It's time to quit kidding ourselves.

[klunderbunker]

You mean the question where I asked if you really thought they were better than RVD and Sabu? That one?

No, and without the slam on Andre, Hogan and Andre would have been terrible too. One moment can make or break any match at any time. Those two made that match. You think it's terrible? You're in the very small majority on it.

Jake also says it's entertaining, Sam says its impressive, Xfear says match of the year, Ricky still says MOTY, meaning they all said it had something. You said anyone with knowledge would say it was terrrible. If something is entertaining, impressive, or match of the year, I'd hardly call that terrible.

 

[RBH]

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

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?

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

People did care about Mick Foley in that match. He got an ovation at the end for his actions. His character was made that day. Before that match, Mick Foley was meh, that match officially made him the psychopathic hardcore legend.

 

[klunderbunker]

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.

Another factor is that it catapulted both of them to a higher level in the company. It led to Taker's heel turn, leading to a big feud with Austin, which was part of the biggest period WWE ever had, meaning it helped the company make money, meaning that it was successful, as you have said is what wrestling is all about. It may not have been the best in ring action, but to say it was terrible is just wrong.

 

[undertakerrulesmania20]

You Are Unbelievable I Still Dont See Whitch Of His Matches Have Sucked.
Eithier Your Not Watching The Same Show As Everyone Else Or You Need To Have Your Head Examined. Undertaker Has More Ring Skills Then The Current Whc Punk And Wwe Champ Hhh As Well As Batista, Kane, Cena, Did I Miss Any Of The Big Draws Here. He Also Can Push A Mach Or Storline Better Then All The Above People.

 

[Shocky]

Don't get me wrong guys, Taker has had bad matches, everyone has. You shouldn't get so blind to think that he isn't capable of having a bad match. That being said, everyone has has had bad matches, Taker has had his share, but not enough to warrant the term of him sucking.

 

[klunderbunker]

Absolutely he's had bad matches. Everyone from Bret to Taker to HHH has. I've been bored by him before. But overall sucking? Hardly.

 

[undertakerrulesmania20]

Yeah And He Is Far From The Worst To On Any Of The 3 Shows

 

[Slyfox696]

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
<<



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??

Yes, I'm still a Mizzou fan. As for anything else to answer...you need to make a valid point. No one is criticizing the Undertaker for his number of moves, and no one can show me his great storytelling ability in all the matches I've named that sucked. All people ever want to do is tell me how bad his opponents are, a red herring argument if I've ever seen one.

Please make a valid and original point, and then we'll talk.

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.

What I'm saying is that I've seen entertaining Snuka matches, I've seen entertaining Roberts matches, hell I've seen entertaining Kamala matches. I know those guys can put on a good match. Why couldn't they with the Undertaker?

I mean, how many bad matches can we make excuses for.

I have failed to see an Undertaker match that has dead crowds as you keep referring too.

Summerslam 1994, 1995, and 1998. That's three matches at Summerlsam in 5 years time. And Taker was in the Boiler Room Brawl in 1996 which sucked as well.

Also note that the 1998 was against Steve Austin, when Austin was really starting to hit his stride. And the crowd STILL struggled to find a way to get into the match. It was actually that match that got me thinking about this topic.

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.

Because he is still drawing crowds. No one is saying that he doesn't. But, once they get to the show, what happens? Dud city. Then, Undertaker takes a few months off, shows up again right before a major PPV, and we do it all over again.

No one is saying he isn't one of the bigger draws for the WWE, although he doesn't draw as well as people think. But, I think his history of terrible matches speak for themselves.

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.

So did Brock vs. Goldberg.

Plus, if Foley didn't get thrown off the cell, then who knows what type of direction that match would have gone into.

The same that it is now? I mean, this last HIAC was terrible, but did have some bigger bumps. But, when was the last HIAC before that which featured major bumps?

You're dealing with what ifs, not facts.

The fact is the match sucked.

The only reason people gush over is because of Foley's dive off the Cell. A respectable feat, sure, but that doesn't make it a good match.

If they didn't, they could have put on a great match a different type of way.

Who's doing the "what ifs" now?

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.

Again, just because of Foley, not because of anything Undertaker did. I mean, when you think of that match, what's the first three images that come to mind? Foley off the top, Foley through the top, and Foley sticking his tongue through his lip making it look like he's smiling. Do any of those feature the Undertaker?

