KB Answers Wrestling Questions

[Martin Gabriel]

Do you think that this is probably the most predictable Mania you have ever seen, and unless WWE pulls some shit out of their ass, you don't see it being much of a surprise with the outcomes of any of the matches?

 

[SSJPhenom]

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.

Really?

Hogan, Austin, Rock, Savage, Michaels, and Bret also don't mean much anymore either and 'Taker not an icon? If 'Taker, the most respected man in the wrestling world; both by fans and his peers, isn't an icon then LaBar was right about Sting not being a wrestling icon. Also; saying that Savage is a bigger name than 'Taker is just stupid. 'Taker has accomplished so much more than Savage ever did or could ever think about doing. God rest his soul.

Also; what's this about 'Taker never being one of the top draws in the WWF/E? He's had the distinct honor of playing the top heel to the three biggest babyfaces in wrestling history(Hogan twice, Austin, and the Rock). I'm confident in saying that he was at least the number 2 guy in the WWF/E in '99 during his Ministry angle. Again in '02 when he defeated Hogan for the Undisputed title. Again in '07 when he won the Rumble and the title at WM 23. Again in the later part of '09 and early part of '10 when he was the World Champion for an extended period of time. There have been plenty of times when 'Taker has been a top draw for the WWF/E.

And what's his ass was right about memorable matches and moments from 'Taker. First HIAC, throwing Foley off of HIAC, his feud with Kane, hanging Austin from his symbol, his matches with HBK at 'Mania, his match with Angle at No Way Out '06, and there are so many more.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion; however, if you really can sit there and say that 'Taker is not an icon of this business I lose any and all respect that I ever had for you. You may not give a damn about that, but I consider you the most knowledgeable person on all of these forums when it comes to wrestling and even having said that; I'm confident in saying that you are just plain ole wrong about 'Taker.

 

[klunderbunker]

Do you think that this is probably the most predictable Mania you have ever seen, and unless WWE pulls some shit out of their ass, you don't see it being much of a surprise with the outcomes of any of the matches?

Yeah that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it'll be bad though.

 

[klunderbunker]

Really?

Hogan, Austin, Rock, Savage, Michaels, and Bret also don't mean much anymore either and 'Taker not an icon? If 'Taker, the most respected man in the wrestling world; both by fans and his peers, isn't an icon then LaBar was right about Sting not being a wrestling icon. Also; saying that Savage is a bigger name than 'Taker is just stupid. 'Taker has accomplished so much more than Savage ever did or could ever think about doing. God rest his soul.

Also; what's this about 'Taker never being one of the top draws in the WWF/E? He's had the distinct honor of playing the top heel to the three biggest babyfaces in wrestling history(Hogan twice, Austin, and the Rock). I'm confident in saying that he was at least the number 2 guy in the WWF/E in '99 during his Ministry angle. Again in '02 when he defeated Hogan for the Undisputed title. Again in '07 when he won the Rumble and the title at WM 23. Again in the later part of '09 and early part of '10 when he was the World Champion for an extended period of time. There have been plenty of times when 'Taker has been a top draw for the WWF/E.

And what's his ass was right about memorable matches and moments from 'Taker. First HIAC, throwing Foley off of HIAC, his feud with Kane, hanging Austin from his symbol, his matches with HBK at 'Mania, his match with Angle at No Way Out '06, and there are so many more.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion; however, if you really can sit there and say that 'Taker is not an icon of this business I lose any and all respect that I ever had for you. You may not give a damn about that, but I consider you the most knowledgeable person on all of these forums when it comes to wrestling and even having said that; I'm confident in saying that you are just plain ole wrong about 'Taker.

Based on reading this, I can pretty much tell you're either A, completely biased, B, an idiot, or C, both. I'm not going into all of this, but if you believe for one second that Vince wasn't the top heel in 1999, you're hopeless.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Based on reading this, I can pretty much tell you're either A, completely biased, B, an idiot, or C, both. I'm not going into all of this, but if you believe for one second that Vince wasn't the top heel in 1999, you're hopeless.

I'm a bit biased, sure and yes Vince was a major heel in '99; however, I recall it being 'Taker that faced Austin at the majority of the PPVs in '99 and even taking his title away from him at one point in '99.

To say that 'Taker was a non factor during the 90s tells me that you're the idiot sir.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm a bit biased, sure and yes Vince was a major heel in '99; however, I recall it being 'Taker that faced Austin at the majority of the PPVs in '99 and even taking his title away from him at one point in '99.

