Jim Ross: Undertaker Has Surpassed Andre the Giant

Andre the Giant has been dead for what? 15 - 20 years or so? And he still is a bigger name than the Undertaker. 90% of people in the world have no idea who the hell the Undertaker is. In Andre's prime, he was one of the most famous entertainers in the world. Gorilla Monsoon said that their was only one more famous than Andre throughout the world (Muhammed Ali).

The Undertaker is the product of WWE's hype machine. The WWE hype machine is a product of Andre the Giant.

PUH LEASE!!!!
 
I love the Undertaker. I respect Andre the Giant. Almost every part of me wants to say JR is right. But then I think about one thing - this:

hulk-hogan-andre-the-giant.jpg


If there's a moment in history that defines professional wrestling, that's it. Maybe you can argue for Austin being covered in blood at Mania 13, but that's the only possible competitor to this unbelievable moment, and I think that moment is more iconic of an era than of wrestling itself. As Andre the Giant stares down Hulk Hogan, all of professional wrestling is encapsulated in a singular moment in time that has become immortal. Good versus evil. You versus me. The irresistible force meeting the immovable object. In over 20 years since, no one has managed to replicate this magnitude of a moment in time. Not Austin, not Rock, and not Undertaker. Undertaker has had the iconic moments - he's stared down Kane, he's thrown Foley off a cage, he's executed Shawn Michaels. But he's never, in one singular moment, defined wrestling

That's fair, but I think a lot of us tend to think that Cena vs. The Undertaker is going to happen at Mania when the WWE feels it's time to wind that thing down. The moment that a 22,23 - 0 Undertaker stares down John Cena is going to define a generation. I know this is a big what if, but Cena beating the Undertaker at Mania is going to be a pretty damn large event.

Something people forget about Undertaker is that he's only hit this legendary status for a few years now. Think back to the early 90s. After he finished his program with Undertaker in 1991, Taker did NOTHING until 1996. He feuded with guys like Gonzalez, Kamala, the Million Dollar Team and Mabel.
.

This is fair, but there is also something that people tend to forget when discussing the early Undertaker, his age. He skyrocketed to the top of the the WWF in his rookie year, and won the WWF championship at the age of 26. He was the youngest WWF champion until the Rock took that status from him 7 years later. It was unheard of that the WWF pushed a guy that young to that type of status. Those years from 1991 - 1996 were years he really needed to grow as a wrestler. He found himself working with monsters.

At some point, the WWF realized that he was going to be the next special attraction. Hell, during his title match with Hogan the crowd began to turn on Hogan and cheer the deadman. The Undertaker was essentially the perfect foil to the Hogan character. Instead of becoming another run of the mill Hogan villain, someone decided to make him the next Andre.

Now onto the Undertaker and his title reigns. He may never have had that impressive run as a world champion, but the Undertaker, like Andre, was/is simply too big for the world title. Promoters never put the title on a guy like Andre, because no one would believe that someone could beat Andre for that title. Essentially Andre's own stature hurt him in that capacity. Fast forward a few decades, and the business has come around to big guys being beaten, but not losing stature (see Big Show).

The Undertaker may never have impressed as a world champion, but simply look who he has beaten when he became WWE Champion. He Beat Hulk Hogan twice, and Steve Austin once. Look into that further though. Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin, the two biggest WWF draws, combined for a total of 12 WWF championship reigns. The Undertaker is directly involved in ending three of those reigns. Go a little further, and the Undertaker is involved with ending three more of those reigns (The controversy surrounding This Tuesday in Texas caused Hogan to be stripped, The Undertaker was the one who busted Austin open at KotR '98, and the Undertaker helped pinned Austin at Breakdown). Out of 12 title reigns between the two biggest draws in WWF history, the Undertaker was apart of 6 of those reigns ending.