You mean the question where I asked if you really thought they were better than RVD and Sabu? That one?

Oh, you asked a question which I had already answered several times?

Klunder Fuck-Up.

No, and without the slam on Andre, Hogan and Andre would have been terrible too.

It wasn't that great of a match. But, at least the crowd was into it.

Jake also says it's entertaining, Sam says its impressive, Xfear says match of the year, Ricky still says MOTY, meaning they all said it had something. You said anyone with knowledge would say it was terrrible. If something is entertaining, impressive, or match of the year, I'd hardly call that terrible.

Did you even read the thread? I even posted exactly what they said.

Watching a kid get hit in the head with a basketball is entertaining, but it's not good ball handling skills.

People did care about Mick Foley in that match. He got an ovation at the end for his actions. His character was made that day. Before that match, Mick Foley was meh, that match officially made him the psychopathic hardcore legend.

They cared about the major bumps he had taken, not whether or not his CHARACTER would win the match.

Big difference.

Don't get me wrong guys, Taker has had bad matches, everyone has. You shouldn't get so blind to think that he isn't capable of having a bad match. That being said, everyone has has had bad matches, Taker has had his share, but not enough to warrant the term of him sucking.

But when some of your worst matches consistently come on the two biggest shows of the year? You don't find that worrisome?

 

[jtbsoon2b]

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?

Let's just go through them, shall we? I'll just do WM and SuSl for time:

Spoiler: Wrestlemania

7 - Jimmy Snuka - sucked
8 - Jake Roberts - sucked
9 - Giant Gonzalez - sucked
11 - King Kong Bundy - sucked
12 - Diesel - sucked
13 - Sycho Sid - sucked
14 - Kane - sucked
15 - Big Bossman - sucked
17 - Triple H - passable, but still sucked
18 - Ric Flair - decent
19 - Big Show & A-Train - sucked
20 - Kane - sucked
21 - Orton - solid
22 - Mark Henry - sucked
23 - Batista - overrated, but solid
24 - Edge - overrated, but solid

And now, for Summerslam (I can only go to about 2000, as I haven't seen some of the ones after)

Spoiler: Summerslam

1992 - Kamala - sucked
1993 - Giant Gonzalez - sucked
1994 - Underfaker - sucked
1995 - Kama - sucked
1996 - Mankind - sucked
1997 - Bret Hart - solid
1998 - Steve Austin - passable
1999 - w/ Big Show vs. X-Pac & Kane - sucked
2000 - Kane - sucked
*haven't seen yet*
2006/2007 - No match
2008 - Edge - Seriously overrated, passable

So yeah, looking at those lists, we can assure ourselves that the Undertaker now sucks.

So, why does everyone suck his penis so hard?

This from the same guy who started the thread: "some intelligently refute this logic"?

WOW!!

U've got to be kidding me!

Taker has drawn tons of money for WWE and himself. This is possibly one of the most important facts in his' history, because many people feel the more you draw the greater of a wrestler you are.

So thats why in many's eyes he is great and he also draws in the casual fan. Which also helps him.

And he has had some great matches.
Anyone see NWO 06?

See he wrestled Kurt Freakin' Angle but it takes two great wrestlers to put on a legendary match.

 

[Slyfox696]

This from the same guy who started the thread: "some intelligently refute this logic"?

WOW!!

U've got to be kidding me!

Taker has drawn tons of money for WWE and himself. This is possibly one of the most important facts in his' history, because many people feel the more you draw the greater of a wrestler you are.

So thats why in many's eyes he is great and he also draws in the casual fan. Which also helps him.

And he has had some great matches.
Anyone see NWO 06?

See he wrestled Kurt Freakin' Angle but it takes two great wrestlers to put on a legendary match.

Don't get confused. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I'm not talking about Undertaker, the employee.

I'm talking about Undertaker, the in-ring worker only. The guy is over, the guy is cool, and the guy is a draw. No question. But, I'm talking about his abilities once he gets between the ropes.

 

[Minor League Brian]

Sly, I'm not positive but I think some of the problem lies in the fact this isn't exactly like you (from what I've seen). Normally you're the person talking about drawing and all that, not the in-ring worker. Maybe that's why it seems people aren't responding how you want them too.

Course, I disagree with you but in the end I think its just a personal thing.

