Overlooked Legend

[klunderbunker]

6 WWE/WHC title reigns
Royal Rumble winner
7 Tag Titles
WON Hall of Fame
Surefire WWE HOF


THis is the resume of one of the most overlooked wrestlers of all time: the Undertaker. Why is this the case? We all know that Taker is great, but why is he not considered one of the all time greats? Some of his numbers are absolutely staggering to say the least. 17 wins at Wrestlemania. Let that sink in for a second. Consider this: Hogan has wrestled at Mania 11 times. Mr. Wrestlemania Shawn Michaels has only wrestled there 16 times. Taker has done more than that and has never lost once. That's not impressive. That's insane. He broke the streak of the #30 entrant never winning the Rumble. He beat HULK FREAKING HOGAN in the red and yellow for the title, not once, but twice. He has at least 5 gimmick matches that were either made for him or were inspired by him (last ride, casket, HIAC, inferno, buried alive). He's been in the WWE for almost 20 years. I could go on with his resume, but I think you get the idea.

My point is, why is Taker not considered one of the greats like HBK, Bret Hart, Rock or others on this level? His resume is there, his fan base has always been massive, he's always solid in the ring, and he's rarely been called boring. Why is it that he's never given the recognition he deserves?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I'm not really sure why he doesn't seem to get the credit he deserves. In my view, he may very well be the best "big man" in the history of the business. I feel he's the one that ultimately changed what it meant to be a big man in wrestling.

The Undertaker character overall is, in my view, probably the most original in wrestling history. Even during his time as the "American Badass", he still got over, was involved in some big feuds, and had some great matches. As KB pointed out, he's also innovated several matches, some of which have been among the most memorable of his career.

Personally, I find the man's longevity to be rather amazing. After roughly 20 years in the WWE, he's still relevant and among the most popular guys on the roster. His match with HBK at WM26 to me is proof that, at 44 years of age, he's still a better overall in-ring worker than probably 90% of the WWE locker room.

He's never really been a backstage politician, though I'm sure he has more than enough clout to do so. The fact that he hasn't done so, coupled with the fact that he been willing to work with young guys and put them over have made him probably the most respected guy in the WWE among wrestling insiders.

If anything has hurt Taker overall, it may be the fact that he's never really done any serious mic work. I think it's helped him stay over, ironically, the past several years because it adds some mystique to his character, but the mystique is kind of a double edge sword. We feel that we "know" guys like the Rock and HBK almost on a personal level since we heard them gab so much. It's not like that with Taker.

Regardless, I've always been impressed with the guy. To be around after 20 years and still be able to be as good, possibly even better, than you ever were is greatness in my view.

 

[klunderbunker]

For an answer to the mystique thing, I'll go back to something I believe IC (not sure) once said: when Vince made Taker a star, he wasn't making a new Hogan. He was making a new Andre. That really makes a lot of sense. Think about it: Taker is over, yet barely ever talks. He gets over because of his mystique. Simply put, he's over because he's the Undertaker. Andre was over because he was the giant. Taker is someone that didn't need a lot of buildup. Just look at him. More or less he's a demon that wrestles. As absurd as that sounds, at the same time it sounds awesome. The fact taht we know so little about Taker is part of why he's so interesting. How did he get his powers? Where does Paul Bearer fit in? What was the deal with the urn? We can't answer or explain any of those, so we're interested in what they create. Combining all that together is a big part of the Undertaker mythos. By being so silent but impressive, he's the modern day Andre the Giant.

 

[RealTimewithJP]

Undertaker is undoubtly a good worker and probably overall the best big man to ever lace a pair of boots. However, IMO, to me he is the last of a dying breed that survives more by his character than his actual wrestling abilities. I'm surprised he has lasted this long. I judge my storytelling, character, and wrestling abilities. Undertaker can no longer tell a story, his character is getting old, and his abilities are stale.

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

As you can tell from my sig, I'm a huge fan of The Undertaker. He's been my #1 favorite superstars since Day One. I fell in love with his American Badass gimmick and it totally got me hooked on The Undertaker. Why isn't he getting the credit that he so rightfully deserves, to be called one of the all-time greats? I have no freakin idea. His resume is just as good as, or even better than some of the other greats, such as HBK, Bret Hart, and Stone Cold. I don't know why a lot of people don't get that. I mean, listen to the commentators during his matches. There's not a single match that The Undertaker is involved in that his legendary status isn't mentioned atleast once. I don't need to repeat all of the accomplishments that The Undertaker has in the WWE, but it's nice to see that he is being appreciated by someone other than me. Rep coming your way!

