Mark Madden: Undertaker hated working with Punk because Punk was too small!

[stonecoldhell]

It’s hard to believe more of you don’t understand just how bad WWE is, or how bad it’s failing. But the business has gone through so many wacky phases, I don’t blame you for not panicking. Except this seems like something beyond a phase.

As Jim Mitchell pointed out, wrestling is now watched mostly by fans that never experienced kayfabe. That shakes up the whole booking dynamic. Or maybe it makes booking impossible. Maybe disbelief can never be suspended.

Eliminating kayfabe made everybody believe they could do it. As a result, everybody tried. As much as I appreciate the characters of Daniel Bryan and CM Punk, and as popular as they were, did they really increase business? Or did their size expose the business further, again crippling suspension of disbelief? A lot of veteran wrestlers think so. I’ve been told by several sources that Undertaker hated working with Punk. Nothing personal, but the size difference looked silly.

You have to believe it’s a fight, and you have to believe either guy can win. ‘Taker was the towering face. Punk was the tiny heel. How does ‘Taker look good? Where’s the payoff in that mismatch? ‘Taker = babyface bully. Contradictory.

Undertaker never liked Punk. Punk became popular because he was anti-cena. His whole career elevated on hating Cena.

But Undertaker always bullied people. When Austin left Undertaker was pissed off at Austin because of the politics that Austin never wanted to lose clean to Undertaker.

Dave Meltzer reported the same thing several times in 2009 (Yes I know he's a WWE-mark and biased as shit)

http://www.wrestlezone.com/editorials/524837-end-of-days-undertaker-punk-more/2

 

[joey414]

Undertaker has worked with untolds of guys punks size or smaller, did he hate all them too, he worked a bloody good match with jeff hardy once upon a time so i dont think size would have been the issue

I think its more to do with Undertaker not really taking to cocky brash 220lb heels like punk or hbk, he would work with them as he was a brilliant pro but those sort of guys just were not to his taste on a personal level

 

[@smarkmouth]

Undertaker never liked Punk. Punk became popular because he was anti-cena. His whole career elevated on hating Cena.

But Undertaker always bullied people. When Austin left Undertaker was pissed off at Austin because of the politics that Austin never wanted to lose clean to Undertaker.

Dave Meltzer reported the same thing several times in 2009 (Yes I know he's a WWE-mark and biased as shit)

http://www.wrestlezone.com/editorials/524837-end-of-days-undertaker-punk-more/2

As a wise Dudley once said, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

For every report there is of Undertaker disliking Punk, there's a report of mutual respect. Hell, even in the article in question, Mark Madden admits not knowing for certain. He only states he's heard from several sources.

But, y'know, if you're into picking apart celebrity gossip, enjoy the "discussion".

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Undertaker never liked Punk. Punk became popular because he was anti-cena. His whole career elevated on hating Cena.

But Undertaker always bullied people. When Austin left Undertaker was pissed off at Austin because of the politics that Austin never wanted to lose clean to Undertaker.

Dave Meltzer reported the same thing several times in 2009 (Yes I know he's a WWE-mark and biased as shit)

http://www.wrestlezone.com/editorials/524837-end-of-days-undertaker-punk-more/2

Nice to see you actually creating an actual thread, even though you still managed to work your Steve Austin worship in at least a little.

However, you really shouldn't take what dirt sheet writers say as gospel, especially if that somebody happens to be Mark Madden. Madden himself stated in the article that he didn't know if this was true or not. And for you to call Dave Meltzer a WWE mark makes me wonder if you even know who Meltzer is. There's probably been no stronger critic of Vince McMahon and the WWE as a whole among dirt sheet writers over the past 20 years than Dave Meltzer.

I call bullshit on Madden's story, it doesn't make any sense. Taker has worked with plenty of guys roughly the same size as CM Punk. One such guy who springs to mind went by the name of Shawn Michaels, who was around the 220 pound mark for most of his career, and, arguably, Taker's greatest matches came from wrestling with him. I recall reports after Taker's WrestleMania match with Punk in which Taker had nothing but praise for him. I don't know if it's entirely true or not, but I distinctly remember reading that Taker called it one of the smoothest matches he'd had in years. Taker was feeling so good after his bout with Punk that he made those couple of appearances in the post WrestleMania season. He worked with Kane & Daniel Bryan against The Shield in a match on Raw and worked a singles match on SD! against Dean Ambrose before suffering an undisclosed injury during The Shield triple powerbombing him through the announce table

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

Nice to see you actually creating an actual thread, even though you still managed to work your Steve Austin worship in at least a little.

