in his matches? Because his workrate is unparalleled and amazing, and even though everyone in the building knows he's going to "Hulk Up", the crowd STILL goes nuts for it? It's amazing that so many people just don't understand what great wrestling truly is.

Professional wrestling isn't about a bunch of moves. It's about storytelling, drama, pageantry. It's like any other entertainment medium. When it's good, it draws you in, captivates you, and makes you a part of the entertainment. It's something that you can't quit watching, and you find yourself feeling the emotions that the artist wants you to feel. THAT'S what Pro Wrestling is about. If you want to watch a bunch of grapples and holds, go watch NCAA Wrestling. Go watch Olympic wrestling. But, don't confuse that with Professional Wrestling. Bret Hart was great, not because he knew a bunch of holds, but because he knew how to draw people in, make them care about him, his opponent, and the match. The same with Hogan. The same with The Undertaker.

The Undertaker is very good, because his storytelling is so fine. It's like someone said earlier. They know he's going to win, but they keep watching anyways because for some reason they have this hunch that he's going to lose this time. THAT is called storytelling. THAT is working a crowd. You don't need a million moves and holds to do it. Hell, look at Steve Austin from 97-99. The guy has three moves essentially. Punch, kick, and Stunner. But, the way he did it was so masterful that it drew you in, and made you watch.

If you want to talk about TRUE wrestling, then you need to talk about Olympic or NCAA wrestling. If you want to talk about true PROFESSIONAL wrestling, then you need to talk about entertainment qualities.

The Undertaker is never lost in the ring, he is always aware of whats going on. The spots in his match are RARELY obvious, and his transitions are generally very well done. He draws a crowd into a match, and his selling is one of the best in the WWE (and before you say it, I've already discussed WM 23...many times). His moveset psychology is solid, and is in-ring psychology is very good. He knows how to tell a story in the ring, and his matches are always hot. He doesn't rely on big spots to entertain a crowd, and he can play the offensive wrestler in the match or the seller in the match.

I still don't understand why SLYFOX696 thinks The Undertaker sucks. The Undertaker is one of the best wrestlers in the WWE, and the world, today.

Just, please don't tell me that Cena is better than Taker. My eyes could explode after reading that. (not that Cena is garbage, he is not... but thats something for another thread)

Bottomline is: are YOU kidding YOURSELF? or this is some side effect from watching too much Hogan knows best??

 

[Shocky]

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?

So what you're saying is that the Undertaker should have taken command in a match against Jake Roberts, Jimmy Snuka, Kamala, or any of the other guys that he had "terrible" matches with at that time. Sly, those guys were the veterans, those guys were the ring generals, and those guys should have been calling the match. If there is any fault for the quality of those matches, it wouldn't be on the Undertaker, it would be on the veterans at the time.

I have failed to see an Undertaker match that has dead crowds as you keep referring too. People pop like crazy for the Undertaker, people get into his matches. As stated, if this was the case, and vince was so concerned that no one cared about Undertaker matches why in the last 2 years pushing 50 has he won the Royal Rumble in 2007, Been involved at a title match at WM 23, Main evented Survivor Series, he and Shawn Michaels being the focal point of the Royal Rumble 2008, Main Eventing WM 24, and Main Eventing Summerslam. Those are the WWE's Big four pay per views each year, yet a guy that gets no heat miraculously headlines those events.

 

[Slyfox696]

No I'd say that they were gone for being old and not needed in the company anymore.

Excellent job at dodging the question, which I'm now dubbing the Sly Special.

You didn't ask a question. How am I supposed to answer something you didn't ask?

Or there's the story of this match is going to end the feud. Vince has called out the Undertaker to step up his game and be more ruthless. How far is he willing to go? Is he willing to destroy someone to accomplish what he wants to do? The wrestling aspect would be that they were able to pull off a match that is still seen as great today by many fans and while the wrestling may have been subpar, people liked it, therefore, it accomplished its goal.

It was a sucky match. Terrible.

Let me ask you this. If Foley hadn't been thrown off the top of the Cell, and hadn't been thrown through the Cell, how many people would have called it a good match?

A few opinions on that match....

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=19677&highlight=match+1998

So, everyone who said good things about the match here have no knowledge? That would be people such as Sam, Xfear, Ricky, IC, and Shocky. All total idiots if I've ever seen them. Even the people that say its bad claim it has good spots in it as well, so pretty much either they're all correct, or by your standards they know nothing.

Jake said the match sucks, Sam said it wasn't a great match, Xfear said the match action sucked, Ricky only said it was MOTY because of what Foley did, not because of the quality...you're not making a good point here.

And yet again, another Sly Special to end things with.

And yet another Klunder Fuck-Up. That's the term I use whenever you think you one up me, and you really make zero sense.

It was a match designed for Mick Foley to get the crap beaten out of him and that is what happened. I do not understand why you miss that point Slyfox, it was entertaining and the whole crowd was into it because it was a good glorfied storytelling stuntfest

That's not what makes a good match though. What makes a good match is the emotional ties to the workers and your genuine caring for what happens to the character. Not cheering a guy who nearly kills himself.

 

[Slyfox696]

Aerandier and Shocky, I'll respond to you when I get back. Got open gym in 40 minutes and need to eat supper.

 

[Shocky]

good deal sly. People can argue and gripe about the cell match all they want, fact of the matter is, it's one of the top 5, if not top talked about match of the last 25 years. It's left an impression on everyone.

Plus, if Foley didn't get thrown off the cell, then who knows what type of direction that match would have gone into. You're dealing with what ifs, not facts. The fact is, Foley wanted to outdo the first Cell match, and they did. If they didn't, they could have put on a great match a different type of way. They chose to do the match that way, and people still go crazy and talk about it ten years later, they must have done something right.