 

[Nicole29]

6 WWE/WHC title reigns
Royal Rumble winner
7 Tag Titles
WON Hall of Fame
Surefire WWE HOF


THis is the resume of one of the most overlooked wrestlers of all time: the Undertaker. Why is this the case? We all know that Taker is great, but why is he not considered one of the all time greats? Some of his numbers are absolutely staggering to say the least. 17 wins at Wrestlemania. Let that sink in for a second. Consider this: Hogan has wrestled at Mania 11 times. Mr. Wrestlemania Shawn Michaels has only wrestled there 12 times. Taker has done more than that and has never lost once. That's not impressive. That's insane. He broke the streak of the #30 entrant never winning the Rumble. He beat HULK FREAKING HOGAN in the red and yellow for the title, not once, but twice. He has at least 5 gimmick matches that were either made for him or were inspired by him (last ride, casket, HIAC, inferno, buried alive). He's been in the WWE for almost 20 years. I could go on with his resume, but I think you get the idea.

My point is, why is Taker not considered one of the greats like HBK, Bret Hart, Rock or others on this level? His resume is there, his fan base has always been massive, he's always solid in the ring, and he's rarely been called boring. Why is it that he's never given the recognition he deserves?

I agree with what you are saying but your statement about HBK is wrong. Shawn have wrestled at WM 16 times. JR even said it at the beginning of Taker and Shawn match at WM 25.

 

[HypnotizedHero2010]

taker will go down as one of the all time greats but he's not going to get as much attention as HBK, Hogan, or austin because of his gimmick. he doesn't talk much and when he does its always about sending some1 to hell. he's not the loud get in ur face type. he's more of a silent killer. could any1 get over now a days like he does using the same type of promos?? i highly doubt it.

 

[Kliq]

This comes as a big surprise to me, as I always thought the Undertaker was looked at on the same level as HBK, The Rock, Stone Cold and other legends who have etched something in the history books of pro wrestling. Even HBK had to battle just to have a match with him at WM 26. His streak is looked at as one of the last truely great feats in wrestling. I don't understand how someone could think he has been overlooked in any capacity.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I believe some of the factors are that he wrestled very slow and boring matches during his first few years in the WWE. It wasn't till Mankind came that Taker wrestled more of a fast-pace style. Another factor could be that I honestly believe he was stuck with more crap than anybody and he is still here. He was booked to fight against the likes of Giant Gonzales, King Kong Bundy, Kamala, etc. I believe if he had the Wrestlemania opponents others like HBK, Austin, and Rock had that his streak would be more spectacular.

Fact of the matter is, he has had some of the best matches of the decade with Kurt Angle, HHH, Orton, Batista, and Edge. He was meant to be the next Andre and he did what he was supposed to do. He never had to carry the company on his back and that is why maybe he isn't as fondly looked at as some of the others.

 

[RealTimewithJP]

I really like how people consider Steve Austin & The Rock "legends" and even go as far as calling me them "greats". Austin's "era" really only lasted from 98-01. I guess 3 years of "attiude" makes you great. The Rock only entertained us from 98-02 mainly on the mic. I think people give too much cred to these guys. I would call Undertaker a legend over both of them anyday. People like Undertaker & Shawn have been in the business for over 20 years busting their ass while Austin took his ball and went home and Rock went Hollywood.

 

[X]

I really like how people consider Steve Austin & The Rock "legends" and even go as far as calling me them "greats". Austin's "era" really only lasted from 98-01. I guess 3 years of "attiude" makes you great.

No, but carrying an entire company on your back for three years while simultaneously achieving the highest ratings that wrestling has EVER received does. Are you seriously going to sit here and argue whether or not Rock and Austin are legends? Are you kidding me? You'd have to be either clueless or blinded by bias to say otherwise.

The Rock only entertained us from 98-02 mainly on the mic. I think people give too much cred to these guys. I would call Undertaker a legend over both of them anyday. People like Undertaker & Shawn have been in the business for over 20 years busting their ass while Austin took his ball and went home and Rock went Hollywood.

A) Austin was in the wrestling business for nearly 15 years, and the only reason he didn't continue wrestling was because of health issues. Unfair to criticize him for longevity.