Now you get into what the Undertaker has done at Wrestlemania. Streak aside, (which is really something that shouldn't be brushed aside), the man has won Three Wold Championships at the biggest show of them all. That's elite company. He trails John Cena (4), and is tied with Hulk Hogan (3), and Steve Austin (3). Wrestlemania has been the Undertaker's show for the last 10 years. Hogan carried the show during it's first decade, Austin carried it during it's second, and the Undertaker was the man during Wrestlemania's third decade (insert Cena and HBK fan crying here).

I honestly think it's way too early to figure. If the Undertaker hasn't surpassed Andre, then he is getting very close. I know a lot of older wrestling fans (people in their 50's and 60's), that go on about how great Andre was, but also acknowledge that the Undertaker is something pretty damn special. You are starting to see (with HoF speeches) how important the Undertaker really has been to the business. It's honestly a question that really can't be answered for another decade or two.
 
It's just JR being the good WWE promoter and talking about a guy they have under contract. Same concept of Heyman following the script when he talks about CM Punk or Lesnar.

Andre truly transcended the sport. Anywhere he went was a sideshow. He could create crowds. He sold out stadiums. He didn't have to do anything amazing in the ring simply because his presence said it all. He was truly a 'giant.'

That's nothing against Undertaker. He's been a great performer and has been with the company for a long time. He's been a loyal soldier and has been rewarded for such. But he's never been the man. He's never been the reason to watch the WWE/F for any extended period of time. Andre carried promotions and sold out shows everywhere he went.

They are different people. Taker is obviously a better wrestler, but surpassing the giant that is Andre from a wrestling perspective, never.

As put in the comments, "Undertaker's far from the greatest ever. He's just been with the company a really long time with mostly the same, successful gimmick from the beginning. He's never been THE MAN though. He's a foil, someone to play off of. He doesn't hold center stage.
He's a big deal now because, like Andre, he's become a travelling circus. He's never around, so when they hype him, it's a big deal. If he was around weekly, the interest would die off again till Mania. And, in case you've forgotten, 'the streak' is a gimmick. It's a script.
Andre was truly larger than life. He didn't need smoke and mirrors. Just his presence allow was enough to sell out event after event. That's Andre."
 
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.

I'm calling bullshit. Andre the Giant was undefeated for years before this and was without a doubt as big of a draw as Hogan, if not moreso when you count in the "wrestling" fans as opposed to the fans who were watching because media attention. Putting anybody else but Andre in that match wouldn't have worked. How do I know?

Because Hogan had basically the same match with Bundy a year before and nobody remembers that match.
 
Too early to tell, at least for me. I did not get to see Andre when I was growing up, but I would hear how they talked about Andre and as I grew older I saw what Andre's legacy is. Andre is great, there is no doubt about it.

Undertaker is still going though. His legacy is still being built. Shocky brought up another great point, Undertaker has been one of the main (if not the main) attraction at Wrestlemania for many years now. He's been the guy at Wrestlemania. He's been in the WWE going on 23 years. Throughout that whole time, with all the changes and ups and downs of this business, he has managed to stay the course. To continue to be one of the best and most recognizable superstars in the industry.

I think in 10-15 years after Undertaker retires, he will be looked on more fondly than Andre.
 
Undertaker isn't even a big man. Not ever tall guy is a big man.. Andre, Big Show, Giant Gonzales, khali, those are big men. Undertaker, Nash, Morgan, Kane, all just tall guys. It's apples and oranges and I don't know why your comparing the two when you know its different.

Outside of this catagory based scope in general Andre outranks undertaker because he stood on equal footing with the sport and the promotion. Andre, Hogan, Inoki in his region, Thesz in his prime, Gorgeous George, Bruno, and one or two others can boast that.

Andre didn't need Hogan slamming him to be an icon, Hogan was Andre caliber in reach, it wasn't that Andre was Hogan caliber making him the only man for that match, you have it reversed. He's also a cultural icon because of him being painted on walls, involvement in Hollywood and people on the streets knowing him. He was also well known in the early '70s when Hogan wasn't really built up til the begging of the '80s..

