Re: Undertaker's Wrestling Ability

[Tommy Rage]

So when I don't like something -- I'm trollin'. Right. I forgot how it works on these forums.

Taker DOES suck in the ring. So what does that mean? That means one uninteresting match LESS. Taker is an ode to the 80's. If WWE expects us to believe that this guy is really dead, or that we're supposed to be excited for a burried fucking alive match, which by the way wasn't even good enough for me to ignore the fact that it was total bogus, then they're more delusional that I thought.

What it means is that the dude will take time off, we won't see many slow, old people going around, taking spots that guys like ZIggler and Danielson SHOULD have. Get my point, chump change? If WWE was supporting this shitty "youth movement", they would build their company around guys like Ziggler and Bryan Danielson, not Under-fucking-taker and Kane, doing the same shit they've been doing for the last 10 years and doing it worse.

The biggest downer will be if 'Taker doesn't make it to Mania. Not that I'm dying to see him do what he does every year, but it's the only thing that makes WrestleMania special aside from the fireworks and the production.

Shocked that somebody thinks Undertaker sucks in the ring. I didn't want to reply to this in that thread since it was going way off topic, so I figured I'd start a new thread about Undertaler's ability, or lack of it in the yes of some, apparently....

I think you need to explain yourself. You're basically saying Undertaker sucks in the ring because you don't like his gimmick and you don't think WWE should be building the company around older guys. First of all that is laughably ironic considering that from your signature, I gather you are a TNA fan, and most of TNA's angles involve guys in their 40s, 50s or even 60s who's best days were in another company years/decades ago.

Secondly you have not actually commented on what makes him bad. You say he is old and slow. So what? Since when has wrestling been about flying around the ring? Pro wrestling is about telling a story and Undertaker does that better than most. Sure he is more limited now than he used to be due to his injuries mounting up and him no longer being in his physical peak, but when you are a great wrestler you can work around these things. Undertaker knows how to tell a story, he knows how to get fans to buy into a match, his offence is realistic (best striker in the WWE), his selling is absolutely amazing and has made many a match great, just look at this year's Wrestlemania match against Shawn Michaels for an example of that. There are many Undertaker matches when I honestly believe he is badly hurt and can't continue his selling is so good. In addition, he is a guy who has managed to protect his finishers well despite being in so many big match scenarios over the years.

So yeah, you're going to have to do better than just saying he is old and slow since neither of those things make somebody a bad wrestler. You seem to be one of those guys who thinks wrestling is all about MOVEZ!~ and overlooks the real point of pro wrestling and what makes a wrestler great. The fact that you are a TNA fan does not surprise me. For the record Undertaker is better than the entire TNA roster.

WWE are pushing younger guys and their time will come. I don't see a problem with spotlighting Undertaker and Kane one last time when both guys are going to be retiring before too long. It's only a few PPV matches and isn't representative of the company's attitude to youth.

As for the Wrestlemania comment, ha ha. You think that considering the history, the tradition and the sheer scale of Wrestlemania, it is only special because of the pyro/production and Undertaker's streak? You must be joking. Think of all the great Wrestlemania moments throughout history. That is the reason Wrestlemania is special. The name is synonymous with sports entertainment.

-----

This isn't just a thread for me and Zeven though. It can serve as a general discussion thread regarding Undertaker's ability.

 

[PsychoBlack]

Undertaker is beyond amazing in the ring. He is an excellent psychologist, extremely agile big man, great striker, and has had some of the best matches ever. A wrestler does not have to be fucking Dean Malenko or Bret Hart to be good he just has to have a purpose for the things that he does in the match.

To respond to that guy's comment of WWE needing to stop having Taker in big feuds and build the company around Ziggler and Bryan that is just ridiculous. How do you think they will ever be accepted if the older guard does not put them over.

smh at this foolishness

 

[Navi]

Shocked that somebody thinks Undertaker sucks in the ring. I didn't want to reply to this in that thread since it was going way off topic, so I figured I'd start a new thread about Undertaler's ability, or lack of it in the yes of some, apparently....

I think you need to explain yourself. You're basically saying Undertaker sucks in the ring because you don't like his gimmick and you don't think WWE should be building the company around older guys. First of all that is laughably ironic considering that from your signature, I gather you are a TNA fan, and most of TNA's angles involve guys in their 40s, 50s or even 60s who's best days were in another company years/decades ago.

Secondly you have not actually commented on what makes him bad. You say he is old and slow. So what? Since when has wrestling been about flying around the ring? Pro wrestling is about telling a story and Undertaker does that better than most. Sure he is more limited now than he used to be due to his injuries mounting up and him no longer being in his physical peak, but when you are a great wrestler you can work around these things. Undertaker knows how to tell a story, he knows how to get fans to buy into a match, his offence is realistic (best striker in the WWE), his selling is absolutely amazing and has made many a match great, just look at this year's Wrestlemania match against Shawn Michaels for an example of that. There are many Undertaker matches when I honestly believe he is badly hurt and can't continue his selling is so good. In addition, he is a guy who has managed to protect his finishers well despite being in so many big match scenarios over the years.

