It's time to quit kidding ourselves.

[Starchild]

Are you kidding me?
The Undertaker sucks? I think not, in fact I know.
I don't care if there is talk about he and Michaels all the time...there's a reason. These are guys that don't need the title to get over as is evidenced by their very low number of world championship reigns with respect to their age and time in the company as compared to guys like HHH, Cena, Edge, Batista, Orton.
These are the two guys in the company I'd go to if I want to have a good match at a ppv, because they can both pull almost anyone to a good if not great match.

Yes, like anyone else Taker has his low points but that was just how he was booked. Especially at the beginning of his career, the landscape and booking was totally different than now and they just threw completely idiotic gimmicks out there in hopes that they'd work.

And his gimmick has to be one of the all-time greats in general, but especially in terms of a really "out there" gimmick. The only one that even rivals it would be Kane or Sting.

Undertaker has had thousands of matches with hundreds of guys...not every single match is gonna be a classic. But just look at the matches you can just pick out of the air as classic...the HIACs, the Buried Alive matches, the match against Angle from NWO '06, Ladder match against Jeff Hardy, WM against Bret, or Batista, almost any match in the Edge feud. There are plenty of matches left out there and then some matches we don't remember as well that were surely great. The man is an absolute legend and has given an upsure amount to the business and fans, and yea after 18 years he is STILL one of the best wrestlers that WWE and the business in general have to offer.

 

[Slyfox696]

Same could be said for Hulk Hogan.

Wouldn't make it true.

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.

Great Khali and Viscera.

Done.

For you to even compare the likes of 'Taker's opponents to guys like Lashley, RVD and Sabu is such a fucking joke.

I agree. Bryan Clark, Mick Foley, Jimmy Snuka and Jake Roberts were all far better workers than Lashley, RVD, and Sabua...even in their advanced ages and sometimes altered states.

As far as Khali is concerned... 'Taker was able to carry him to good matches as well.

...

There is more to professional wrestling than getting on a mat and chain wrestling for 20 minutes.

LOL

Look who you're trying to tell that to. But what was entertaining about all those piss bucket matches Undertaker has had? What was entertaining about the Summerslam 1994 main-event?

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

Not a chance.

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.

That's pretty much what I was going to say.

Rep...maybe.

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

This actually came up because I'm watching the Summerslam Anthology, and every match of his thus far has been boring as can be, both to me AND the live crowd.

 

[Freedom 35]

meh Ive never thought of Undertaker as hot shit so this type of shit doesnt phase me

 

[Murfish]

I don't see why people keep bringing up backflips. It really doesn't help their argument when noone has tried to use that against Undertaker. I was just annoyed by the undeserved amount of love he got in the WZ tourny.

 

[PWAQfan]

i love watching undertaker period, he never does anything different but i am not fussed.
he occasionally mixes up his moveset a little and the mystique of it all makes him fun to watch.

i'll put someone down who i think has been WAY overrated, MVP everyone is sucking on MVP's d*ck and i personally don't think he's got jack going for him

 

[Uncle Sam]

If the Undertaker never does anything different, no one ever does anything different.

 

[midgensa]

I definitely agree that Undertaker's career as a whole is overrated. But I do like the guy.
I like the mystique of his character that a lot of people here seem to be bashing. I do like that he was successful with multiple gimmicks. And I personally think he has put on a decent show quite a few times.
While some of the WM and SS matches listed were not fabulous ... he definitely has put on some spectacular matches with HBK and Mankind and has definitely put on a handful of other exciting matches with Rock, Austin, Hart, Batista, Hardy, Orton, Brock and even Hogan.
I don't think he is top 10 in wrestling history like many people seem to, but to say he sucks is definitely going overboard.
He clearly has been willing to put Edge over in this feud and this feud has been absolutely grade A great. So to see him have such a great feud late in his career is kind of nice. I also think he has been better in the ring recently than he has in the past ... seems he likes to work when in there with other hard workers like Edge (and even Batista, who might suck in the ring, but definitely works at it).
I have few problems with Taker. I like his long drawn out entrance, I like his goofy lighting people on fire shit, I like his tombstone piledriver finisher, I like that he has reinvented himself a couple of times, I like that even though he is banged up beyond belief he took that spot in the TLC match and I in general like watching any segment that he is a part of.
And I think that the majority of fans are with me.

 

[DeadMan5000]

Some of you guys are so stupid. Undertaker Overated? Must be coming from a person that likes John Cena. Undertaker is a LEGEND, and is one of the best. The Mystique of his charcter makes him great. From the dark days of the Ministry, to even before that and after that, Undertaker has been amazing. How can you say he is overated? He has had Hundreds of excellent classic matches with so many guys. Just to name a few, Austin, The Rock, Kurt Angle, HHH, Bret Hart, and even Kane.

His gimmick is one of a kind. Their will never be another Undertaker.