Also Andre was in All Japan til december of '92, I think the Undertaker was established enough to take on the ailing Andre if the WWF was willing to work that deal out.
 
For wrestling fans, maybe. Undertaker certainly has as storied career as anyone who's ever set foot in the ring.

But eclipsing Andre? I don't think he has enough stature in the non-wrestling world to do that. And as others have noted, younger (pre-1975) Andre was a marvel in every sense of the world.

It's sort of like arguing who was better, Lou Thesz or Ric Flair. Both men hit heights that are just too dizzying to contemplate.
 
Jim Ross says a lot of things, and I find myself paying attention to fewer and fewer of them.

There's plenty of room in the "big man" pantheon for Andre and 'Taker. Different eras, different body types, different styles, different gimmicks-- pretty much the only grounds for comparison is that they're both taller than the average Superstar.

Andre transcended the sport in a bigger way than 'Taker has or probably ever will. Just last November, Saturday Night Live had a sketch about Andre the Giant. To my knowledge, they've never so much as acknowledged The Undertaker's existence. Andre was the featured subject of a global meme which, as has been mentioned, earned him a cameo on Family Guy. Then there's the timeless film The Princess Bride.

If we're just talking wrestling/WWE, then there's a much better case to be made for The Undertaker, but it's still not clear cut. The thing that makes it a hard argument for 'Taker is that he never drew anything without the machine. Andre was a draw back in the days when there was no brand to draw for you. That doesn't diminish anything that 'Taker has accomplished, however. As far as the in-ring aspect, though, it's Undertaker hands down, all day, every day.

It's not an "either/or," "#1/#2" discussion in any case, and the only reason it was framed as such is so J.R. could put over The Undertaker.
 
If you were to take Andre's feud with Hogan away from him, then what does that leave Andre with ????

I'm not talking about what he's done outside wrestling either. That stuff doesn't matter. We're talking about Andre's WRESTLING career.

Start posting PROOF of Andre's WRESTLING career.....
 
Everything he did in the '70s and all of his 4 on 1 matches and him choking the announcer guy. His image was memorable, thats why the meme was just his face..
 
As an attraction I would have to agree with JR. Undertaker's streak is one of the major selling points of Wrestlemania each year. The man has been in the business forever, and it is a rare treat to get to see him. Andre worked in a different time, and I have all the respect in the world for him and what he did, but I am sure JR knows what he is talking about here.
 
First, people need to cut it with the "Andre was undefeated for two decades" shit. That's simply not true. It's a legend that has grown, but isn't anywhere near true. I remember seeing Andre lose at a house show in Toronto in 1985, so stop with the undefeated nonsense.

Secondly, for argument's sake, let's say Andre was undefeated for 20+ years. Andre is getting praised for that, but what would you say if Triple H, John Cena or Hulk Hogan had an undefeated run that long? Oh, you'd say they refused to job and buried guys. Why is it that no one says that about Andre?

Thirdly, Taker surpassed Andre a long time ago. Andre might be more culturally relevant, but that mostly stems from his role in The Princess Bride. Taker is the more accomplished wrestler. Taker is the sport's greatest big man and has been for some time.

And don't get me wrong, I respect what Andre did (a lot of it before I was born) and he is rightfully considered a legend and all-time great. But as far as who the greatest big man in the history of pro wrestling is, it's The Undertaker and it's not even a close race.
 
First, people need to cut it with the "Andre was undefeated for two decades" shit. That's simply not true. It's a legend that has grown, but isn't anywhere near true. I remember seeing Andre lose at a house show in Toronto in 1985, so stop with the undefeated nonsense.

Secondly, for argument's sake, let's say Andre was undefeated for 20+ years. Andre is getting praised for that, but what would you say if Triple H, John Cena or Hulk Hogan had an undefeated run that long? Oh, you'd say they refused to job and buried guys. Why is it that no one says that about Andre?