To say that 'Taker was a non factor during the 90s tells me that you're the idiot sir.

My head is hurting now. Let me try to do this quickly so you won't get lost:

[YOUTUBE]JgDwI1EC5iY[/YOUTUBE]

This would be the promo with Vince being revealed as the Higher Power, as in the man that Undertaker was serving for the majority of the year.

Second, Austin fought Undertaker on PPV twice that year, the same amount of times he fought Rock and Vince. I'd hardly call that a majority, meaning I'd question any other stats/figures of yours.

Third, Mick Foley took the WWF Title from Austin as well that year. Does that make him a top man that year?

 

[SSJPhenom]

Vince being the higher power and then them turing the Ministry into the Corporate Ministry was a joke; however, while 'Taker was running the Ministry, trying to "kill" Austin, trying to take over the WWF, trying to sacrifice Stephanie, hanging Austin from his symbol, and other stunts, he was the top heel of '99. Before Vince was revealed to be the higher power, 'Taker was the top heel of 1999.

Just how can you say that 'Taker was worthless in the 90s? Let's forget about '99 and talk about the entire decade. Going undefeated for about a year, from his feuds with Hogan, Yokozuna, and others. Being the Main Event at 'Mania 13, to HIAC, his feud with HBK, his feud with Kane, his feud with Mankind, and all the way to the Ministry.

If you can call that worthless sir; then I'd hate to see what you think about a great deal of other things.

 

[klunderbunker]

Vince being the higher power and then them turing the Ministry into the Corporate Ministry was a joke; however, while 'Taker was running the Ministry, trying to "kill" Austin, trying to take over the WWF, trying to sacrifice Stephanie, hanging Austin from his symbol, and other stunts, he was the top heel of '99. Before Vince was revealed to be the higher power, 'Taker was the top heel of 1999.

Just how can you say that 'Taker was worthless in the 90s? Let's forget about '99 and talk about the entire decade. Going undefeated for about a year, from his feuds with Hogan, Yokozuna, and others. Being the Main Event at 'Mania 13, to HIAC, his feud with HBK, and all the way to the Ministry.

If you can call that worthless sir; then I'd hate to see what you think about a great deal of other things.

Don't bother explaining to me how that's a joke. I don't think I want to have an explanation of it.

Let's see, top heel in 1999.

January/February - Vince. He wins the Rumble and main events against Austin at St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Undertaker: not on the card.

March - Undertaker fights Big Bossman at Wrestlemania. I really don't think your top heel is going to be doing that.

April - I guess you could say he started being the big bad by this point, although he's fighting Ken Shamrock at Backlash while Austin has his rematch against Rock in the main event and one of the best matches of the year.

May - Yeah he's top heel here.

June 7 - Vince is the Higher Power.

So out of all that, even if you stretch a lot and say that Taker was top heel starting April 1, he was top heel for all of two months that year. Vince was clearly above him after June 7. The Corporate Ministry broke up in late July and Taker was in a tag team for a month and tore his groin in early September, putting him on the shelf until June of the next year where he became Biker Taker. He was world champion for about 5 weeks, about 2 of which were before Vince was revealed. All that stuff you listed happened in April and May with the exception of wanting to own the company which didn't really kick in until April anyway. To say he was top heel before April is lunacy.

As for the last part about Taker in the 90s, let's take a look at that shall we?

1991 - Does NOTHING until November when he wins the title (with Flair helping him) for a whopping SIX DAYS!

1992 - Feuds with Jake Roberts for a cup of coffee then on to Kamala in a completely forgettable feud.

1993 - Giant Gonzales. I think that explains that well enough.

1994 - Oh dear it's 1994. Taker apparently gains the power to put cameras inside coffins and "rises out of the casket" before disappearing for seven months. He has another casket match with Yokozuna which is more famous for Chuck Norris being involved.

1995 - The endless DiBiase feud, followed by a feud with Mabel. Dang he's just lighting it up here isn't he?

So since 1991-1995 were worthless other than 6 days, we'll move on to the first time he really meant something in over five years.

1996 - He feuds with Diesel until the day after Wrestlemania when Mankind debuts. 96 is a good year for him and he has a hot summer feud. The fall isn't as great as the heat with Mankind has died down a lot and he winds up fighting Terry Gordy of all people to end the year. We'll say 10 good months here because the Diesel feud was good but he was gone between Buried Alive and Survivor Series.

