KB Answers Wrestling Questions

[klunderbunker]

Let him retain it. Also if he's only wrestling once a year, he can go on as long as he wants really.

 

[Vega]

Undertaker is a big deal but he's never been the real face of the company, and I don't think I can put him on such a list because of that.

But does it really matter when he's still one of the second most recognizable names in wrestling? Do five (or less) years in the top two really outweigh 20 years in the top four?

If we're talking about name value alone, I think if we'd ask random people about wrestlers they know, Taker would be number two second only to Hogan. (But since I have little idea of what's popular in America, I could be wrong. After all, Bret is still the most popular wrestler over here.)

Think of it this way:
If you only watched wrestling 20 years ago, you'll remember him - possibly as the most outstanding character and one of the most dominant wrestlers of the time.
If you watched 15 years ago, same deal.
If you watched 10 years ago, same deal.
If you watched 5 years ago, same deal.
If you watch right now, same deal.
In terms of reliability and consistency there's no one that tops him in my opinion. There aren't a lot of people who had even half the time as main eventers (Flair, Hogan, Sting, HHH, anyone else?).

While he may not have been THE main draw over an extended time, just think about the countless semi main events he participated in that still drew a lot of people and buys, spanning well over 20 years.
It's hard to think of cards where Undertaker didn't stand out or wasn't at least a special attraction. Most of the time he gets the biggest reaction, even when he isn't in the main event. I'd say there is no other guy in the business who got such consistent good reactions and admiration in and out of the ring, at least not over that extended time period.
Another fact is that nobody stood in more PPV main events. So while he has never been the undisputed face, he still had more main event exposure than anyone else.

If we look at legendary moments or matches, Taker is top notch as well. Sure, there have been a lot of bad matches and angles, but the good-to-bad-ratio is still respectable.
And he just got better with time. In the last years a lot of his matches were very good (Mania 23 - 27 for example) and were the saving grace of two otherwise piss poor Manias (25, 27).

And if we're looking through kayfabe eyes, the streak is probably a bigger achievement than any number of world titles could be - a testimonial of dominance spanning eras. Additionally, nobody has a better PPV win-loss-difference.

 

[klunderbunker]

But does it really matter when he's still one of the second most recognizable names in wrestling? Do five (or less) years in the top two really outweigh 20 years in the top four?

If we're talking about name value alone, I think if we'd ask random people about wrestlers they know, Taker would be number two second only to Hogan. (But since I have little idea of what's popular in America, I could be wrong. After all, Bret is still the most popular wrestler over here.)

No. Not even close. That would be Steve Austin by miles and miles. Third would be Rock. After that maybe you get to Undertaker but second? No. No way. Cena is probably ahead of Taker too, as are Savage and Flair.

Think of it this way:
If you only watched wrestling 20 years ago, you'll remember him - possibly as the most outstanding character and one of the most dominant wrestlers of the time.
If you watched 15 years ago, same deal.
If you watched 10 years ago, same deal.
If you watched 5 years ago, same deal.
If you watch right now, same deal.
In terms of reliability and consistency there's no one that tops him in my opinion. There aren't a lot of people who had even half the time as main eventers (Flair, Hogan, Sting, HHH, anyone else?).

Twenty years ago he'd have been after Hogan, Sting, Flair and Savage.
15 he'd be WAY down the list, after a bunch of WCW guys, Hart, Shawn and probably Austin. Fourth at the highest since I think this is something about WWF only.

Ten years ago would have been just before Brock and you still would have had HHH, Angle, Rock, Austin and some others I'm missing.

FIve years ago would have been Rock and Cena ahead of him. Edge would have been above him too at this point.

Taker has never been the top guy or really any higher than third.

While he may not have been THE main draw over an extended time, just think about the countless semi main events he participated in that still drew a lot of people and buys, spanning well over 20 years.

About 95% of those PPVs were driven by Austin and/or Rock. Before then only Shawn and Bret were really big draws. Taker wasn't much at this point.

It's hard to think of cards where Undertaker didn't stand out or wasn't at least a special attraction.

So? Almost every time he hasn't been at the top of the card.

Most of the time he gets the biggest reaction, even when he isn't in the main event.

See also Marella, Santino.