Thirdly, Taker surpassed Andre a long time ago. Andre might be more culturally relevant, but that mostly stems from his role in The Princess Bride. Taker is the more accomplished wrestler. Taker is the sport's greatest big man and has been for some time.

And don't get me wrong, I respect what Andre did (a lot of it before I was born) and he is rightfully considered a legend and all-time great. But as far as who the greatest big man in the history of pro wrestling is, it's The Undertaker and it's not even a close race.

Absolutely silly statement. Your hostility is completely unnecessary and takes away from whatever you're trying to present.

You took the opportunity to bash Andre's win-loss record, you decided to attack the internet wrestling community, you claim Andre's world wide recognition is irrelevant, and then you end with a statement claiming Taker is #1 and it's not even close.

How about citing facts next time supporting your opinion instead of going on a rant? Thanks.

Andre is an icon. When people think of the Giant, they think of his complete dominance and intimidation. They know about his undefeated streak and they know about Hogan slamming him. They know the guy literally towered above men.

When people think of Taker they think of smoke and mirrors. The presentation, the glamour. They think of the Wrestlemania streak. It's a character and a very successful one. But it's not the greatest big man in the history of the sport.
 
As an attraction I would have to agree with JR. Undertaker's streak is one of the major selling points of Wrestlemania each year. The man has been in the business forever, and it is a rare treat to get to see him. Andre worked in a different time, and I have all the respect in the world for him and what he did, but I am sure JR knows what he is talking about here.

JR knows it's his job to promote the company he works for. And that's what he's doing. Taker has never drawn the way Andre did. Taker doesn't have the mystique of Andre and that's saying something considering the way Taker is presented. Andre is in a class of his own. That's not disrespecting Taker, that's stating a fact.
 
First of all so many great posters on here i feel intimated really i do! But JR is absolutely correct on saying Undertaker has surpassed Andre the Giant. Wow i never thought that would happen ever. Andre in his day was just amazing,and I saw him at the Old Arco Arena and i was just stunned that somebody like that could be so huge.

Andre was bigger than life for his whole career not just a part of it. In the late seventies and early eighties andre was just larger than life. A sad part of me,wishes Andre would have had a long title reign lord knows he deserved it. When he jobbed to Hogan at WM3 the torch officially was passed that night.

Undertaker for sure has accomplished way more than Andre did. Its just a different era and more titles are available now than in andres day. Undertaker has had WM moment after WM moment memory after memory. In Andre's day there simply wasn't enough big men to test him. But in undertakers day simply put this man has set the bar so high no one will ever even come close to it. Taker has very rare size,speed,agility,and strength.

If were talking Legendary status i say Andre and Taker are equal but careers Taker warps Andre IMO! Taker is #No1 Andre a close No2
 
To those taking shots at JR for not biting the hand that feeds him, you're wrong. JR has said PLENTY of stuff that was against the WWE. Maybe this is just his opinion. What makes him wrong but you right?

Second, I would pay HUGE money to see a young Andre vs Mid 90's Taker match. If you didn't get to see Andre in the 70's early 80's you are really missing out. By the time he passed the torch at Wrestlemania III he was a shell of his former self but he was still a sight to behold. I was 16 when I saw him(ringside) live against Warrior in Vegas and WOW was he frigging HUGE.

As much as I loved watching Taker his whole career there will only be one Andre. Andre was a special guy which is why I think it's unfair to compare the UT to him. Like someone else said Andre was a true giant and UT is a big man. The two different eras makes it just about impossible to compare. There will NEVER be another Andre and IMO no one should be compared to him.
 
If you were to take Andre's feud with Hogan away from him, then what does that leave Andre with ????

I'm not talking about what he's done outside wrestling either. That stuff doesn't matter. We're talking about Andre's WRESTLING career.

Start posting PROOF of Andre's WRESTLING career.....