1997 - Starts off by feuding with Vader which gives us the awesome Final Four match. Then it's Wrestlemania and a title win, which he holds until Summerslam. He has the longest title reign of the year, which is the only year that WWF did not win a single ratings win against Nitro. The real top draw of the year is the rising star of Steve Austin in the Border War with the Hart Foundation. During his reign there's a show called In Your House: Revenge of the Taker. Steve Austin vs. Bret Hart is the main event, as Taker was such an important player that year that he couldn't main event the show named after him. To argue that Taker was the top anything at this point is foolish. He continues to do nothing until after losing the title, starting his feud with Shawn which is awesome. This segues into the Kane feud, so we'll say seven good months out of the year. Seriously the title reign sucked.

1998 - Another good year as he's involved in the main event feud for most of the year. Not many complaints here and it segues into 1999 which we've touched on already.

So in summation, Taker did NOTHING that was any good (that Yoko feud is so bad it's hilarious if that counts) from November of 1991 until early 1996. After that he was ok but his title reign in 97 was awful and Austin was the real star. 98-99 were good, but the majority of the 90s weren't that important to Taker, and his involvement in the company wasn't that big of a deal until about 1996.

Finally, he was in the last match at Wrestlemania 13, not the main event. Big difference.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

Where do you see your wrestling, uh, "expertise" taking you in the next five years? If you were offered an opportunity to work for other wrestling sites, would you consider it? Or is this just a hobby?

 

[klunderbunker]

Where do you see your wrestling, uh, "expertise" taking you in the next five years? If you were offered an opportunity to work for other wrestling sites, would you consider it? Or is this just a hobby?

As in a paid job as a writer for one? Yeah I'd take it. At the moment I'm fine running this place and doing my reviews though.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Don't bother explaining to me how that's a joke. I don't think I want to have an explanation of it.

Let's see, top heel in 1999.

January/February - Vince. He wins the Rumble and main events against Austin at St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Undertaker: not on the card.

March - Undertaker fights Big Bossman at Wrestlemania. I really don't think your top heel is going to be doing that.

April - I guess you could say he started being the big bad by this point, although he's fighting Ken Shamrock at Backlash while Austin has his rematch against Rock in the main event and one of the best matches of the year.

May - Yeah he's top heel here.

June 7 - Vince is the Higher Power.

So out of all that, even if you stretch a lot and say that Taker was top heel starting April 1, he was top heel for all of two months that year. Vince was clearly above him after June 7. The Corporate Ministry broke up in late July and Taker was in a tag team for a month and tore his groin in early September, putting him on the shelf until June of the next year where he became Biker Taker. He was world champion for about 5 weeks, about 2 of which were before Vince was revealed. All that stuff you listed happened in April and May with the exception of wanting to own the company which didn't really kick in until April anyway. To say he was top heel before April is lunacy.

As for the last part about Taker in the 90s, let's take a look at that shall we?

1991 - Does NOTHING until November when he wins the title (with Flair helping him) for a whopping SIX DAYS!

1992 - Feuds with Jake Roberts for a cup of coffee then on to Kamala in a completely forgettable feud.

1993 - Giant Gonzales. I think that explains that well enough.

1994 - Oh dear it's 1994. Taker apparently gains the power to put cameras inside coffins and "rises out of the casket" before disappearing for seven months. He has another casket match with Yokozuna which is more famous for Chuck Norris being involved.

1995 - The endless DiBiase feud, followed by a feud with Mabel. Dang he's just lighting it up here isn't he?

So since 1991-1995 were worthless other than 6 days, we'll move on to the first time he really meant something in over five years.

1996 - He feuds with Diesel until the day after Wrestlemania when Mankind debuts. 96 is a good year for him and he has a hot summer feud. The fall isn't as great as the heat with Mankind has died down a lot and he winds up fighting Terry Gordy of all people to end the year. We'll say 10 good months here because the Diesel feud was good but he was gone between Buried Alive and Survivor Series.

1997 - Starts off by feuding with Vader which gives us the awesome Final Four match. Then it's Wrestlemania and a title win, which he holds until Summerslam. He has the longest title reign of the year, which is the only year that WWF did not win a single ratings win against Nitro. The real top draw of the year is the rising star of Steve Austin in the Border War with the Hart Foundation. During his reign there's a show called In Your House: Revenge of the Taker. Steve Austin vs. Bret Hart is the main event, as Taker was such an important player that year that he couldn't main event the show named after him. To argue that Taker was the top anything at this point is foolish. He continues to do nothing until after losing the title, starting his feud with Shawn which is awesome. This segues into the Kane feud, so we'll say seven good months out of the year. Seriously the title reign sucked.