 

[Uncle Sam]

His gimmick is stupid and he's only had dozens of good matches, mostly in the last three years.

 

[Shocky]

The gimmick is great, it's not your cup of tea, but it's over with the majority of the crowd, and big time over at that.

 

[DeadMan5000]

Wow youre an idiot

 

[DeadMan5000]

The gimmick is great, it's not your cup of tea, but it's over with the majority of the crowd, and big time over at that.

I agree

 

[ronthony717]

Hmm let's see here... Other then shawn michaels who from the far back can still walk through an entrance and make the crowd go insane and at time get goose bumps.. Who from that era other then michaels can go into the ring with the young guys and fly, lift, sell, and put over every single time... His matches has put asses in the seat and buy rates were insane when hyped around him... His matches with foley orton kane (not all but some lol) edge shawn michaels bret hart ect have been exciting and gets people at the edge of their seats.. No not everyone is gonna like you look at cena... But he's had the biggest fan base since he debuted in 91... I really enjoyed him facing fake undertaker.. That was a fun match btw lol

 

[jmt225]

Great Khali and Viscera.

So, you consider Cena's match with Visecra, which only lasted like 3 or 4 minutes long, a good match? The only thing worth remembering in that was Cena's FU. That's all the match was. To show Cena's strength. How can you consider that Cena carrying Viscera to a good match?

And I agree, Cena matches with Khali were really good. However, like I already mentioned, so were 'Taker's matches against him. You can't deny that The Undertaker was able to carry Khali to good matches as well.

I'm a huge Cena fan and if you want to say Cena is all around a better wrestler then 'Taker, I won't argue that because I think Cena's one of the greatest in the World (though I do think it's debatable who is better, but that's not the argument here). However, there is nothing you can say that will justify your thoughts on why 'Taker "sucks".

I agree. Bryan Clark, Mick Foley, Jimmy Snuka and Jake Roberts were all far better workers than Lashley, RVD, and Sabua...even in their advanced ages and sometimes altered states.

Wow. Ignoring the ridiculousness of this statement, let's just look at the matches you decided to bring up outside of Foley's (I haven't seen a 'Taker/Foley match that was on a big card that "sucked").

Brain Clark, who I like, had a gimmick that made it impossible to have a good match with 'Taker. Two Taker's working together isn't going to go well, period. Could you imagine if Hogan ever face Mr. America?

'Taker's match against Snuka, like I already mentioned, was a SQUASH match.

And 'Taker's match against Jake was again, like I already mentioned, another SQUASH match.

So, how can you blame 'Taker for not having excited matches when these are the circumstances he is working with? You can call it "excuses" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that these "excuses" are 100% valid.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Rep...maybe.

This is how excited I am through the medium of smiley:

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Sly sly sly...I'll be back on later tonight to take you on if you wish. This is a wretchedly horrible thread that Undertaker should chokeslam straight to hell.

Just remember that if this gets put in the archives...the archives will undoubtedly catch on fire.

 

[Slyfox696]

So, you consider Cena's match with Visecra, which only lasted like 3 or 4 minutes long, a good match? The only thing worth remembering in that was Cena's FU. That's all the match was. To show Cena's strength. How can you consider that Cena carrying Viscera to a good match?

No, I consider it a decent match. Which was the condition you placed upon it.

And I agree, Cena matches with Khali were really good. However, like I already mentioned, so were 'Taker's matches against him. You can't deny that The Undertaker was able to carry Khali to good matches as well.

Sure I can deny it. When did it happen? I mean, they had such piss bucket chemistry, they were kicked off PPV, and moved to free TV.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their matches.

However, there is nothing you can say that will justify your thoughts on why 'Taker "sucks".

Numerous terrible matches don't justify it?

I mean, take the four BIG PPVs that the WWF/E puts on. How many horrible matches can he have at those things?

Wow. Ignoring the ridiculousness of this statement, let's just look at the matches you decided to bring up outside of Foley's (I haven't seen a 'Taker/Foley match that was on a big card that "sucked").

Are you trying to say that Lashley, RVD and Sabu were better workers than Snuka, Roberts, and Foley?

And you're calling MY statement ridiculous?

By the way, both the Boiler Room Brawl and the HIAC match blew monkey balls. Both Taker vs. Mankind.

Brain Clark, who I like, had a gimmick that made it impossible to have a good match with 'Taker.

You're making excuses again. Just admit it, it was a terrible match.

'Taker's match against Snuka, like I already mentioned, was a SQUASH match.

And not entertaining at all.

And 'Taker's match against Jake was again, like I already mentioned, another SQUASH match.

And still not entertaining.

So, how can you blame 'Taker for not having excited matches when these are the circumstances he is working with?

How can you keep making excuses for every match that Undertaker has had that sucked and feel as if I should take your position seriously?

