It's time to quit kidding ourselves.

[Slyfox696]

Because they are valid excuses and no one has gotten good matches out of most of those giant turds, or the ones that had good matches at one point in there career were so far out of their primes when they faced the Undertaker that's is unfair to blame the Undertaker for their mishaps?

You could say the same thing about a lot of workers. Let's just take Cena, for example.

He's had to work with Lashley, Khali, RVD, and Sabu in the last two years, and got entertaining matches out of all of them. Where are those guys these days, even 2 years later?

A good worker makes talent around him better. A good worker will play to his opponents strengths and hide his weaknesses. It'd be one thing if those matches were passable, but those matches are matches you just can't watch more than once without wanting to inject cyanide into your veins.

Undertaker is as about as overrated as any wrestler that has ever stepped into the ring and enjoyed major success throughout the majority of his career

If Taker sucks so much then why is he loved by so many people?

Great character. Cool and fancy storylines and introductions.


Piss bucket ring worker.

 

[Papa Shango]

Great character. Cool and fancy storylines and introductions.


Piss bucket ring worker.

Same could be said for Hulk Hogan.

 

[jmt225]

You could say the same thing about a lot of workers. Let's just take Cena, for example.

He's had to work with Lashley, Khali, RVD, and Sabu in the last two years, and got entertaining matches out of all of them. Where are those guys these days, even 2 years later?

A good worker makes talent around him better. A good worker will play to his opponents strengths and hide his weaknesses. It'd be one thing if those matches were passable, but those matches are matches you just can't watch more than once without wanting to inject cyanide into your veins.

Oh, give me a break. I would LOVE to see Cena get in the ring with Giant Gonzalez or a fucking 50-year-old King Kong Bundy and still come out with a decent match. For you to even compare the likes of 'Taker's opponents to guys like Lashley, RVD and Sabu is such a fucking joke. As far as Khali is concerned... 'Taker was able to carry him to good matches as well. 'Taker also had a good match with RVD at the show Jericho won the Undisputed Championship, and I'm 100% positive 'Taker would’ve had good matches against Sabu and Lashley were they ever to work together.

The fact of the matter is that WWE doesn't hire worthless pieces of shit today, like they did back then. You put Cena in the ring with a bunch of overweight dinosaurs and he’ll get just as bad of result as ‘Taker got, if not worse.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

It's hard to judge Taker. If you look at him today and with his age, you can't help but think what he could have been like in the early/mid 90's. For most of the 90's he was total shit. But I guess that's what zombies wrestle like.

 

[Moon Knight]

Same could be said for Hulk Hogan.

But Undertaker has a better more diverse arsenal. It could also be said undertakers gimmick was changed over a period of time while Hogan ran off of 2 basic gimmicks his entire career.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

You know what you've done don't you DIAR? Now he'll say that Hogan is better because he never needed to change much over all those years, he'll just point out how stale Taker gets. Damn you, damn you to Hell.

 

[Moon Knight]

You know what you've done don't you DIAR? Now he'll say that Hogan is better because he never needed to change much over all those years, he'll just point out how stale Taker gets. Damn you, damn you to Hell.

No worries Jake, I got some replies as to why not altering your gimmick is a bad thing and why Taker altering his gimmick helped his career while not doing it hurt Hogans.

 

[klunderbunker]

Taker does not suck. Is the the best in ring worker? Hardly. But like everyone has said, look back at his matches and his opponents. With the guys he was working with, the way he was booked, and the style of his character, it was by far better than anyone could get. If you're watching a Taker match and expecting a Malenko/Benoit display of athleticism, you're wasting your time. There is more to professional wrestling than getting on a mat and chain wrestling for 20 minutes. Pro wrestling is about entertainment. Taker is the best example ever of a gimmick that is so over the top that people get behind it. He has been around longer than anyone else consistently, and the people respect him for that. If you define that as sucking, then good luck finding a wrestler that meets your standards, because they don't exist.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Most of Takers opponents have sucked. But they suited him.

But would Taker be half as popular if it wasn't for that entrance?

 

[klunderbunker]

When he does bring up that point, you might want to point out WCW in late 1995/pre 1996, especially the Doomsday Cage match. Hogan and Savage against pretty much every big heel on the roster save for the Giant, and they put on one of the worst matches of all time, and the fans let them have it that night. Hogan was getting booed out of the building because people were sick of the sight of him, so he was changed to Hollywood.

 

[klunderbunker]

Most of Takers opponents have sucked. But they suited him.

But would Taker be half as popular if it wasn't for that entrance?

Very likely no. Same as Hogan, Cena, Rock or Austin with their entrances. Its the way the fans react to him that's kept him on top for so long.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Very likely no. Same as Hogan, Cena, Rock or Austin with their entrances. Its the way the fans react to him that's kept him on top for so long.

Hogan, Austin & The Rock always kept people throughout the match as well. A lot of times once Taker starts wrestling a lot of people are known to switch off.

I can't remember the WCW match you bought up. But Taker vs. Kane with Austin as ref at Judgment Dat 1998 got boos and this is boring chants. Intresting when it was duuring the Attitude Era, and Austin was a God to a lot of fans.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Apparently the Undertaker is this month's "you know what, he really does suck" target.

A few months ago, everyone was busting a nut over MVP, then came the "MVP: Not Very Good" thread. Kennedy was the next best thing...people start paying more attention to him, now suddenly "I don't know why they don't just release the guy, he's terrible". Right now everyone is excited about Kendrick getting a push. What's the projection? One month? Two months? Hell chances are, people will go from "I'm glad he's in the title match at Unforgiven" to "why did they put him in there if he sucks so bad?" the day after.