1998 - Another good year as he's involved in the main event feud for most of the year. Not many complaints here and it segues into 1999 which we've touched on already.

So in summation, Taker did NOTHING that was any good (that Yoko feud is so bad it's hilarious if that counts) from November of 1991 until early 1996. After that he was ok but his title reign in 97 was awful and Austin was the real star. 98-99 were good, but the majority of the 90s weren't that important to Taker, and his involvement in the company wasn't that big of a deal until about 1996.

Finally, he was in the last match at Wrestlemania 13, not the main event. Big difference.

It's so cute that you try so hard to make light of 'Taker's early work by mocking to try and make yourself seem superior.

It seems as though you really hate the gimmick that 'Taker had to put on in the early '90s. The fact remains though that people like Giant Gonzales wouldn't even be remembered if it were not for his feud with 'Taker and idc what you say, they had the best damn match at WM 9. It was damn sure better than Hogan coming in and winning the title out of nowhere. Also, you call it nothing during those years; however, if you go back and look, you'll see that 'Taker was consistantly getting the best reactions out of many of those events. Fans really ate that shit up during the early 90s and 'Taker was definitely a fan favorite during this time.

Can you really blame 'Taker that he had to work with horrible gimmick wrestlers during the early part of his career? I think it's worth mentioning though, that he got the best performances out of them that they could put on.

'Taker definitely wasn't worthless during the 90s and he's just as big a reason that the famed Attitude Era was as successful as it was. 'Taker, the greatest big man ever, the greatest gimmick of all the times, and the most respected wrestler of all the times is definitely an icon of this business and the majority of fans and other superstars would certainly agree.

 

[JamJam]

Fun question right here KB. If you were a wrestler, which diva would you have as your valet? And yes, you have excellent mic skills so Vickie Guerrero won't be needed.

 

[Vega]

Don't bother explaining to me how that's a joke. I don't think I want to have an explanation of it.

Let's see, top heel in 1999.

January/February - Vince. He wins the Rumble and main events against Austin at St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Undertaker: not on the card.

March - Undertaker fights Big Bossman at Wrestlemania. I really don't think your top heel is going to be doing that.

April - I guess you could say he started being the big bad by this point, although he's fighting Ken Shamrock at Backlash while Austin has his rematch against Rock in the main event and one of the best matches of the year.

May - Yeah he's top heel here.

June 7 - Vince is the Higher Power.

So out of all that, even if you stretch a lot and say that Taker was top heel starting April 1, he was top heel for all of two months that year. Vince was clearly above him after June 7. The Corporate Ministry broke up in late July and Taker was in a tag team for a month and tore his groin in early September, putting him on the shelf until June of the next year where he became Biker Taker. He was world champion for about 5 weeks, about 2 of which were before Vince was revealed. All that stuff you listed happened in April and May with the exception of wanting to own the company which didn't really kick in until April anyway. To say he was top heel before April is lunacy.

As for the last part about Taker in the 90s, let's take a look at that shall we?

1991 - Does NOTHING until November when he wins the title (with Flair helping him) for a whopping SIX DAYS!

1992 - Feuds with Jake Roberts for a cup of coffee then on to Kamala in a completely forgettable feud.

1993 - Giant Gonzales. I think that explains that well enough.

1994 - Oh dear it's 1994. Taker apparently gains the power to put cameras inside coffins and "rises out of the casket" before disappearing for seven months. He has another casket match with Yokozuna which is more famous for Chuck Norris being involved.

1995 - The endless DiBiase feud, followed by a feud with Mabel. Dang he's just lighting it up here isn't he?

So since 1991-1995 were worthless other than 6 days, we'll move on to the first time he really meant something in over five years.

1996 - He feuds with Diesel until the day after Wrestlemania when Mankind debuts. 96 is a good year for him and he has a hot summer feud. The fall isn't as great as the heat with Mankind has died down a lot and he winds up fighting Terry Gordy of all people to end the year. We'll say 10 good months here because the Diesel feud was good but he was gone between Buried Alive and Survivor Series.