 

[klunderbunker]

Are you trying to say that Lashley, RVD and Sabu were better workers than Snuka, Roberts, and Foley?

By the way, both the Boiler Room Brawl and the HIAC match blew monkey balls. Both Taker vs. Mankind.

Snuka and Roberts were at the ends of their main runs in WWE when they fought taker and well beyond their primes. They were jobbers when he beat them. How great a match do you expect in that case? They were made to make Taker look dominant.

The Bolier Room match wasn't about the quality of the match, it was about the angle that it furthered. Please Sly, enlighten us as to how the HIAC was bad. Exciting match that set the standard for matches that end feuds in the company, made Foley a permanent main event worker, and has one of the most famous scenes in the history of the company. 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.

 

[jmt225]

Sure I can deny it. When did it happen? I mean, they had such piss bucket chemistry, they were kicked off PPV, and moved to free TV.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their matches.

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.

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.

Numerous terrible matches don't justify it?

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

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.

I mean, take the four BIG PPVs that the WWF/E puts on. How many horrible matches can he have at those things?

You're unwillingness to just admit that he had shit opponent after shit opponent is so petty and dumb. Also, just the fact that you choose to ignore all his other great matches outside those "BIG PPVs" 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.

Are you trying to say that Lashley, RVD and Sabu were better workers than Snuka, Roberts, and Foley?

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.

And you're calling MY statement ridiculous?

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. All three of these wrestlers can take bumps, give bumps, add excitement with big moves, ALL WERE OVER WITH THE AUDIENCE, ect. For you to think these three are harder to carry then a fake Undertaker or 50-year-old Snuka is fucking unbelievable. Fact is that RVD doesn't need to be carried; Sabu, while he might botch and lack psychology at time, still adds excitement to every match; and Lashley was becoming a better wrestler with each passing day.

By the way, both the Boiler Room Brawl and the HIAC match blew monkey balls. Both Taker vs. Mankind.

Yeah, but millions and millions of people think different.

You're making excuses again. Just admit it, it was a terrible match.

You forgot to add the word "valid" before excuse. Do you even know what that word means, by the way?

And not entertaining at all.

And still not entertaining.

Because it's a squash. Have many squashes have you seen that you would consider entertaining?

How can you keep making excuses for every match that Undertaker has had that sucked and feel as if I should take your position seriously?

Every match? Umm... no. Just the matches that have valid excuses as to why they weren't good. There were a few of matches on your precious list that you said "sucked" and I said otherwise. Then you want to say the really good matches are "passable" or "solid". Do you think I'm going to take you seriously with a mindset like that? Besides, to be completely honest, your opinions on matches really shouldn't count for anything. I mean, you say 'Taker vs. Mankind HITC blew money balls, but I vividly remember you calling Hogan vs. Giant at Hog Wild a good match. That pretty much takes all credibility away from your opinions when it comes to matches. While I'm not a big fan of 'Taker vs. Foley in HITC either, I'd much rather watch that then Hogan vs. Giant at Hog Wild. And I'd be willing to be bet everything I own that 95% of wrestling fans feel the exact same way.

 

[BooCocky]

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.

 

[AngryGrandpa]

I wouldn't say taker... SUCKS... He still draws a fan base, and for his age he even takes a few bumps.... I don't like him... But I don't think he SUCKS..I don't even think John Cena sucks.. It takes alot of dedication to do what these guys do.

 

[undertakerrulesmania20]

Undertaker Is Far From Sucking Is That Why He Has 3 Top Match Of The Year Awards. He Can Still Go For His Age Alot Better Then Some Of The Younger Talent. Taker Hbk For Wm25 Match Of The Decade

 

[simpsons_fanatic742]

This is probably one of the stupidest things I've heard on these boards. The Undertaker sucks? What the hell are you smoking? He's put on great matches, has lasted a hell of a long time with the same gimmick and is still over with the crowd. He's not the greatest wrestler in the ring, but to say his in-ring work sucks is ignorant. Also to the people who say that the Undertaker buries wrestlers more than anyone, leave the forums and don't watch wrestling anymore because you clearly don't watch the same wrestling as all of us here do. He's put over countless wrestlers throughtout his whole career. Idiotic statement to make.

Also, comparing him to Cena is ridiculous. You make a list of matches the Undertaker has sucked in, but I'll bet you that you can make a list bigger for Cena and the Undertaker has been around WAY longer. So don't try to compare Cena to Undertaker.

Ya, the Undertaker isn't the best in the ring, but I'll be damned if his in-ring skills suck and he isn't one of the best and most memorable wrestlers ever.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Sly, I would really like to hear what your opinion of "good in ring skills" are.

 

[Murfish]

Sly, I would really like to hear what your opinion of "good in ring skills" are.

I think in one Foth demolishing post he brought up 6 points that make up a good wrestler. 5 of them pertained to in ring skill and one pertained to out of the ring skill.