However, you really shouldn't take what dirt sheet writers say as gospel, especially if that somebody happens to be Mark Madden. Madden himself stated in the article that he didn't know if this was true or not. And for you to call Dave Meltzer a WWE mark makes me wonder if you even know who Meltzer is. There's probably been no stronger critic of Vince McMahon and the WWE as a whole among dirt sheet writers over the past 20 years than Dave Meltzer.

I call bullshit on Madden's story, it doesn't make any sense. Taker has worked with plenty of guys roughly the same size as CM Punk. One such guy who springs to mind went by the name of Shawn Michaels, who was around the 220 pound mark for most of his career, and, arguably, Taker's greatest matches came from wrestling with him. I recall reports after Taker's WrestleMania match with Punk in which Taker had nothing but praise for him. I don't know if it's entirely true or not, but I distinctly remember reading that Taker called it one of the smoothest matches he'd had in years. Taker was feeling so good after his bout with Punk that he made those couple of appearances in the post WrestleMania season. He worked with Kane & Daniel Bryan against The Shield in a match on Raw and worked a singles match on SD! against Dean Ambrose before suffering an undisclosed injury during The Shield triple powerbombing him through the announce table

Arguably? really, I realize that most people on this site feel that the block of "it's my opinion" should coat everything. Clearly by the morons who apparently think that bret hart had massive amounts of charisma. That said Taker vs HBK which ever match you want to look at was almost always a classic. HITC, WM25 and 26. I mean those are 3 of the best matches in modern WWE history.

Now back on topic, it's crap Taker didn't have to work with anyone he didn't want to. And Punk vs Taker was nice not great but nice. And truth be told I don't think Taker was at all disappointed by Punks size.

 

[HeroForHire]

I am more interested in the thought that CM Punk or Daniel Bryan hurting the wrestling business. One of the things that I find the funniest is how serious some of these guys take wrestling. Everyone knows that wrestling is fake. If you ask me that makes it easier to book for a show. If everyone thinks it is real then there are certain things you can't book. People watch wrestling to be entertain. They don't care if the guy is 7'0 tall or 6'0. All they want is a good show. Most of the big guys who have came through can't really put on a match. What has made DB so great is how entertaining the matches are. People love watching them. They are simple and easy to follow. There isn't a million things going on in them. At the end of the day that is what a fan wants.

 

[sMark]

Taker didn't like Punk at first, but after Punk got drafted on SD and had couple of matches with Taker, old guy changed his opinion. At least this is what i did read long time ago.

Nowadays Taker have creative control and will never work a match if he think the guy don't deserve it. He worked with Punk, Bryan, Rollins and Ambrose last year, he never would if he hated all of them. Actually i think 70% of his great matches were against small guys like HBK, Hardy & Punk

 

[achromat666]

I am more interested in the thought that CM Punk or Daniel Bryan hurting the wrestling business. One of the things that I find the funniest is how serious some of these guys take wrestling. Everyone knows that wrestling is fake. If you ask me that makes it easier to book for a show. If everyone thinks it is real then there are certain things you can't book. People watch wrestling to be entertain. They don't care if the guy is 7'0 tall or 6'0. All they want is a good show. Most of the big guys who have came through can't really put on a match. What has made DB so great is how entertaining the matches are. People love watching them. They are simple and easy to follow. There isn't a million things going on in them. At the end of the day that is what a fan wants.

I've always found the claim of size being a massive issue (no pun intended) to be questionable especially in recent years. The biggest performers to hold the title in the past few years outside of Cena and Orton haven't been really big (with the exception of brief runs by Big Show and Mark Henry, but neither of those are terribly recent) and the current contenders are either around their size (Reigns) or smaller (Bryan, Rollins, Ambrose). And 2 of those examples are still out on injury.

So whether or not the WWE still sees itself as the 'land of the giants' or not, they're having to book according to who puts butts in seats. Big E never did it, Ryback fizzled (and I think they will be a tad more cautious with this next run because of that) And Rusev is still pretty much midcard. So honestly things seem far more balanced than they have been in a while, depleted roster notwithstanding.