1997 - Starts off by feuding with Vader which gives us the awesome Final Four match. Then it's Wrestlemania and a title win, which he holds until Summerslam. He has the longest title reign of the year, which is the only year that WWF did not win a single ratings win against Nitro. The real top draw of the year is the rising star of Steve Austin in the Border War with the Hart Foundation. During his reign there's a show called In Your House: Revenge of the Taker. Steve Austin vs. Bret Hart is the main event, as Taker was such an important player that year that he couldn't main event the show named after him. To argue that Taker was the top anything at this point is foolish. He continues to do nothing until after losing the title, starting his feud with Shawn which is awesome. This segues into the Kane feud, so we'll say seven good months out of the year. Seriously the title reign sucked.

1998 - Another good year as he's involved in the main event feud for most of the year. Not many complaints here and it segues into 1999 which we've touched on already.

So in summation, Taker did NOTHING that was any good (that Yoko feud is so bad it's hilarious if that counts) from November of 1991 until early 1996. After that he was ok but his title reign in 97 was awful and Austin was the real star. 98-99 were good, but the majority of the 90s weren't that important to Taker, and his involvement in the company wasn't that big of a deal until about 1996.

Finally, he was in the last match at Wrestlemania 13, not the main event. Big difference.

Since we're still at that and I like to have it kind of objective, I'll just list the number of guys who had more main event matches in each year. You know the source:

1991 (2 / 6): 3
1992 (1 / 4): 5
1993 (2 / 5): 1
1994 (2 / 5): 0
1995 (0 / 10): 37
1996 (2 / 13): 2
1997 (7 / 13): 0
1998 (7 / 13): 1
1999 (3 / 14): 4
2000 (3 / 14): 3
2001 (6 / 14): 1
2002 (7 / 14): 0
2003 (2 / 13): 4
2004 (3 / 14): 4
2005 (1 / 15): 14
2006 (1 / 16): 11
2007 (6 / 15): 1
2008 (4 / 14): 3
2009 (2 / 14): 8
2010 (3 / 13): 5

Over the course of 20 years, that's participation in 27% of the company's main events.

I'll just compare that to Rock's numbers:

1998 (1 / 13): 5
1999 (5 / 14): 2
2000 (12 / 14): 0
2001 (6 / 14): 1
2002 (2 / 14): 4
2003 (2 / 13): 4

If we compare just based on the PPVs in Rock's years (1998 - 2003), Rock has 28 main events and and Undertaker has... 28 too! That omits the years where Rock was around but not a main eventer.

 

[klunderbunker]

Fun question right here KB. If you were a wrestler, which diva would you have as your valet? And yes, you have excellent mic skills so Vickie Guerrero won't be needed.

Eh it's not like they mean much other than one or two. Eve I guess.

 

[PlayTheGame]

It's so cute that you try so hard to make light of 'Taker's early work by mocking to try and make yourself seem superior.

It seems as though you really hate the gimmick that 'Taker had to put on in the early '90s. The fact remains though that people like Giant Gonzales wouldn't even be remembered if it were not for his feud with 'Taker and idc what you say, they had the best damn match at WM 9. It was damn sure better than Hogan coming in and winning the title out of nowhere. Also, you call it nothing during those years; however, if you go back and look, you'll see that 'Taker was consistantly getting the best reactions out of many of those events. Fans really ate that shit up during the early 90s and 'Taker was definitely a fan favorite during this time.

Can you really blame 'Taker that he had to work with horrible gimmick wrestlers during the early part of his career? I think it's worth mentioning though, that he got the best performances out of them that they could put on.

'Taker definitely wasn't worthless during the 90s and he's just as big a reason that the famed Attitude Era was as successful as it was. 'Taker, the greatest big man ever, the greatest gimmick of all the times, and the most respected wrestler of all the times is definitely an icon of this business and the majority of fans and other superstars would certainly agree.

The bottom line though is this: Would you really put Undertaker on the same level as Rock/Austin/Hogan? Those are household names, guys that are recognized out of wrestling and are practically a part of the pop culture of their eras.

Can you truly say the same about the Undertaker?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KB, another question. As of right now we got 7 Mania matches. Do you see any more being added, or is this it?

 

[klunderbunker]

Since we're still at that and I like to have it kind of objective, I'll just list the number of guys who had more main event matches in each year. You know the source:

1991 (2 / 6): 3
1992 (1 / 4): 5
1993 (2 / 5): 1
1994 (2 / 5): 0
1995 (0 / 10): 37
1996 (2 / 13): 2
1997 (7 / 13): 0
1998 (7 / 13): 1
1999 (3 / 14): 4
2000 (3 / 14): 3
2001 (6 / 14): 1
2002 (7 / 14): 0
2003 (2 / 13): 4
2004 (3 / 14): 4
2005 (1 / 15): 14
2006 (1 / 16): 11
2007 (6 / 15): 1
2008 (4 / 14): 3
2009 (2 / 14): 8
2010 (3 / 13): 5

Over the course of 20 years, that's participation in 27% of the company's main events.

