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.
Of course it all depends on what we're really talking about.
If we're just talking about the biggest name I wouldn't really argue since I can't judge from a country where wrestling is almost nonexistent in media and Hogan, Taker, Bret, Sting and maybe Wright are about the only names people might have heard. Rock too, but not at all because of wrestling. That probably distorts my view, but as an attempt to make this kind of objective I did google searchs with the query ""*WRESTLER_NAME*" wrestling" and these are the results (those mentioned above are in caps):
("Edge": 66.2 million - too many unrelated results)
"JOHN CENA": 63.9 million
"HULK HOGAN": 26.2 million
"Rey Mysterio": 23.7 million
"THE ROCK": 23.6 million
"Jeff Hardy": 23.0 million
"THE UNDERTAKER": 16.9 million
"SHAWN MICHAELS": 16.1 million
"CM Punk": 13.6 million
"Triple H": 12.6 million
"Randy Orton": 12.2 million
"Sting": 10.1 million
"Chris Benoit": 9.99 million
"Chris Jericho": 8.37 million
"BRET HART": 7.35 million
"Kurt Angle": 6.34 million
"STEVE AUSTIN": 6.12 million
"Ric Flair": 5.52 million
"RANDY SAVAGE": 5.48 million
"Sheamus": 4.75 million
"Bruno Sammartino": 689 thousand
"Lou Thesz": 428 thousand
Granted, a lot of these guys had their prime before the internet existed or was that big, so this isn't totally objective of course. But it gives an idea I'd say.
If we're talking about best wrestlers, drawing power is probably the most important criteria. This is hard to discuss since there is no clear proof on how many viewers the main event, a special participant in the main event or other parts of the show drew in. The best I can find is a list of the biggest WWE draws of all time, published by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter in 2008 and calculated based on attendance and buyrate statistics. I don't know the exact formula, but the only guy of the ones mentioned above that beats the Undertaker is Hogan (copied, therefore caps).
1. BRUNO SAMMARTINO
2. HULK HOGAN
3. BOB BACKLUND
4. ARGENTINA ROCCA
5. HHH
6. UNDERTAKER
7. STEVE AUSTIN
8. THE ROCK
9. PEDRO MORALES
10. SHAWN MICHAELS
11. SUPERSTAR BILLY GRAHAM
12. MIGUEL PEREZ
13. BRET HART
14. BUDDY ROGERS
15. RANDY SAVAGE
16. JOHN CENA
17. KURT ANGLE
18. MICK FOLEY
19. ANDRE THE GIANT
20. DR. JERRY GRAHAM
I also looked at buyrates and there is no major difference between PPVs Undertaker or other of the guys mentioned participated in at a given timeframe (MNW: Taker, Hart, Michaels; AE: Taker, Austin, Rock; RA/PG: Taker, Cena). A lot of guys were bigger and drew more in their peak, no discussion, but adapting to different times is also a key skill I'd say.
If we're talking about greatest wrestlers, it gets more subjective, but next to drawing power historical relevance gets into play I'd say. Memorable moments, great matches, being an important parts of eras, accomplishments and so on.
Quality wise the first half of the 90's was bad for him, I'll totally agree with that. However, he wasn't wrestling that long at this point and became incredibly better, although he had a lot of big matches and was an important player during that period.
But it's not like other guys, just taking Hulk here, were much better from a quality perspective despite being (rightful) legends. I can count great Hogan matches on one finger, against Warrior that is (haven't seen house or most television shows from that time). Some matches in WCW with Flair were good as well, but basically, that's it. Of course there were a lot of memorable moments like the Andre or Megapowers feud though.
Back to Taker. Match wise it got a lot of better with time. He developed a unique "dominant athleticism" style (lack of a better word), outstanding psychology and had a lot of good and great matches while becoming pretty consistent in the process. Unique and memorable moments, good and bad, came as well. He has left a large footprint in any modern era of wrestling.
Seven world titles aren't bad, but a (soon to be) 20-0 winning streak at the most important yearly event overshadows any number of world titles in my opinion. But the kayfabe success isn't the only part of that. Being the (second) biggest selling point of the by far biggest annual wrestling event for years on end is just legendary in my eyes. Having fought most main event and PPV matches along with clean victories over almost any big name the business has seen in modern times is just shaping that incredible resume up.
To end this, just a little anecdote you'll probably already know about how well respected Taker is: After the screwjob Hart knocked on Vince's door, but Vince wouldn't open. Undertaker, being angry about that, then went to his boss and told him to come out and apologize. Vince, knowing he got an order, did. I can't really imagine the story with a lot of other guys at his place. I'd think his respect even rose in the 14,5 years since.