But to the original post, I'd agree with the skeptics on this one. We don't know what Taker said or how Taker felt, and assuming seems foolhardy. His best WM matches in recent years have definitely been with smaller people (Michaels, Punk) and Lesnar's WM match with Taker was sloppy. Punk and Cena have had better matches with Lesnar.

HHH and Taker's matches were very good but HHH is still in great shape and the both work a similar pace. Whether he liked or hated working with Punk, that match was much better than the one at last year's WM.

 

[Navi]

I'm a little confused here with all this talk of size. None of these guys are small. Most of them are over 6'. Reigns is 6'3", Rollins is about 6'1", Punk is 6'2" and Ambrose is taller than all of them at 6'4". Cena is more muscular but he is the shortest of the bunch at only 6', yet he is seen as more credible for some reason.

I think that wrestlers like Daniel Bryan who is on the shorter side of it make up for the height difference in technique and speed. Good God look at the Great Khali, he's almost 7' but I could wrestle rings around him, and I'm a woman and not a wrestler.

In this business some of the apparent smaller guys are the best entertainment wise. I would rather watch a Ambrose/Rollins match than a Reigns/Rollins match and I'm a fan of Roman Reigns. Just because you have the muscles if you don't have the moveset then they mean nothing.

 

[The Scarred One]

I have a theory on the whole "small guy" issue. In wrestling, even though it's scripted, you have to convince people that you are the best in the company. For guys like the Big Show and Mark Henry, it's easy for them because of their size. John Cena, even though he's not a giant, can convince people because of his physique. So for guys like CM Punk and Daniel Bryan, you have to work hard at making people believe that you can be champion and take on all comers, regardless of size or ability. But they can do so because of fan support, presence and ability.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The ultimate judge, jury and executioner in this industry is the fans themselves. If they care and react thusly, size becomes irrelevant.

So if they are booked to be the best, than people will see it that way. Taz in ECW is a perfect example of being a small guy who convinced people he was the best. He was on the short side but Paul Heyman booked him as if he was the baddest motherfucker walking the planet. He didn't care if his opponent towered over him, he would still kick his ass. Other examples would be Austin Aries, Low Ki and Kid Kash. These guys carried themselves as asskickers and can be seen as thus if booked properly.

Wrestling is entertainment, not a legitimate sport. The Rocky series serves as a parallel. In all of the movies, Rocky encounters opponents that are either younger, stronger, bigger or better fighters than he is. If you want to nitpick at the realism aspect, Rocky probably wouldn't have stood a chance againt any of them. But it wouldn't make for a good story. If realism was taken into it and Rocky got his ass kicked in the first two movies, the franchise would be dead then and there. The whole aspect of the Rocky series is that this underdog digs deep within himself and finds the strength and will to defeat his opponent. The same can be applied for wrestling. The small guy can make people believe if booked properly. After all, who doesn't love a great underdog story?

As far as this Undertaker/Punk situation goes, I'm going to take it with a grain of salt. After all, Taker has worked with guys about the same size as Punk in the past. So if he hated working with Punk because of his size, he must have hated working with the likes of Shawn Michaels and Jeff Hardy too. I can understand how Taker wasn't fond of Punk at first because Punk is a very honest and opinionated guy who refused to play politics and kiss ass. But I don't think size is an issue in this at all.

By the way, there's all this talk about kayfabe and trying to instill realism into a scripted industry. But if one guy in the ring is an undead gravedigger with supernatural powers, can you really look at it as being real?

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[achromat666]

Navi,

When I refer to size I don't just mean height, I'm also referring to build. Rollins is for instance as tall as you say, but is a smaller build than an Orton or a Cena. And since Michaels also fits that description and is often seen as 'smaller' the positions makes sense from my standpoint.

But you're right of course, size is entirely relative and the more fast paced wrestling style used by most of the newer performers is certainly infusing a lot of much needed life into the WWE main event.

 

[Navi]

Navi,

When I refer to size I don't just mean height, I'm also referring to build. Rollins is for instance as tall as you say, but is a smaller build than an Orton or a Cena. And since Michaels also fits that description and is often seen as 'smaller' the positions makes sense from my standpoint.

But you're right of course, size is entirely relative and the more fast paced wrestling style used by most of the newer performers is certainly infusing a lot of much needed life into the WWE main event.

Okay got you now. Size for me went out the window when Rey Mysterio beat the Great Khali. After that happened anything is possible.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Hey another thread thinly veiled as an Austin ******io job. Move along people, nothing to see here.