I'll just compare that to Rock's numbers:

1998 (1 / 13): 5
1999 (5 / 14): 2
2000 (12 / 14): 0
2001 (6 / 14): 1
2002 (2 / 14): 4
2003 (2 / 13): 4

If we compare just based on the PPVs in Rock's years (1998 - 2003), Rock has 28 main events and and Undertaker has... 28 too! That omits the years where Rock was around but not a main eventer.

2003 I would omit from Rock's list. He was gone by April and he was gone for almost half of 2001. 1998 as well, as he wasn't a main event guy for more than two months of that year. You would also need to take out some of 1994 and 99/2000 for Taker as he was injured for a long time in those periods.

Here's the thing people seem to be forgetting: I said that Undertaker was what, the 8th biggest name ever in WWE? That's not that bad. I said he's below the following names:

Hogan
Austin
Rock
Savage
Bret
Shawn
Cena

Of all those names, you flat out cannot argue Hogan, Austin, Rock, Shawn and Cena. Period, you can't. You probably can't argue Bret either, putting Taker no lower than 6th. We've spent 3 days arguing over whether or not Undertaker is the 6th biggest name in company history or the 8th biggest name in company history.

In short, I'm not saying Taker isn't a big deal. I'm not saying he's not a HUGE deal. I'm saying there are a good amount of people I'd put ahead of him.

 

[klunderbunker]

The bottom line though is this: Would you really put Undertaker on the same level as Rock/Austin/Hogan? Those are household names, guys that are recognized out of wrestling and are practically a part of the pop culture of their eras.

Can you truly say the same about the Undertaker?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KB, another question. As of right now we got 7 Mania matches. Do you see any more being added, or is this it?

Yeah Orton vs. Kane will get it to 8.

 

[SSJPhenom]

The bottom line though is this: Would you really put Undertaker on the same level as Rock/Austin/Hogan? Those are household names, guys that are recognized out of wrestling and are practically a part of the pop culture of their eras.

Can you truly say the same about the Undertaker?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KB, another question. As of right now we got 7 Mania matches. Do you see any more being added, or is this it?

Well of course he isn't as big as Rock/Austin/Hogan. NOBODY IN PRO WRESTLING HISTORY IS!!!! However, I still consider 'Taker to be an icon of this business. Damn it, if Sting is an icon, then 'Taker is definitely an icon.

And KB, I'll give you your list except for Savage. I just don't believe that Savage is or was a bigger deal to the WWF/E then 'Taker. Hell, his tenure in WCW wasn't even all that impressive.

 

[klunderbunker]

It's so cute that you try so hard to make light of 'Taker's early work by mocking to try and make yourself seem superior.

Making myself superior? No. His early 90s stuff sucked.

It seems as though you really hate the gimmick that 'Taker had to put on in the early '90s. The fact remains though that people like Giant Gonzales wouldn't even be remembered if it were not for his feud with 'Taker and idc what you say, they had the best damn match at WM 9. It was damn sure better than Hogan coming in and winning the title out of nowhere.

1. Giant Gonzalez is remembered as being one of the worst and most ridiculous characters/wrestlers of all time. If you think being remembered for that is a good thing then good for you, but I wouldn't be proud of something like that.

2. If you honestly think that was a good match, my theories about you are reconfirmed.

3. Taker had a better match than an impromptu one that lasted 21 seconds. That's some high praise man.

Also, you call it nothing during those years; however, if you go back and look, you'll see that 'Taker was consistantly getting the best reactions out of many of those events. Fans really ate that shit up during the early 90s and 'Taker was definitely a fan favorite during this time.

So were Eugene, Santino and Hillbilly Jim. Your point?

Can you really blame 'Taker that he had to work with horrible gimmick wrestlers during the early part of his career? I think it's worth mentioning though, that he got the best performances out of them that they could put on.

If that's their best, I'd hate to see their worst.