I'd say there is no other guy in the business who got such consistent good reactions and admiration in and out of the ring, at least not over that extended time period.

So does William Regal, but he's not an icon is he?

Another fact is that nobody stood in more PPV main events. So while he has never been the undisputed face, he still had more main event exposure than anyone else.

Uh, no. No. Austin, HHH, Rock, Shawn and Cena have probably been in more. You yourself said he was usually in the other matches than the main event.

If we look at legendary moments or matches, Taker is top notch as well. Sure, there have been a lot of bad matches and angles, but the good-to-bad-ratio is still respectable.

What matches would these be?

And he just got better with time. In the last years a lot of his matches were very good (Mania 23 - 27 for example) and were the saving grace of two otherwise piss poor Manias (25, 27).

Yeah, and that's about it. Before then, his in ring work was ok to bad at times.

And if we're looking through kayfabe eyes, the streak is probably a bigger achievement than any number of world titles could be - a testimonial of dominance spanning eras. Additionally, nobody has a better PPV win-loss-difference.

At Wrestlemania and that's about it. Other than that he lost quite a bit over the years.

 

[Remix]

Was Kerwin White a racist gimmick?

If so, was it racist against whites or non-whites?

 

[klunderbunker]

His tag line was something like "It's all right because it's all white."

I think that answers both questions.

 

[Vega]

No. Not even close. That would be Steve Austin by miles and miles. Third would be Rock. After that maybe you get to Undertaker but second? No. No way. Cena is probably ahead of Taker too, as are Savage and Flair.

Eh, you're probably right. As I said, I can just judge by who is mentioned in mainstream media and who my friends know, and the Attitude Era wasn't all that big in continental Europe while the Monday Night Wars were consistently broadcasted. When you read about wrestling in newspapers over here it's often introduced as something like "the sport of Hulk Hogan" or "the realm of the Undertaker" or something like that. Saying "Undertaker" will ring a bell with some people here, while mentioning "Steve Austin" or "Ric Flair" will just give you blank faces. I assume it's much different in the US where Steve Austin is a household name. Most people I know only recognize Rock as an actor, if even that.

Twenty years ago he'd have been after Hogan, Sting, Flair and Savage.
15 he'd be WAY down the list, after a bunch of WCW guys, Hart, Shawn and probably Austin. Fourth at the highest since I think this is something about WWF only.

Ten years ago would have been just before Brock and you still would have had HHH, Angle, Rock, Austin and some others I'm missing.

FIve years ago would have been Rock and Cena ahead of him. Edge would have been above him too at this point.

Taker has never been the top guy or really any higher than third

I'd say the biggest wrestlers of the 90's were Hart, Sting, Michaels, Taker. Of the 00's HHH, Cena, Taker. I'll try to back it up with main event matches in the decades, but I only find overall ME statistics right now.

I think I already said that Taker was never the top face, but always a cornerstone to rely on. Still a name you catched and probably kept in mind if you glanced at WWE/F at any point in the last 20 years, which is something that doesn't hold true for the other guys.

Anyway, in that paragraph I was talking about dominance and outstanding character which is something that makes you stick to people's minds and Taker had both I'd say.

About 95% of those PPVs were driven by Austin and/or Rock. Before then only Shawn and Bret were really big draws. Taker wasn't much at this point.

Can't really confirm or deny here. He had his fair share of main event matches and high profile feuds though.

So? Almost every time he hasn't been at the top of the card.

I'd say his character was almost too dominant to be a consistent main event placement. Other dominant characters usually had a relatively short time of main event dominance to keep the show balanced.

To keep his aura he'd have to win a lot and constantly placing him in the top matches would mean the other top guys would have to lose too many times and couldn't be established as credible champions. Kind of a way to keep a balance between Taker's and the current champion's dominance without having to book too many screwy finishes. Like seen at a lot of Manias (12, 14, 15, 17, [20, 21,] 23, 25, 27, 28) it's a way to create more than one high-profile match.
That's not to say Taker didn't have a lot of main event matches, he has most of them after all.

See also Marella, Santino.

I wouldn't say Santino's matches are really something people look forward to when going to a WWE show, but I'm pretty sure that could be said about Undertaker appearances. And if Santino outpops main events on a constant basis I'd say he is a great wrestler that can draw the crowd into him. But I've seen lukewarm Santino receptions, something that very rarely occurs when the gong hits.