So I take it you haven't bothered to read any of the posts talking about his fifteen years of work prior to Wrestlemania 3, describing how he was never cleanly beaten in the WWF during that run. For the guy that said he wasn't really undefeated during that time, you're absolutely correct. He was pinned once, I forget who did it but it was in Mexico, and he submitted once to Inoki, but neither of those losses occurred in the WWF. Other than that, his only losses were by count out, DQ, or time limit draw. Hulk Hogan was the first man to EVER pin Andre in a WWF ring. The only other man to ever pin Andre in a WWF ring was the Ultimate Warrior.

Andre had losses in some of the territory matches, but a lot of those stories are apocryphal as everyone knows someone who saw it happen but no one will ever actually admit they saw it. A few of the people who were rumored to have pinned Andre include Jerry Lawler in Memphis, Ronnie Garvin in Tennessee...actually, I just found some great information doing a little research, I'll quote the entire passage in spoiler quotes since it's kind of long:

Well, after doing some reserach on this topic. Here is what I came up with regarding Andre's pinfall losses or losses that were of significane:

1989: IC Champion the Ultimate Warrior pinned (according to the History of WWE) at least 9 times in the autumn during the houseshows. Since there are many clashes between these two it is believed that Andre actually lost many more matches by pinfall since many of the results are unknown and WWF tend to have the same results for each town they went in to. (I've seen one of these matches so I can for sure say Warrior pinned Andre at least once)

31-jul-88 Andre lost to Hulk Hogan in a Steel-Cage-Match at the Wrestle Fest 88 event in Milwaukee, WI
29-mar-1987 Andre got pinned by WWF Champion Hulk Hogan at WM 3 in Michigan

17-jun-1986: Antonio Inoki forced Andre to submit in Nagoya, Japan, in a an IWGP Semi Final (This match do exist since I've seen the entire match)

12-feb-84 Andre loses to UWA Champion El Canek in a 2-Out-Of-3-Falls-Match at at UWA Show Naulcalpan, MEXICO (People claim it was by pinfall, But I have never seen the entire match, just clips)

? - ? - 1980-1982 Andre loses to Mid South Champion Jerry Lawler by Count Out in Louisville, KY for Mid-South. (Lawler confirms this in his book, that it was by CO, not by pin, but still go a lot of heat from Vince sr)

05-mar-78 Andre The Giant and Roy Welch loses to Ron Garvin by (According to the legend) pinfall in a Handicap-Match at a TV Taping in Knoxville, TN (However there are no footage of the entire match)

07-okt-76 Andre loses to Antonio Inoki in a Single-Match in Tokyo, when the referee stops the match

10-feb-74 Andre loses to The Sheik in a singles-Match in Toronto, when the referee stops the match (I've seen this match so I know for sur it took place)

18-dec-72 Andre for sure lost to Killer Kowalski in Quebec City, and according to legend it was by pinfall

31-maj-72 Andre for sure lost to Don Leo Jonathon in Montreal, and also here according to legend it was by pinfall

06-maj-72 Andre lost to Strong Kobayashi in the 4th-IWA-World-Series-FINAL in Morioka Japan. How Andre lost can only be speculated, but it is not entirely ruled out that he lost by pinfall

27-apr-71 Andre lost to Karl Gotch in Nagoya, Japan. According to sources it was by pinfall


Also it is to be assumed that Andre lost several times before these dates by pinfall, because he started his career in 1964, so it is highly unlikely that he did not lose a single match up to that point.



So with that said, so far Andre lost to

Warrior 9 times by pin
Hogan 1 time by pin, 1 time in a cage
Inoki 1 time by submission, 1 time by stoppage
El Canek 1 time by pin
Garvin 1 time by pin
The Sheik 1 time by stoppage
Kowalski 1 time by pin
Don Leo 1 time by pin
Gotch 1 time by pin


That is 16 known pinfall losses for a career that lasted for 28 years.

Note: I didn't write all of that, I found it on a different site, but it answers the question nicely. In addition, you will note that the only losses on that list that occurred in a WWF ring were the losses to Hogan and Warrior, they were all from WM3 and after. So between 1973 and 1987 Andre lost six matches; two by ref stoppage, one by countout, one by submission, and two by pinfall that are unconfirmed.