And no of course you can't blame Taker for being stuck with a bunch of hacks. You certainly can however say that the matches weren't that good and were never the main events of most shows or the featured matches of most shows. The battles with the other giants he faced were silly and not that good. No one was expecting masterpieces out of them and those that did are fools, but to talk about them in reverence like you are here is ridiculous.

'Taker definitely wasn't worthless during the 90s and he's just as big a reason that the famed Attitude Era was as successful as it was.

And yet again, you prove that you have little idea what you're talking about.

'Taker, the greatest big man ever, the greatest gimmick of all the times, and the most respected wrestler of all the times is definitely an icon of this business and the majority of fans and other superstars would certainly agree.

Greatest big man ever? I can think of a few that would ahve something to say about that.

Greatest gimmick of all the times? No. Just no.

Most respected wrestler? I'd love to see your proof of that.

An icon? Eh maybe, but not some god like you're making him out to be.

 

[klunderbunker]

Well of course he isn't as big as Rock/Austin/Hogan. NOBODY IN PRO WRESTLING HISTORY IS!!!! However, I still consider 'Taker to be an icon of this business. Damn it, if Sting is an icon, then 'Taker is definitely an icon.

And KB, I'll give you your list except for Savage. I just don't believe that Savage is or was a bigger deal to the WWF/E then 'Taker. Hell, his tenure in WCW wasn't even all that impressive.

What exactly does his tenure in WCW have to do with what he did in WWE, which is what this is about?

Based on that, I'd think you don't know much prior to the Attitude Era.

 

[SD619]

Greatest big man ever? I can think of a few that would have something to say about that.

Other than Andre, who else?

Greatest gimmick of all the times? No. Just no.

What do you think was the greatest gimmick?

 

[klunderbunker]

Other than Andre, who else?



What do you think was the greatest gimmick?

That Hogan guy for one. People forget he's a giant in his own right because he's most famously against other giants. That might be it actually as I can't put guys like Big Show or Vader ahead of Taker. Not the greatest though.

Greatest gimmick: probably Hogan actually. The Real American and the superman gimmick worked wonders for him and is still some of the most remembered stuff ever. Austin is way up there too as the voice of a generation in the late 90s. NWO's first incarnation would be up there also.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Making myself superior? No. His early 90s stuff sucked.

Fine. Agreed, but a lot of that had to do with his opponents and not 'Taker himself.

1. Giant Gonzalez is remembered as being one of the worst and most ridiculous characters/wrestlers of all time. If you think being remembered for that is a good thing then good for you, but I wouldn't be proud of something like that.

I challenge to find one reference that the WWE uses of Giant Gonzalez other than his work with 'Taker.

2. If you honestly think that was a good match, my theories about you are reconfirmed.

I never said that the match was good. I just said that their match was the best one on the card that evening.

3. Taker had a better match than an impromptu one that lasted 21 seconds. That's some high praise man.

Fine, it was also better than Bret Hart vs Yoko.

So were Eugene, Santino and Hillbilly Jim. Your point?

So you're comparing their careers to one of the greatest of all time? Really?

If that's their best, I'd hate to see their worst.

You probably have seen their worst; however, their stuff against 'Taker was probably their best.

And no of course you can't blame Taker for being stuck with a bunch of hacks. You certainly can however say that the matches weren't that good and were never the main events of most shows or the featured matches of most shows. The battles with the other giants he faced were silly and not that good. No one was expecting masterpieces out of them and those that did are fools, but to talk about them in reverence like you are here is ridiculous.

I'm not talking about them in reverence. I'm just saying that you can't blame 'Taker to much for what he had to work with. When he was put in the ring with people like Austin, Mankind, HBK, Bret Hart, and others worth mentioning, he didn't disappoint.

And yet again, you prove that you have little idea what you're talking about.

So 'Taker had nothing to do with the success of the Attitude Era? Really? Now I'm not saying that he was the biggest part of the Attitude Era; however, he definitely didn't play a small part either.

Greatest big man ever? I can think of a few that would have something to say about that.

Who? I swear to god if you say Hogan I'll fucking puke. Hogan spent much of his career playing the smaller one against many of his opponents. Also, Hogan only beats 'Taker on success alone. When it comes to match quality and in ring ability, 'Taker is miles ahead of him.

Greatest gimmick of all the times? No. Just no.

What gimmick is better? What gimmick has lasted longer? What gimmick is still widely accepted by fans? Hogan? Austin? It can be argued that these guys weren't playing characters to far away from who they really were.

Most respected wrestler? I'd love to see your proof of that.