B) Undertaker & HBK have never been on Austin's level. Ever. They're legends in their own right, but they've NEVER drawn like Austin and they certainly didn't revolutionize the business like Stone Cold did.

 

[killcenanow]

I put a lot of thought into this one and the best way I think I can explain it is to draw musical comparisons. The Beatles, Elvis, Michael Jackson, Frank Sinatra...those are the biggest names in music. You don't have to like any or all of them but they sold billions and chances are you like one of them. The radio wont stop playing there music and most restaurants will play there music in the background to your meals and you may never have even noticed it. Hogan, Austin, and Flair are comparable to that level. NO Hogan isn't as big as the Beatles or anything but just think of it as the biggest of there respective industries.

The Undertaker is Metallica
Metallica's fans like the Undertakers are die hards but its a niche. fans of rap, country, techno or whatever aren't going to like most of Metallica's catalog =. You got to be a metal head really love Metallica you have to like the heavy distorted music and James Hetfields voice. Metallica fans take the good (81-94,08- ) with the bad (st anger) some might seem to like it all.
The Undertaker fans are die hards but they have to have that little bit of liking of the acult/death/evil stuff. Chances are a born again HBK fan might take issue with the Undertakers gimmick back with the Ministry. take the good with the back (american bad ass gimmick) again some sit back and seem to like everything he's done. Sure Metallica is huge and deserve more respect from the rest of the music world but its just not the kind of music most people can really listen to a lot of. The Undertaker deserves more respect but some people just cant handle it. They both had their periods of being more or less the top of there industry and most people can pick out something they've done (enter sandman=throwing Mick Foley off the Cell) But ultimatly they just don't have the widest of appeals.
Man I really hope this reads as fluidly as it seemed to work in my mind.

 

[avi01]

For me, Taker is one of the best of all time. A legend. He is actually the one who got me into wrestling. He is a big guy but not the typical guy...the matches his guy has put despite his size is amazing. He is also very loyal to the company and don`t hesitate to put over new guys.
Austin is one of the main reason WWF overcame WCW during 98-99 but high profile feuds with a heel Undertaker certainly helped in that.
He is also the most successful gimmick ever imo...yes better than Sting in that imo. The evolution of the character is simply great. And he still has it, proved it at mania this year. He is one of the best ever. He don`t get recognition as much as Michaels yeah but Michaels is another story...his career was pretty much over in 98 but he returned and is still having stellar performances. I`m confident Taker will get recognition he deserves when he leaves. He shall never be forgotten.

 

[I_Like_All_Wrestling]

Who says the Undertaker is being overlooked. He's still a (somewhat) active wrestler and there's always a big deal being made about him and the streak around Wrestlemania. He always get a phenomenal response with the hit of just one note of his entrance. The Undertaker gong is probably one of the top five most recognizable wrestling themes.

WWE simply doesn't push it on us with the Undertaker because they don't have to. When he's ready to retire and after he's gone I'm sure most people will begin to speak of him more as a legend.

 

[KillBill]

A) Austin was in the wrestling business for nearly 15 years, and the only reason he didn't continue wrestling was because of health issues. Unfair to criticize him for longevity.

But he was only relevant superstar wise for a few years. The only criticism is that he was only great for a short time.

B) Undertaker & HBK have never been on Austin's level. Ever. They're legends in their own right, but they've NEVER drawn like Austin and they certainly didn't revolutionize the business like Stone Cold did.

Wow, Really? Austin peaked at the right time, and these guys were there to help, without them he wouldn't of gotten that big. HBK putting him over started the revolution. And had HBK not been hurt, he may have been able to revolutionize the attitude era as well, he got it started with DX. Ratings wise you are correct about drawing, but to be fair, HBK peaked when WCW and NWO were taking off, he didn't stand a chance. Austin was at the right place, at the right time.

The Undertaker is great, but the problem is, is that yes, he is 17-0 at 'Mania, but most of his opponents were ehhh. Outside of HBK, HHH, and maybe Kane, there werent any other huge superstars that he beat, a lot of average or below average wrestlers. And his title reigns, I cannot remember any particular one that stands out. And yes, he beat Hogan twice, but neither victory was clean. But like I said, over the long run, he has been great, and he will be remembered as one of the best.

 

[ztwhite]

To say the Undertaker doesn't gets "overlooked" as a true legend in the industry is absurd.