The story with the Garvin match is that Andre agreed to do the job as long as the cameras stopped rolling before the pinfall. I don't know if this was true or not, the fact that this account comes from the promoter and no one else makes it's veracity questionable.

So...
 
I think it is tough to say, just as its almost impossible to say who is the "greatest wrestler" of all time. There is always the argument of whether you look at impact on the business, their in-ring talent, how big of a draw they were etc.

In this discussion, if you are looking at the importance to the business, then it's obviously Andre. As much as an icon to wrestling fans as Undertaker is, he has never reached the status of "cultural icon" that arguably on Hogan, Andre, Austin and Rock got to. Non-wrestling fans know of these men, they were pop-culture phenomenons. Many non-fans know of 'Taker, but not on the level of the 4 I just mentioned.

In the ring though, its no comparison. Undertaker wins that every day of the week. Many fans only know Andre from the end of his career when he was barely mobile, but he was alot faster and more athletic in his early days. Still, even then he couldn't do the things that Undertaker can do. In my opinion the Deadman has raised the bar for all big men. You simply do not see people his size diving over the top rope to the concrete- the sight of 'Taker leaping over the flames of the inferno match to land on Kane is awe-inspiring, and he is still having great matches to this day, however infrequently he now performs. Andre's best matches cannot compare to 'Taker's best work.

Andre was the bigger draw, that cannot be argued, and both men were probably the most respected performers in the dressing rooms in their respective eras. Andre is in the HOF, and Undertaker will certainly be joining him when he retires. Both men were involved in some of the biggest storylines in wrestling history, and are 2 almost untouchable legends of the wrestling business.

But, personally I am leaning towards Undertaker. For the way he has modified his gimmick and in-ring style to remain relevant over the years, for his longetivity at the top of the card and for the fact he can still perform at the level he does when his body is falling apart, I am agreeing with JR on this.

But it is VERY close and really depends on what criteria you are basing this on
 
So I take it you haven't bothered to read any of the posts talking about his fifteen years of work prior to Wrestlemania 3, describing how he was never cleanly beaten in the WWF during that run. For the guy that said he wasn't really undefeated during that time, you're absolutely correct. He was pinned once, I forget who did it but it was in Mexico, and he submitted once to Inoki, but neither of those losses occurred in the WWF. Other than that, his only losses were by count out, DQ, or time limit draw. Hulk Hogan was the first man to EVER pin Andre in a WWF ring. The only other man to ever pin Andre in a WWF ring was the Ultimate Warrior.

Andre had losses in some of the territory matches, but a lot of those stories are apocryphal as everyone knows someone who saw it happen but no one will ever actually admit they saw it. A few of the people who were rumored to have pinned Andre include Jerry Lawler in Memphis, Ronnie Garvin in Tennessee...actually, I just found some great information doing a little research, I'll quote the entire passage in spoiler quotes since it's kind of long:



Note: I didn't write all of that, I found it on a different site, but it answers the question nicely. In addition, you will note that the only losses on that list that occurred in a WWF ring were the losses to Hogan and Warrior, they were all from WM3 and after. So between 1973 and 1987 Andre lost six matches; two by ref stoppage, one by countout, one by submission, and two by pinfall that are unconfirmed.

The story with the Garvin match is that Andre agreed to do the job as long as the cameras stopped rolling before the pinfall. I don't know if this was true or not, the fact that this account comes from the promoter and no one else makes it's veracity questionable.

So...

Yes I have read all the prior posts, and from what I gather, Andre was one of the most famous beings to ever walk this galaxy, who is an alcoholic and supposedly was undefeated for 50 years, and just happens to be 8ft 5in! :confused:

Anyways, Andre wasn't exclusively signed to the WWE until 1984. WMIII happened in 1987....That's 3 years. :wtf: Yes he did wrestle for the WWF before that, but due to him losing other places, we might as well say The Undertaker has been undefeated for 21 years because just like Andre lost on smaller scale matches, Taker only lost on smaller scale matches.
 