 

[proweeks]

people seem to contradict themselves a hell of a lot, they go from snubbing Takers wrestling skills to saying that the cell match with Mankind was in the top 5 greatest of all time, im gonna go out on a limb and say the match had hardly any "wrestling" whatsoever, but it had some of the best "spots" of all time, look a guy doesnt have to be Jack Brisco or Kurt Angle, but if he knows how to make a match "entertaining", and keep the crowd involved and make you say holy shit every once in a while then he can be called a good wrestler.

Hogan is arguably #1 of all time, and he was a horrible "wrestler", but as long as your charisma and psychology are great and as long as you don't wrestle as bad as the Great Khali or Giant Gonzalez, then you are good to go

and another point, how come no one has pointed out that Taker has remained on top for so long maybe because he's dedicated, maybe because he remained loyal as hell to WWE during the Monday Night War, maybe because he reinvents his character completely every couple of years and it certainly doesnt hurt that he's 6' 8" and 305 and can walk the top rope (lol)

 

[ortonchamp28]

this hole thread makes no sense, sly ur main point in almost every argument uve ever had is that it doesnt matter how good your in ring work is, it matters how entertaining u are and how much money you draw. i think the only reason u even made this thread is to get someone to try and defend taker and say how it doesnt matter how good your in-ring work is as long as your a draw, to further your arguments about guys such as cena and hogan. either that or your entire outlook on what matters and what doesnt has completely changed.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sly, I'm not positive but I think some of the problem lies in the fact this isn't exactly like you (from what I've seen). Normally you're the person talking about drawing and all that, not the in-ring worker. Maybe that's why it seems people aren't responding how you want them too.

Yeah, that's kind of what I talked about in my last post. I probably should have been more clear.

No one (at least I'm not) is arguing that Undertaker isn't pulling in fans. But, once those fans are there...then what?

 

[Shocky]

One day I'll learn the quote technique. I'm about to go to bed, so forgive the rushness of this post.

What I'm saying is that I've seen entertaining Snuka matches, I've seen entertaining Roberts matches, hell I've seen entertaining Kamala matches. I know those guys can put on a good match. Why couldn't they with the Undertaker?

I mean, how many bad matches can we make excuses for.

Snuka was at least 8 years removed from his prime. He's most famous for the Cage matches in the Garden, and he was fairly far removed from that. Robers was arguably 4 or 5 years removed from his prime. Arguably his last good match was against Rude at WM4. And I've failed to have watch a Kamala match that got me pumped up.

As for the second liine, when I get more time, I'll go into more.

Summerslam 1994, 1995, and 1998. That's three matches at Summerlsam in 5 years time. And Taker was in the Boiler Room Brawl in 1996 which sucked as well.

Also note that the 1998 was against Steve Austin, when Austin was really starting to hit his stride. And the crowd STILL struggled to find a way to get into the match. It was actually that match that got me thinking about this topic.

The Summerslam 1994 match shouldn't have been the main event, and that's obvious. The Cage match stole the show, if you can steal the show being in a cage and being in a title match featuring two brothers. The Undertaker vs. Underfaker was just a gimmick that went too far, and was destined to fail. Plus the logistics of putting up, and tearing down the cage. That time delay will kill the live energy out of the crowd, no doubt.

Summerslam 1995 I barely remember, but if he was facing Kama, then I would have fell asleep too.

Summerslam 1998 was against Austin, who suffered a broken jaw in that match. That took the momentum out of that match, and people new something was wrong. They both put on a great match a year and a half earlier at Cold Day in Hell, and had great matches the next year when Austin was healthy. It was a bad situation with an injury in the main event, and Austin wasn't in that match 100%. Again, not Takers fault.

As far as the Boiler Room Brawl, to each there own I suppose. I enjoyed that match myself. It was differnt, it was unique, but think of yourself being in the live crowd. You paid to watch a match in the ring, and these two are fighting for twenty minutes in the back room, I'm not going to be too thrilled in the stands myself. It played out well on the TV, but not for the live crowd. Again, I enjoyed the match, but understand why the live crowd took so long to get involved in it.

Because he is still drawing crowds. No one is saying that he doesn't. But, once they get to the show, what happens? Dud city. Then, Undertaker takes a few months off, shows up again right before a major PPV, and we do it all over again.

No one is saying he isn't one of the bigger draws for the WWE, although he doesn't draw as well as people think. But, I think his history of terrible matches speak for themselves.