In a time when wrestling characters have all but disappeared, Taker remains one of the few characters who can transcend the industry. Most guys now use legit wrestling personas instead of gimmicks. Gone are the days of "hailing from parts unknown". Nowadays, they mention where a guy attended college or what hometown he's from, despite the fact he doesn't even wrestle under his real name (CM Punk, Dolph Ziggler, John Morrison, etc...)

Even though Vince tried to convert Taker several years ago with the shitty Badass gimmick, he was smart enough to know that the Undertaker is one of the greatest wrestling personas ever created and he continues to stick with it to this day.

There are several times when "the streak" could have ended, whether it was Orton, Edge, HHH or HBK who put the preverbial nail in the coffin. But it continues to this day and will never, ever be broken despite what anyone thinks.

The man has had several matches created solely for his character - Hell In A Cell and The Casket Match come to mind.

He's been involved in some of the biggest storylines ever - Brother vs Brother, Taker / Mankind, etc...

He was involved in arguably the two greatest in ring moments in wrestling history and they both took place in the same match - tossing Foley off the cell and chokeslamming him through the cell.

His entrance is unrivaled by any other in the history of the sport and the props that have been used over the years to showcase his prescence when making his way to the ring are simply awesome.

His promo work, when he's been allowed to speak or even cut a pre-produced promo, are better than most guys in wrestling history. Sure, editing plays an important role in that, but his last run with HBK showed that Taker can cut a live promo and certainly hold his own against the big boys if need be.

When Ric Flair retired after Mania 24 and all the boys celebrated his career on Raw the following night, an unseen television action took place involving the Undertaker. With all the wrestlers gathered in the ring and on the entrance ramp, it looked like Moses was parting the wrestling Red Sea when Undertaker came out to pay his respect to Flair. If you've never seen it, check out YouTube, buy Mania 24 on DVD or pick up the Flair collection released by the WWE last year.

His level of respect is off the charts with the boys in the back and I dare say HHH even respects Taker, contrary to past rumors about their alleged hatred of each other.

Believe it or not, I could continue to make points in support of the Undertaker receiving all his just due credit, but Will may actually start to get jealous.

Bottom line is the Undertaker does not get overlooked and is most definitely considered one of the greatest wrestlers of all time.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

KB, I can roughly understand why you could create a thread based on Taker being underrated compared to others... but an overlooked legend should go to somebody who deserves that title like Ted DiBiase Sr... yeah he is a legend like Taker, but his isnt in the WWE HOF is he???

However, JR & others always talk about Taker being a sure fire legend & brag about how much he has done for the business. By my counts, the WWE talks up Taker more than HBK in the commentry aspect of the WWE. Listen to the matches these men are in by paying attention to the commentators. HBK is called a legend, but Taker is pushed more here.

BTW, creating a thread that describes Taker as an overlooked legend is like saying KB has got a small reputation bar.

 

[Milkyway!]

My point is, why is Taker not considered one of the greats like HBK, Bret Hart, Rock or others on this level? His resume is there, his fan base has always been massive, he's always solid in the ring, and he's rarely been called boring. Why is it that he's never given the recognition he deserves?

...Its silly to think that he doesn't have the recognition he deserves. Hes hugely over with the croud, and they always talk about how awesome he is during a match, that hes a living legend, etc. The Undertaker was in some dream matches, and he has exsisting dream matches with guys like Sting today. Hes a household name, for anyone that knows anything about wrestling. Any time hes on a PPV, he nearly always makes the poster somewhere. Hes obviously going into the Hall of Fame because everytime he has a match they say "This man here is a future Hall of Famer" Hes getting the spot he deserves in the WWE.

He gets the recognition he deserves here at WreslteZone as well. Proof being, the tournaments. He was in the semi-finals of the WrestleZone tournament. If I'm not mistaken he went fairly far into the Legends tournament last year (Not exactly sure, its been a while since I've read who got where on that.) He won the WrestleZone tournament last year. Come on now, to think he doesn't get rocognition is obsurd.

If anything, this man is overrated, by beating a bunch of midcarders at WrestleMania for the last 2 decades. None of his title reigns are memorable for the most part. The brothers of Destruction were fairly awesome, I do admit they are overshadowed by the likes of The Hardy, Team 3d, and Edge and Christian.