Is it cool to like Cena again, or is he still just a 5-move drone? Is Hardy still overrated or is he the best thing going on Smackdown? Is Khali a sure-fire person to release, or is he putting on the best caliber matches? Christ I've even heard people switch their minds about TREVOR MURDOCH when he got fired.

If you genuinely dislike a gimmick or a wrestler, fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But I swear, this "person to attack of the month" shit has got to stop. Once this thread goes 3 pages back and nobody wants to look for it, everyone will change their minds again and move on to....well, I guess the next target will be Edge since he's winning fans over, and you know how the trend goes: if you start winning more fans over, then chances are you'll be badmouthed and people will randomly discover that "you never really were that talented to begin with".

Is there a point to defending the Undertaker, then? No, because it must not be the cool thing to do this week to still enjoy his performance. But I'll gladly say it: I think Undertaker is one of the best wrestlers to ever hit professional wrestling, and although he might not do backflips off the top of the building, he might not be a part of the "Angle/Benoit/etc can do no wrong" alliance, and he might have been screwed over the years in having to put up with bad feuds with monster-characters that went as quickly as they came in, he's on top for a reason, and if it were just for nostalgia purposes, it would've died out a long, long time ago.

 

[klunderbunker]

That's very true about Taker losing people during his matches, but somehow Taker matches are always viewed in retrospect as classics. He's an odd character in that his matches in the ring when first viewed aren't the greatest some times, but in the end he has more classics under his belt than any other big man.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

If somebody is rated so highly and never gets any criticism then it stands to reason they must be overrated. Nobody can live up to that sort of hype. Certainly not somebody like The Undertaker who spent a heavy portion of his career having awful matches.

But the general consensus with slyfox is that if somebody is well liked or hated he has to tell people they're wrong.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

that would be the argument i would side with, if anything. NO ONE ever says the Undertaker has holes in his game. thats impossible. so if everyone rates him to be so fantastic, he must be overrated. I dunno.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'd say Taker follows the formula that Heyman laid on for ECW: Accentuate the positives, hide the negatives. Taker can get a crowd into his character and promos so much that his in ring skills are sometimes overlooked. That's not to say they're bad, but moreso his weakest point. He can still put on great matches with just about anyone. His matches have been bad because a lot of his opponents are bad. Look at what he does with Edge, Michaels, HHH, Orton etc. There's no way to argue that they carried him to good matches. Its the mystique of Taker that's made him the legend he is today.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I think Undertakers in ring work is really great at the moment. But currently his character is stale, and out of the 18 years he's been in WWE I'd give his good years as 1996, 1997, 2006, 2007 & 2008.

 

[klunderbunker]

His first 5 years or so were very bad, but I think that was more who he was booked against and that WWF flat out had no idea what to do with him.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

But if he's as great as everyone say he is then some of those matches would have been good. The only thing that stands out to me is the Yokozuna feud. And only watching them again recently have I discovered that they weren't the abominations I thought they once were.

It wasn't until Mankind & Goldust came and made him more human that he started to improve. But only that lasted two years. In 1998 he was awful. Absolute fat ass. Then until 2006 he had the occasional quality match, but not frequent like he does today.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I enjoyed his first few years only becuase of Bobby Heenans commentary. there is nothing more wildly entertaining than early Taker + Heenan commentary

 

[klunderbunker]

That's true about his early years. He certainly was green back then, no question about it. His style was almost like Goldberg in a sense. Get hit a few times, one move, match over. Why bother really trying to improve? Now he has a much more expanded moveset and I agree, his matches are better.

 

[Shocky]

You could say the same thing about a lot of workers. Let's just take Cena, for example.

He's had to work with Lashley, Khali, RVD, and Sabu in the last two years, and got entertaining matches out of all of them. Where are those guys these days, even 2 years later?

A good worker makes talent around him better. A good worker will play to his opponents strengths and hide his weaknesses. It'd be one thing if those matches were passable, but those matches are matches you just can't watch more than once without wanting to inject cyanide into your veins.
Great character. Cool and fancy storylines and introductions.


Piss bucket ring worker.

You can't be seriously comparing Lashley, RVD, and Sabu with the likes of King Kong Bundy, Giant Gonzalez, Kamala or any other of the giant monster slugs that the WWF force fed to the Undertaker. All of those guys mentioned were at least athletic enough to have someone lead them to a decent match. No one, and I say no one, could get a good match out of any of those fat bastards that were in the ring with the Undertaker.

The Undertaker did more for Khali's career in one match then Khali has done since.

 

[Shocky]

But if he's as great as everyone say he is then some of those matches would have been good. The only thing that stands out to me is the Yokozuna feud. And only watching them again recently have I discovered that they weren't the abominations I thought they once were.

It wasn't until Mankind & Goldust came and made him more human that he started to improve. But only that lasted two years. In 1998 he was awful. Absolute fat ass. Then until 2006 he had the occasional quality match, but not frequent like he does today.

You answered your own question Jake. The first five years of the Undertaker were meant not to create a new Hogan, but a new Andre. That's why everyone was scared the shit out of him, and every monster possible was force fed to him.The Undertaker became a special attraction, he was never meant to be a main eventer. He was supposed to be the new Andre, and he became that. A guy bigger then the belt, and reliable story line to get through every pay per view based on his name.

 

[klunderbunker]

I never thought about the Andre thing and its a great point. Andre really never had a storyline aside from a big guy picking a fight with him over who the real giant was and then his haircut. He got over because of his mystique. Excellent point.