Jim Ross: Undertaker Has Surpassed Andre the Giant

[JoeyJoeJoe]

I think it's tough to say who's on top in this regard, which means that it's pretty close. I can understand both arguments.

Pretty much a testament to both men.

Pros for Andre: In his prime, there was no other "big man" who came close to being in his class. He was a living legend, a massive draw who never even needed a title, and instantly recognizable by even casual viewers. His role in The Princess Bride also put him into the larger public eye (more than he had been already), and cemented him as an iconic figure. I would say that he maintains that recognizability to this day.

Cons for Andre: He certainly wasn't a great showman in the ring. He was affable, and his size was something to see in and of itself, but his actual wrestling abilities were subpar. He accentuated his strengths (literally and figuratively) rather than relied on skill.

Pros for Undertaker: Probably one of the best workers of all time, and easily the best "big man" worker ever. He's definitely a legend and one of the greats for those who know wrestling. He also created a durable image that survived through the years and evolved as it needed too.

Cons for Undertaker: He came in a time when big men were becoming a little more common. Kevin Nash, Big Show, Scott Hall, Sid Vicious...he was the best of them, but his actual size wasn't something unique. He was a great ring performers, but there were other great performers as well (maybe just not his size). The "Streak" is a recent phenomenon too. I wonder how many people would know Undertaker who hadn't really been exposed to the WWE before.

 

[The Phantom Rebel]

to be honest with you i never thought andre the giant was that good . his size was the only thing that made him a mega draw .his in ring ability was just a little better then great khalis i wound even put him in a top 10 of the best big men . just take a look at the way bam bam moved in the ring what kane and taker do at there size hell even big show .

 

[Yosihait]

Yeah, I think JR is right. Only that Taker was in more modern times, where TV wrestling and PPVs are more frequent.

Hmmm... That moment was Hulk Hogan in his prime...Hulkamania in its' prime. Andre was just the chosen one to have been lucky to have his named wrapped into Hogan's legacy.

With that being said, in Cowboys Stadium during WrestleMania 31, when the WWE Network gets launched by Cena turning heel and breaking The Undertaker's legitimate 24 year WM streak, it will surpass the Hogan/Andre WMIII moment.

I do agree with both you and JR though- The Undertaker is #1 and Andre is #2.

Hell no, Andre wasn't "Lucky". Vince choose him because he knew he's the one big, major star who Hogan never beated. He knew that this match would've been the best draw.

 

[Owen 3:16 says I just stole your Slammy!!]

I have utmost respect for 'Taker and everything he has done in the wrestling business. But, in my opinion, Andre The Giant, is the greatest big man. Andre brought wrestling to a national exposure in the 70's by appearing in movies and on the Johnny Carson show. Every where Andre went, he drew crowds. Even at the end of his career, he was still drawing crowds, helped draw 93,000 for WM3. I think if Andre lived in this era, he would of probably be more popular today then he was in the 70's and 80's. We're now in the social media era, Andre could of thrived in this era.

I respect Jim Ross's opinion though.

 

[Yosihait]

helped draw 93,000 for WM3. I think if Andre lived in this era, he would of probably be more popular today then he was in the 70's and 80's. We're now in the social media era, Andre could of thrived in this era.

You mean 78,000

If Andre lived in this era, he, like Big Show, would've had a surgery to stop his disease...

 

[Rellim]

I completely agree with JR. Undertaker has gotten to the point where his name will be remember and revered far more than Andre The Giant. However, That's nothing to take away from Andre, who is still one of the greatest big men ever.

 

[#IndyRules]

This may be a bold statement but i think Undertaker is THE greatest superstar of all-time. Note that i never used wrestler instead of superstar because there are obviously better wrestlers but i think though the Undertaker has not won as many titles as Cena or even The Rock, i think Taker is the best.

This means he is better than Andre, don't get me wrong Andre was brilliant for his time but once he got stale, he was stale and that's a problem Undertaker never really faced. Once he knew he was getting to a stage where he needed a change he done it, early 90's Taker to MoD Taker to ABA to The Deadman he kept that Mystique and has provided many wonderful moments.

JR's statement i think is quite a stupid one because Undertaker surpassed Andre many years ago maybe even in the late 90's so i think Taker has definently surpassed Andre.

 

[pyrusane]

You mean 78,000

Ah, you are one of the blind devotees of Dave Meltzer that believes anything he spews? His whole 78,000 attendance conspiracy theory has been disproven so many times and so many ways over the years, I can't believe someone is still spouting off with that stuff.

Andre and Hogan drew 93,000 to that show, whether you and Meltzer want to believe it or not, and there is no other single match out there that could ever claim that.

Or, if you were being facetious, then well-played sir...

 

[shalliin]

Ah, you are one of the blind devotees of Dave Meltzer that believes anything he spews? His whole 78,000 attendance conspiracy theory has been disproven so many times and so many ways over the years, I can't believe someone is still spouting off with that stuff.

Andre and Hogan drew 93,000 to that show, whether you and Meltzer want to believe it or not, and there is no other single match out there that could ever claim that.

Or, if you were being facetious, then well-played sir...

Actually some events in Japan have been reported as having drawn upwards of 110-120 thousand people.