Agreed, that he's not as big of a draw as he is made out to be, but doesn't mean he's not super over. There's something to be said of a guy that has won titles at 3 Wrestlemanias, something only Hogan and Austin have done at this point. Pretty illustrious company. Obviously he's doing something right. If the crowds are as dead as you say they are, the Undertaker wouldn't be in the WWE for as long as he is at the level he is.

So did Brock vs. Goldberg.
Isn't that the point though, to entertain the crowd. Regardless of great match or not, the crowd was entertained in a weird way. They took what they had, and ran with it. Likewise with HITC, it left an impression.

The fact is the match sucked.

The only reason people gush over is because of Foley's dive off the Cell. A respectable feat, sure, but that doesn't make it a good match.

Like the only people remember Hogan vs. Andre for the Bodyslam. Without that match and symbolic passing of the torch, you have a very mediocre match. People remember that spot like they remember this spot.

Again, just because of Foley, not because of anything Undertaker did. I mean, when you think of that match, what's the first three images that come to mind? Foley off the top, Foley through the top, and Foley sticking his tongue through his lip making it look like he's smiling. Do any of those feature the Undertaker?

I think of Undertaker throwing Mick Foley from the top of the cell, I think of Undertaker chokeslamming Foley threw the cage, I think of Undertaker making Foley look like a pin cushion...

But when some of your worst matches consistently come on the two biggest shows of the year? You don't find that worrisome?

More to come...

 

[Minor League Brian]

Yeah, that's kind of what I talked about in my last post. I probably should have been more clear.

No one (at least I'm not) is arguing that Undertaker isn't pulling in fans. But, once those fans are there...then what?

I don't think it has anything to do with you not being clear, mate. I think its just more peoples perceptions on what you're saying. You know, after time people sorta just grow use to how people approach things and expect it to remain that way.

 

[jmt225]

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

Yes, and regardless, the match turned out to be good.

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.

As opposed to 'Taker being the very FIRST person to feud with Khali on the big stage? Yes, it was.

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

When did I say that? Jake was terrible IN THE MID-NINETIES; that is a fact. Foley, I've praised a couple of times, so obviously I don't think he's terrible. Hogan has nothing to do with anything. And you said that Austin's match against 'Taker was "passable", not that it "sucked", so why are you brining up his name in the first place?

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.

Fact is Sly that 'Taker has provided us with some of the most memorable matches of all-time. His matches with HBK, Mankind, Bret (One Night Only), Lesnar, Angle, Batista, Edge, ect. are all legendary and are a huge bright spot in WWE's history as far as in-ring work is concerned. You can talk about his shitty matches against his shitty opponents all you want, but the fact of the matter is that when it comes to Taker's matches, 97% of wrestling fans will first think of the good ones, not Taker's squash matches or his shit against trash like Giant Gonzalez.

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

RVD is no where near being terrible, and Sabu got over in WWE only because of the excitement he brings.

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.

Do you have proof of this?

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

See, that's a valid excuse.

Actually, the crowd is what made that match watchable. But honestly, I'm surprised that's not one of your favorite matches. I mean, if you watch it, all it is, is Hogan vs. Warrior from 'Mania 6 all over again. They did the exact same thing in that match that Hogan and Warrior did in their match. You know, with the test of strength and all that other garbage. And I know you've said on multiple occasions that Hogan vs. Warrior is one of the greatest matches of all time.

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.

How is two people not being able to work together the same as a SQUASH match?

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

So would I, but Triple H sucks too.

Basically, I'm saying the Undertaker sucks in the ring, and I'm showing 15+ years of proof.

No sly, you're giving your opinion. Your opinion is not proof.

I personally loved Taker/Big Show v Kane/X-pac in 99, that's my opinion.

Secondly, you're saying that ALL of those matches sucked bcoz of Taker, which is just stupid. You're saying that Taker v Mark Henry at WM was bad bcoz of Taker? Taker v Giant Gonzalez sucked bcoz of Taker?

I can't talk about any WM matches b4 12 having not seen them, but lets take Taker v Sid for example.

In that match Sid repeatedly put Taker in a bear hug, and then did 4 elbow smashes off the second rope incredibly slowly. That's Taker's fault? Both of them decide how to conduct the match, it's the finish that they have no control over.