When I saw this topic I skipped all the other posts and went straight to the comment so I wouldn't be influenced by any previous discussion. Regarding JR's statement that he felt the Undertaker had surpassed Andre as the best big man in the business I will give credit to JR for his opinion. JR has been in the business a long time and has his time in talent relations to back up his opinion. That said I actually disagree with his comment as to me Andre and Undertaker are like apples and oranges. For his size Undertaker is certainly the most agile of the two and his record at WrestleMania in unparalleled. Undertaker is a living legend in the ring and still can command a masterful match as his matches at WrestleMania show. Match wise and versatility wise , then yes I agree with JR on the Undertaker being the better big man in the ring match wise.
Andre though was bigger than life , literally, he was a super heavyweight in a class by himself! I was lucky enough to see him once live up close and it was truly impressive. Andre had a career that was also truly impressive as well. His undefeated streak makes all other streaks pale in comparison. Yes 21-0 at Mania is impressive but going day in and day out for years and not losing a match is an awesome accomplishment. Andre's style was completely different than Takers for obvious reasons. Taker is a big man , a very big man when you stand him next to Daniel Bryant who is average size and makes him look like a midget (no offence to Daniel as he is a great wrestler) , but Andre made Undertaker look small. Andre was truly a Giant and in his day could move good in the ring. Andre was so unbeatable Vince Senior sent him out to the territories to tour just to keep him fresh in his own territory and capitalize on his attraction on a world wide stage. Andre was a world wide phenomena. Granted Undertaker's moniker is the Phenom , but in my personal opinion the Eight wonder of the World - Andre was a bigger attraction in his day. Even today when asking people who know little about wrestling who they knew in wrestling often behind Hogans name comes the reply Andre the Giant. That in it's self says a lot about the legacy he left behind.
 
interesting comments made by JR and a really interesting thread. lots of good responses and several i agree with. too many to call out by name or quote.

i liked the comment that while Taker was a "big man", Andre was a "giant", no pun intended. Andre is in a class with the likes of Big Show as a super heavyweight, whereas Taker is in a class with other big men such as Kane, Kevin Nash and Sid Vicious, etc.

obviously, Taker has the better ring work and has worked in an era where there has been exponentially more coverage of wrestling by way of cable tv, ppv and internet. so he's been more visible to the hardcore fan than Andre ever was.

and yet, Andre the Giant is known globally. i don't think Taker is. Andre the Giant is known most famously as Fezzik from the movie Princess Bride and many a non-wrestling fan know that. Taker was in Suburban Commando. very few know that.

even more recently, Andre the Giant was parodied on SNL.

and then there's Mania 3, the biggest match on the biggest stage with the largest audience.

i'm not sure that Taker has surpassed Andre as the greatest big man of all time. those are some pretty big shoes to fill.

and that's no slam on Taker. i think he's one of the best all around performers in the history of the business. i just don't think he's transcended the business in the way that Andre did.

my vote ultimately goes to the 8th Wonder of the World.
 
I love how several people commented that Taker's Mania streak was a work, but then not one of them mentions that EVERY MATCH EVER by either of them was a work. Andrea's 15yr sort of undefeated streak was just as scripted as Taker's Manie unbeaten streak so they wash each other out.
Andrea is definitely the bigger outside of wrestler in terms of recognition and popculture references, but since this is a question of who is the best big man in the sport, that has to go to Taker. Andre inspired others to get into wrestling and watch the shows, but Taker revolutionized the role of the big man, taking them from simple and slow moving monsters to agile, athletic wrestlers. So the impact on the in ring work and style of those who came after also goes to Taker.
To the one guy who was saying there was a difference between a 'big' guy and a tall guy, they have a (humorously) small point. There is some difference. But not enough to matter. There have been many tall wrestlers and many fat wrestlers, but the point where one is classed as a big guy is typically in the 6'6" in height and over 300lbs. If you are either or both of those, you can be classed as a big guy for the types of comparisons we are thinking of.