 

[Captain Bean]

I think a reason why Taker isnt rated as highly as his accolades may deserve is because he at NO POINT, has been the number 1 guy in the company. Firstly Hogan was the man, then Bret/HBK, then the Rock and Austin, now HHH and Cena etc. Taker has never been the very top guy for the WWE. he has been in top 5, maybe top 3 for his entire career, but never top 1

 

[The Todd]

Undertaker has never been pushed as the top babyface in the entire company, the other people who are proclaimed as legends all have. 'Taker has been an unstoppable heel, and a top face but never quite in a league of his own, as far as I am aware. There was always a Hogan, an HBK, a Hart, an Austin, a Rock, a HHH, a Lesnar, a Cena. Whilst he is booked in the ring as jus as good as these wrestlers he never had the same amount of attention as the others got.

Currently 'Taker is hardly ever the main focus of anything except when WrestleMania comes around. His title reigns have never been really lengthy or that memorable. Also his music has a lot to do with it. 'Taker's music is iconic but it isn't really the music to massively mark out to. When the gong hits there is a reaction, but after that there is often a silence of awe. He doesn't get the same noise that HHH or Cena gets currently. He has never been the sort of wrestler who stands up for good against evil either. His character stands up for himself against everyone. He wants a fight, it doesn't matter who he faces. This doesn't get people behind him as much.

Then there is his lack of promos. This isn't a bad thing as it gives the Andre the Giant feel that has been mentioned in detail already. You only really see 'Taker either beat someone up or stare them down. There isn't as much to get emotionally invested in.

When he retires he will largely be remembered for his WrestleMania streak of which Kane, HHH, Flair, Edge and HBK remain the biggest matches. Many of his matches at 'Mania have been unremarkable, it is purely the amount of matches won that will be remembered not the quality of each of them.

 

[KatieVick4life]

Taker actually was the top pushed babyface in the company following his title win at wrestlemania 13. That push went from march 1997-august 1997. Despite the fact that particular title reign was overshadowed by the much more interesting austin vs. hart foundation feud, taker was still the number one guy in the company for that half of the year.

And that title push propelled him into his classic feud with HBK. However, Austin was on the rise this whole time and he ended up taking the ball from Taker.

 

[Johnny_B.Lv]

The reason Taker isn't over hyped is because he is still wrestling at a high level. They don't need to call him a legend, or a great legend, or what ever stupid names Michael Cole can come up with.

Taker is getting old, right, don't bring any attention to it. Once the man retires, for good, he'll get the Austin like, Bret like comparisons, trust me.

That's just how the WWE wants him represented right now, as a fierce competitor who can still wrestle at the highest levels, not as a legend past or near his prime. Get it, got it, good !?

And don't they already say the legendary Undertaker sometimes. Anyways, Undertaker is well presented in today's wrestling product, the respect, hard work, it all works out. However, in the end, he'll be one of the best to have ever entertained us, no doubt about it.

 

[shafe_41]

See I don't see this at all. In my eyes, Taker has been a legend since just before he won the Royal Rumble in 07. Everything after the Rumble in 07 is just icing on the cake for the Dead Man. The man still puts on better matches than 95% of the roster and is arguably the most respected man by EVERYBODY on the WWE roster. When I think Undertaker, I think "Legend" right away.

But to be more along the lines of this thread, I think I have to agree with most of the people here. Here's not mentioned as a "Legend" yet because that word is more associated with people that have already retired. Stars that won't really step back into the ring again. Taker is still in the ring, he's still headlining, and in a sense, he's still winning championships. I would have to think the Dead Man has one good title run left in him. The only problem with that is Taker doesn't want the title. He doesn't want the schedule that comes with it. And for all the work Taker has put in over the years, he gets what he wants... and he deserves it.

...Undertaker is well presented in today's wrestling product, the respect, hard work, it all works out. However, in the end, he'll be one of the best to have ever entertained us, no doubt about it.

The poster above me couldn't really have said that any better.

 

[Blade]

Bear with me here, I'm going to try to write out my theory in such a way that makes sense...
I think because we have never been faced with the end of Undertaker's career, we have never seen him as a legend, but as a superb current wrestler and a future legend. When you really think about it, this does make sense.
Bret Hart, Steve Austin and The Rock weren't considered legends till they walked away from the business for the first time and we as an audience faced their possible retirement in fear.
People didn't start thinking of HBK as a legend till he had the injury that was thought to be career ending at the time.
Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit weren't considered as legends until they passed.