Taker v Kane at 14? None of their initial matches were that good, and you could blame that on Kane. He was no rookie, but he was trying to wrestle as Taker and obviously didn't do his homework properly, but if i recall correctly, Taker managed to jump onto Kane's shoulders for a victory roll and took an electric chair drop! That's the sort of combination you see cruiserweights and mid heavyweights attempting, not heavyweights, and as i recall, Taker also dived over the top rope through the announce table. Those were damn good spots imo

Taker v Batista was overrated? That's probably one of the best Batista matches i've ever seen. Only Edge and now Cena have gotten a decent match out of him imo

My point is, it takes 2 to tango.

How many 300pound guys dive over the top rope these days? The guy has become incredibly injury prone and STILL does the dangerous spots. He also tends to ADD more moves to his repetoire frequently as well, which is more than can be said for HBK, and he's more than willing to put guys over. There is only one night of the year where he won't lose and who rally know's if that's down to him or creative suddenly realised he'd never lost and decided to roll with it.

You can say that i have an uber biased opinion because i'm a Taker mark. I watch WWE because of the Undertaker and the Undertaker alone, and some of the great memories and matches he's been a part of with some of the best the business has had to offer.

Has he had a bunch of shit matches? Yes he has. Everyone has. HBK has had bad matches, HHH has had bad matches. both Austin and Foley had a 5 move repetoire and they also had bad matches. But regardless of that, you can't put say Taker (or any of those guys i just said) is shit, because his matches suck purely due to him because that's simply not fair to them or anybody who steps inside the ring.

Just out of interest, who do you like on the WWE roster, past or present?

 

[STENA]

I would have to agree with sly on this one taker does indeed suk , he takes ten years to get to ring ,his move set is basic,his slow overated and boring hey at least HHH puts people over i havent seen taker put someone over for ages and only reason he did in TLC so he cud take break then win edge in HIAC and put im out and look bigger man old shit shud just retire and put someone over before he does

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

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.

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

Did you actually watch this match live or did you watch a video of it after hearing about it?

You weren't shocked that Foley got up and continued to wrestle after falling 15 foot to the floor through the announce table? You weren't shocked after Foley got up AGAIN after falling 10 foot and getting smashed in the face with a chair. You weren't mesmerised by the fact that we saw his delirious face with something pierced through his lip, and then continued to wrestle? The fact that despite all of that damage, he even made a comeback and came close to beating Taker after a piledriver on the chair and then the mandible claw? With all that damage after the first 5 minutes of the match, did you really expect them to be able to use ring chemistry and sell without people knowing that Foley was legitimately hurt?

You must be one of those "they know how to fall" kinda guys right?

 

[Shocky]

I would have to agree with sly on this one taker does indeed suk , he takes ten years to get to ring ,his move set is basic,his slow overated and boring hey at least HHH puts people over i havent seen taker put someone over for ages and only reason he did in TLC so he cud take break then win edge in HIAC and put im out and look bigger man old shit shud just retire and put someone over before he does

maybe one of the worst post ever on any forum. So Undertaker has wrestled only one match his entire career I presume. You know, it does take ten years to get to the ring, so he's wrestled one match, and I guess he's almost on his way for his second match.

Undertaker never put anyone over, pal, try watching a wrestling match and some wrestlign before you make such stupid ass comments. Instead of making such a baseless hit and run post, how about trying to prove a point. Until you provide any evidence, or at least attempt to, you're statement has no merit.

 

[Moon Knight]

maybe one of the worst post ever on any forum. So Undertaker has wrestled only one match his entire career I presume. You know, it does take ten years to get to the ring, so he's wrestled one match, and I guess he's almost on his way for his second match.

Undertaker never put anyone over, pal, try watching a wrestling match and some wrestlign before you make such stupid ass comments. Instead of making such a baseless hit and run post, how about trying to prove a point. Until you provide any evidence, or at least attempt to, you're statement has no merit.

Well said, what about Khali, or have people forgotten the disrespectful way Taker was pinned by him? I could also mention other people like Brock Lesnar and Batista who both beat him in a hell in a cell match, Lesnar pinning him clean inside of it. Saying Taker doesn't put people over is just plain false.

 

[klunderbunker]

Might want to throw in Orton at SS and Edge at ONS.

 

[Moon Knight]

Might want to throw in Orton at SS and Edge at ONS.

He also lost to Shawn Michaels, Mr. Kennedy twice, Kurt Angle, JBL, HHH. The list goes of names he has helped put over during his long career.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

The only person i've seen Taker bury was Muhammed Hassan who had to be fired after the London bombings (rather than just wait a while and give him a new gimmick, stranger still was that Davairi was allowed to stay)