Really? You're going to argue this point? I'm sure that I don't need to supply you with the countless videos of people like Angle, Edge, Cena, HBK, Jericho, Austin, Big Show, and many others saying he is the most respected in the locker room.

An icon? Eh maybe, but not some god like you're making him out to be.

Thank you for saying that he's an icon. I'm not making him out to be a wrestling god; I was just pissed that in an earlier post you said that 'Taker couldn't be considered an icon. That's where all of this came from.

 

[SSJPhenom]

What exactly does his tenure in WCW have to do with what he did in WWE, which is what this is about?

I just thought that it was worth mentioning that his tenure in WCW sucked ass.

Based on that, I'd think you don't know much prior to the Attitude Era.

I know plenty prior to the Attitude Era. Just like I know that Savage was probably involved in about three huge storylines during his WWF/E tenure. His storyline with Hogan, Elizabeth, and his great work with Ricky the Dragon Steamboat. Then he became a glorified announcer for the WWF/E.

 

[klunderbunker]

Fine. Agreed, but a lot of that had to do with his opponents and not 'Taker himself.

The matches still weren't good. It doesn't mean that's a compliment to Taker.

I challenge to find one reference that the WWE uses of Giant Gonzalez other than his work with 'Taker.

Fred Ottman gets on TV about once a year. Not for being Tugboat, but for wearing a glittery stormtrooper helmet and falling through a wall. That doesn't mean it's a positive thing.

I never said that the match was good. I just said that their match was the best one on the card that evening.

That would be incorrect.

Fine, it was also better than Bret Hart vs Yoko.

That's just funny.

So you're comparing their careers to one of the greatest of all time? Really?

If by pointing out that you said something that holds true for them as well means comparing, then yes I am.

You probably have seen their worst; however, their stuff against 'Taker was probably their best.

Indeed I have. Bundy's certainly wasn't with Taker. Gonzalez's certainly wasn't with Taker. Kamala never had anything you could call good.

I'm not talking about them in reverence. I'm just saying that you can't blame 'Taker to much for what he had to work with. When he was put in the ring with people like Austin, Mankind, HBK, Bret Hart, and others worth mentioning, he didn't disappoint.

I never was a fan of his Austin series but the rest is true. As for that, all it says to me is that Taker back then needed someone good to give him a good match.

So 'Taker had nothing to do with the success of the Attitude Era? Really? Now I'm not saying that he was the biggest part of the Attitude Era; however, he definitely didn't play a small part either.

Actually he did. The Attitude Era started when he didn't mean much and he was top heel to Austin for about 6 weeks. The AE was about Austin, Vince and DX far more than anyone else.

Who? I swear to god if you say Hogan I'll fucking puke. Hogan spent much of his career playing the smaller one against many of his opponents. Also, Hogan only beats 'Taker on success alone. When it comes to match quality and in ring ability, 'Taker is miles ahead of him.

Then I'd suggest you get some mouthwash, because Hogan is exactly where I'm going. His two best matches: vs. Hogan and Savage, as in guys smaller than him. Based on the idea that playing the smaller one goes against this, Taker's matches with Big Show, Kane, Khali and Gonzalez can't be counted then as they're all bigger than him. Also if you believe match quality means jack, you're wrong again.

What gimmick is better? What gimmick has lasted longer? What gimmick is still widely accepted by fans? Hogan? Austin? It can be argued that these guys weren't playing characters to far away from who they really were.

Hogan and Austin are a good place to start. Rock would be up there too as the loud mouthed jock. A gimmick lasting a long time doesn't really mean much either. Also let's take a look at Taker's gimmick that has "lasted so long."

1990-1992: Mortician.

1993-1995: Monster Hunter

1996-1998: Crazy whackjob that wanted to kill Foley.

1998-1999: Demon

2000-2003: Biker

2004-2006: Zombie with powers

2007-present: Tall MMA Leather Enthusiast

Taker's gimmick has changed a lot over the years. his name is all that's stayed the same.

Really? You're going to argue this point? I'm sure that I don't need to supply you with the countless videos of people like Angle, Edge, Cena, HBK, Jericho, Austin, Big Show, and many others saying he is the most respected in the locker room.

So your source is the same that still says Pat Patterson won a tournament in Rio for the IC Title. Got it.

Thank you for saying that he's an icon. I'm not making him out to be a wrestling god; I was just pissed that in an earlier post you said that 'Taker couldn't be considered an icon. That's where all of this came from.

Don't remember saying that but whatever.