So does William Regal, but he's not an icon is he?

Regal is a great wrestler, no doubt. I'm sure a lot of young guys would love to learn a thing or ten from him, so he's an icon to an extent. However, I think there's a huge difference between Taker's and Regal's receptions.

Uh, no. No. Austin, HHH, Rock, Shawn and Cena have probably been in more. You yourself said he was usually in the other matches than the main event.

He was. At least according to this source:

http://www.genickbruch.com/english/...4&jahr=0&stat=2&reihenfolge=4&ordnung=0&ppv=0

Rock hasn't even half as many. And yeah, Undertaker WAS in a lot of other matches. When he wasn't in the top match, a lot of times he was in the second biggest or at least in the upper card.

What matches would these be?

Yeah, and that's about it. Before then, his in ring work was ok to bad at times.

Great matches and moments? Like I said a lot of Mania matches (23 - 26, 17), others against Edge or Batista, Angle in 05 or 06, in 97 against Michaels or the feud against Mankind. There were others I liked against Mysterio or Lesnar or multi man matches.
His earlier career lived through the aura he carried which was just unique.
The evergoing story with Kane is one of the greatest in my opinion as it gave the characters more background than others ever had, although the matches didn't hold up.
Also, the Final Four is a special favorite of mine that comes to mind.

At Wrestlemania and that's about it. Other than that he lost quite a bit over the years.

Same site, sorted by win-loss-difference:

http://www.genickbruch.com/english/index.php?befehl=spezbil&bilanz=4&jahr=0&stat=1&ordnung=0&ppv=0

I see Sting has the lead (+38) and Hogan is close (+27), but Undertaker has the best difference if we just look at the WWE.

 

[klunderbunker]

All that said, some of which I was indeed wrong on assuming that site is right, Taker flat out isn't on that level. He's probably the 8th biggest name in modern WWF history (Hogan, Austin, Rock, Savage, Michaels, Bret, Cena and you could argue some others ahead of him) and I don't think you can consider him an icon. He doesn't mean much of anything other than at Mania anymore and a lot of his time in the 90s were worthless. I think you might be confusing longevity with importance.

 

[Martin Gabriel]

Do you think they'll make the No Way Out PPV a Cage Match PPV?

 

[klunderbunker]

I hope not. They need less gimmick shows.

 

[Martin Gabriel]

Hey KB, do you have WWE OnDemand? Check out the Legends of Wrestling Roundtable Discussion for this month. 20 minutes in and it's already great. It's about Celebrities in wrestling.

 

[Vega]

He doesn't mean much of anything other than at Mania anymore and a lot of his time in the 90s were worthless.

True, but who really does after the age of 45 and thousands of matches?

I think you might be confusing longevity with importance.

That may hit the core. For me, a very important measure to rate wrestlers is how many memorable moments they brought and how much they're linked to wrestling history, be it through matches or angles or promos. A longer career usually gives more opportunities to shine. That may not be an objective criteria, but what really is?

One could argue (and so would I) how much money one made. Anyway, a long career with many main event participations means more points in time to draw money. And I'd say it's an important skill to be able to be interesting (and therefore draw) over long amounts of time, hell, we're talking about eras, decades. While guys like Warrior or Goldberg or yeah, even Austin on another level brought in a lot of money when they were hot, they got stale and left not too long after. Only few can adapt and be helpful through times, even when the spotlight isn't full on them.

Which guy does and doesn't draw is usually very thin ice to discuss as an outsider, and even insiders seem to struggle to define a "draw". When people talk about how much money a guy really made I often feel like it's not rational discussion based on facts but emotional discussion based on preference. There are obvious cases like Hogan or Austin, but others like Michaels where people still argue if he helped over or pushed into the valley in 1996.

I always thought the "helpful hands" like Jericho or Mysterio or divisions like the cruiserweights in WCW or tag teams often get less credit than they deserve. While they may rarely be the shining stars, their input can heavily influence a program's quality and therefore vitally draw without having their names on the posters. WCW is perhaps the best example to show that discrepancy. Were Sid or (Post-97-)Hall really more important than, say, Kidman or Raven? Does a great year of Goldberg really outshine years of shaping up cards by... let's say Christian?