Basically, because we've never seen Undertaker's possible retirement, we don't consider him a true legend yet, just a future one. He's had some injuries in his career. But never one that could be career ending. And he has never stepped away from wrestling for an extended period of time like Austin or The Rock.
It's just like Kurt Angle not being considered a legend yet. Angle has had his injuries and taken small amounts of time off. But when we see him wrestle, he's still going strong so we only consider him a future legend.

So that's my theory, make of it what you will.

 

[Azrael Cain]

Overlooked by whom, the IWC? The fans in attendance? By JR or Vinnie Mac? By you, KB? I think that claiming the Undertaker is an "overlooked legend" depends highly on who is making the claim, or what we mean when we say 'overlooked,' and 'legend.'

Let's dissect this for a second (if only because I like doing so) shall we: when we say 'legend,' we mean to say 'legendary,' and in even with that we mean something/one awe-inspiring and amazing. Undertaker's resume clearly puts him on par and as one of the definitions of a wrestling 'legend.' To those raising the claim that his past opposition at Wrestle Mania should not be included, consider this: who else can lay claim to working for a single federation for twenty years, to being a multi tile world champion during that time, and to being UNDEFEATED at one of the BIGGEST events of said federation? Very few, and Undertaker is included in that small lot of folks, that's who.

Now, regarding the second term: 'overlooked.' Again, I ask, overlooked by whom? Here the point raised toward the end of this thread comes to mind: Undertaker has never threatened the fan-base with his potential retirement. He has never even mentioned it, or hinted at its possibility. It's, indeed, quite the contrary: he is to this day one of the best performer in the ring, and one of the best at what he does. The idea here is not that he is passing anytime soon, it is the opposite, that he is a current star, a relevant star; and has been for the past twenty years. I doubt he himself considers himself 'overlooked' in any way.

When I hear Undertaker, I immediately -- immediately -- think 'Wrestling Legend,' and I'll tell you why. The man has been in the WWF for about as long as I've been on this planet. His gimmick has withstood the test of time, going through small changes and various incarnations, but at its core has remained the same single idea. He has held the World Title (regardless of WWE or WHC) on several occasions, and has always delivered when it came to high profile matches, main events or anything of that nature. He has been a constant mainstay, and has consistently and solidly worked, and worked hard.

When I hear the names Austin and Rock and HBK, I think 'Icon.' And here is where I split hairs, where even I cannot find an agreement on what it is better to be, an Icon or a Legend. To me an icon, in wrestling sake anyway, means someone representative of a certain time period in the business' history. HBK started the 'Attitude Era,' with his DX antics and Austin continued it with his 'Austin 3:16,' and Rocky completely took it over with his eyebrow and catch-phrases. One played off the other, one influenced the other, etc etc. Austin, HBK, Rock, even HHH are Icons because they (1) were born during and (2) they defined the Attitude Era. They are representations of that era in wrestling, of that time, of the success it had.

Taker? He was around then, too. He was darker, edgier, angrier, moodier. But he was there, he was not made through the Attitude Era. (Granted, that is a stretch come HBK, but let us leave that. Let us say he was fizzling out during that era, and had to make way for the younger stars, so to speak) And look at the Attitude Era, you'll find Undertaker right there mixing in with everyone else that are considered "legends." (and again, by whom?) We consider these guys "legends" because they walked away, not because they're still relevant. They stopped being relevant... and have forced us, the fans, to look back at their accomplishments and wonder "What if they hadn't left?"

I agree that once Taker hangs up his boots, the IWC will sing his Legendary praises. But I disagree with the fact that the notion of labeling him as "overlooked" even comes to mind. He is a huge part of the WWE, always has been and will be until he retires. Just because he isn't shoving himself down our throats and isn't being paraded everywhere hardly takes away from his legendary status, and if anything, should add to it.

He is still there, working in that ring.
Austin, Rock, HBK? The former two are long gone, and the latter is aging gracefully.

Can the contributions of Austin, Rocky and Shawn be overlooked or disputed? No. And that's not what I am saying or even trying to do -- I respect and adore them for what they did, I am their biggest fan and admirer. But Undertaker cannot be discounted for his efforts as well.

Although, as I've tried to say in this thread, it is all in the eye of the beholder. KB says overlooked, I say otherwise. To each his own...