For me, the best arguement either way is to watch matches from their careers. During the early part of Andrea's he was agile, athletic and powerful. As his career went on and health issues took over, he became slow, stilted and extremely limited due to his health. I don't fault him for having health issues, but he might have remained too long as those issues became to weaken his in ring presence.

For Taker, he started with a gimmick that forced limitations on his move set and character. As he grew and the business started to adapt around him, he was able to start showing more of a skill set than what any other big man in the ring was showing. Eventually he was able to start showing off how talented and skilled he truly was and continues to be. His in ring work has improved as he got older and like Andre he's had more then his share of health issues that have caused some limits, but unlike Andre he adapted to those limits his health forces on him.

As for outside the wrestling side of the business. Well again, Taker's gimmick limited greatly. He was supposed to remain dark and mysterious and untouchable by the outside world. He had a few early outside events (live with Regis was hilarious, and of course he was in Suburban Commando) and has done a few other spots on tv here and there but yes, Andre definitely had the bigger impact, mostly because he was unique for his time. By the time Taker came around, it was more normally to see guys his size in a public setting, and there were physically larger wrestlers that had come and gone (in one form or another ie fat vs tall), so that also limited his appeal in the public.
 
People keep talking about Andre's size, like he really was 7'5". Andre's height was 6'10", the same size as Kevin Nash. Taker is 6'8".

diesel74.jpg


WrestleMania_12_-_Undertaker_Vs_Diesel_03.jpg


Yes Andre did get fat as he got older, but even then, he was still smaller than Big Show who is 7'
1030%20-%20Big_Show%20Raw%20undertaker%20wwf.png


In addition, JR said The Undertaker was the greatest big man 'in the business'...so I have no idea why people keep trying to bring up the Princess Bride, how much alcohol Andre can drink, and other irrelevant stories. :wtf:
 
People keep talking about Andre's size, like he really was 7'5". Andre's height was 6'10", the same size as Kevin Nash. Taker is 6'8".

Yes Andre did get fat as he got older, but even then, he was still smaller than Big Show who is 7'

In addition, JR said The Undertaker was the greatest big man 'in the business'...so I have no idea why people keep trying to bring up the Princess Bride, how much alcohol Andre can drink, and other irrelevant stories. :wtf:

Andre was around 7'3" to 7'4" at the time of his death and most of his time in WWE. At one time he was as tall as 7'6" but his weight and other health issues caused him to loose some height. Mark Calloway is 6'10", Nash is maybe a hair shy of 7', enough so as to not make a difference. Paul Wight is I believe 7'2"

And while Show has at time been heavier then Andre was, Andre was at the end larger then Show has ever been during his in ring time. Once you surpass the 450lbs mark it doesn't much matter. Yoko was heavier then either and a guy way bag known as Haystacks was the heaviest every clocking in over 650lbs.
 
I agree with JR. As far as an attraction and a spectacle, I can cosign that Undertaker has surpassed the box office status of Andre. WrestleMania 3 was Andre's pinnacle in the business, as it should be. He was proud of what he had done there, creating this new star by the name of Hulk Hogan.

No one else has really had the aura that Andre had outside of Undertaker. I don't really understand the nitpicking over who weighs what, and how tall everyone is. That is really missing the point. Who has put more asses in the seats over there career? At this point, clearly The Undertaker. I'm not even talking about PPV sales, I am talking about legitimately selling tickets. Just add up attendance alone for Undertaker's last 11 WrestleManias and compare that to some of Andre's box office stats.

Again I might be missing my own point here by veering back to stats. Stats are boring. Who has the aura? Who has the presence? Who has captivated the imaginations of more young fans?

At this juncture it's certainly The Undertaker.

He is box office. Period.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,848
Messages
3,300,881
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top