Does the main event really draw 90% of the show or are the "surroundings" just as important? <= Hey, there's a question.

 

[klunderbunker]

Hey KB, do you have WWE OnDemand? Check out the Legends of Wrestling Roundtable Discussion for this month. 20 minutes in and it's already great. It's about Celebrities in wrestling.

I don't. I don't pay for most of my wrestling.

 

[Martin Gabriel]

What do you think of pro-wrestling being banned in Oklahoma?

 

[klunderbunker]

True, but who really does after the age of 45 and thousands of matches?

That may hit the core. For me, a very important measure to rate wrestlers is how many memorable moments they brought and how much they're linked to wrestling history, be it through matches or angles or promos. A longer career usually gives more opportunities to shine. That may not be an objective criteria, but what really is?

One could argue (and so would I) how much money one made. Anyway, a long career with many main event participations means more points in time to draw money. And I'd say it's an important skill to be able to be interesting (and therefore draw) over long amounts of time, hell, we're talking about eras, decades. While guys like Warrior or Goldberg or yeah, even Austin on another level brought in a lot of money when they were hot, they got stale and left not too long after. Only few can adapt and be helpful through times, even when the spotlight isn't full on them.

Which guy does and doesn't draw is usually very thin ice to discuss as an outsider, and even insiders seem to struggle to define a "draw". When people talk about how much money a guy really made I often feel like it's not rational discussion based on facts but emotional discussion based on preference. There are obvious cases like Hogan or Austin, but others like Michaels where people still argue if he helped over or pushed into the valley in 1996.

I always thought the "helpful hands" like Jericho or Mysterio or divisions like the cruiserweights in WCW or tag teams often get less credit than they deserve. While they may rarely be the shining stars, their input can heavily influence a program's quality and therefore vitally draw without having their names on the posters. WCW is perhaps the best example to show that discrepancy. Were Sid or (Post-97-)Hall really more important than, say, Kidman or Raven? Does a great year of Goldberg really outshine years of shaping up cards by... let's say Christian?

Does the main event really draw 90% of the show or are the "surroundings" just as important? <= Hey, there's a question.

It used to be the main event but then it became about the surroundings in more recent years.

 

[klunderbunker]

What do you think of pro-wrestling being banned in Oklahoma?

That WWE goes to the state like twice a year so it's not a huge deal. Hopefully it's not the start of a slope though.

 

[Awesome_Miz]

How would you feel if Cena breaks Flair's 16X World Champion record?

 

[klunderbunker]

I wouldn't care. The record is going to be broken someday. Flair doubled Race's record so it's not like this is some unheard of thing.

 

[Martin Gabriel]

That WWE goes to the state like twice a year so it's not a huge deal. Hopefully it's not the start of a slope though.

What if it happened in Texas?

 

[klunderbunker]

Then they'll be in some trouble given how many big cities there are in Texas.

 

[Remix]

His tag line was something like "It's all right because it's all white."

I think that answers both questions.

It was "if it's not white, it's not right." But it doesn't really, the first sure. However, because it was a Mexican saying it, he was also being racist about white people by saying they're all racist. Hence the confusion on my part.

I was wondering if it fell into the same category as The Gangstas who weren't racist but used the crowd's racism to get heat.

 

[Martin Gabriel]

Do you miss Alberto Del Rio any?

 

[klunderbunker]

It was "if it's not white, it's not right." But it doesn't really, the first sure. However, because it was a Mexican saying it, he was also being racist about white people by saying they're all racist. Hence the confusion on my part.

I was wondering if it fell into the same category as The Gangstas who weren't racist but used the crowd's racism to get heat.

Actually he's American, born in Texas. I get bashed a lot for "being racist" over stuff like that for some reason.

Anyway, yeah it probably does fall into that category, but on a much lower scale.

 

[Johnny Scumm]

Is James Storm pretty much guaranteed that World Title come Lockdown?

 

[Martin Gabriel]

What would you think of a CM Punk/Wade Barrett feud later this year? Would that be a good feud? I read that WWE plans on having Barrett win MITB at SummerSlam and then challenge Punk for the WWE title.

 

[klunderbunker]

He's about as guaranteed as you can be.

I'd be ok with it, but I'm not sure how well it would draw.