So yeah, you're going to have to do better than just saying he is old and slow since neither of those things make somebody a bad wrestler. You seem to be one of those guys who thinks wrestling is all about MOVEZ!~ and overlooks the real point of pro wrestling and what makes a wrestler great. The fact that you are a TNA fan does not surprise me. For the record Undertaker is better than the entire TNA roster.

WWE are pushing younger guys and their time will come. I don't see a problem with spotlighting Undertaker and Kane one last time when both guys are going to be retiring before too long. It's only a few PPV matches and isn't representative of the company's attitude to youth.

As for the Wrestlemania comment, ha ha. You think that considering the history, the tradition and the sheer scale of Wrestlemania, it is only special because of the pyro/production and Undertaker's streak? You must be joking. Think of all the great Wrestlemania moments throughout history. That is the reason Wrestlemania is special. The name is synonymous with sports entertainment.

-----

This isn't just a thread for me and Zeven though. It can serve as a general discussion thread regarding Undertaker's ability.

Well I don't think he's that great anymore either. Can he sell a match, yes he can, but please, his best days are far behind him. He has a very limited move set and you can almost choreograph his matches from beginning to end.

Don't get me wrong, physiologically he's one of the best in the business and that's what keeps his mystique alive, but yes he is getting older and slower.

As for the Mania match with HBK, it was great, that was thanks to the build and the fact that, quite frankly the rest of the card didn't live up to the standards of a Wrestlemania card. It kind of stunk. The only thing that I look forward too at Mania is the "streak" and will he keep it alive. Too many PPV's with no time to build between them has ruined the whole show for me for a couple of years now.

What pisses me off out your whole post is the TNA references. Since when can't you be a fan of both companies? Or wrestling in general. Why does this always come down to a WWE vs TNA battle, when it really shouldn't?

 

[FPSRussia]

I was trying to explain this to multiple people yesterday during a chat-room.

It doesn't matter if Undertaker is declining in his wrestling ability, he can work the mic and work the crowd, and that's what makes a main-eventer.

It doesn't matter if you can only do 5 moves, if you can work the mic, you're going to be well off in the upper mid-card, main-event, and that's the way it should be.

They said Harris and McGillicutty future main-eventers, I can't see it, not only with their looks, but with their charisma/mic skills.

Harris looks, well, for the better word, fat, Big Show looked fat, but at least he was tall, Harris is just short and fat.

Whenever I look at McGillicutty, I think of Jamie Noble, not to mention he's not very convincing in the ring.

They responded with, "They're both liked in the upper levels, so they'll be a main-event."

I had to take the time and explain to them that Drew McIntyre is well liked in the upper levels, yet he has no mic skills at all, and he's flopped in everything he's been put in so far, needless to say, they decided I was right and decided to kick me from the chat room.

Undertaker DESERVES to be in the main-event, he's been in the company his whole life, he's a great psychologist, and when he hits someone with a strike, it looks like it hurts, and it looks like it hurts A LOT.

 

[Yarrie]

Whilst I have never been a Taker Fan, and feel he is over rated (like HBK saying he didn't think anyone deserved more money than him except Undertaker (in the 90s)!! WTF!!! HBK is king), I dont think it is fair to say he sucks. He is an icon, his undefeated streak is legendary (even though I find it offensive he beat HBK twice!!!), and he is good on the mic and good at enticing the crowds. As for the buried alive match, of course most people dont believe he is buried alive, but maybe some kids do, and they magic of not knowing if wrestling is real or not is incredible. You are a sad bitter man, you should go watch some young fast fit wrestlers like Rick Flair on TNA and leave sad old Undertaker alone....

 

[DX rules]

He is the most RESPECTED wrestler of all time. On top of that he is the GODFATHER of wrestling. So he may have lost a couple of steps and his body cant take the punishment it use to but his mic work is still there. And he also has the greatest entrance of all time. The Undertaker can retire when he is ready too.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

Let me just begin by saying that I like the Undertaker. I think that he came into WWE with what could have been a fly by night gimmick and has made it into the most recognizable staple in WWE history. I mean look at his legacy. Undertaker has outlasted the NWO, DX, Evolution, The Four Horsemen, Legacy, The Hogan Era, The Attitude Era, Papa Shango, Mankind, The Boogey Man, and countless gimmicks that have come and gone over the past couple of decades. He has reinvented himself and reshaped the landscape of the WWE and is a shoe in for the Hall of Fame once he finally hangs it up. He is the WWE, more than anybody who has come along. He is a master storyteller both in and out of the ring and captures the attention span of both young and old.

Now with that said, I have to agree that the Undertaker does suck. But not that his skills or gimmick has anything to do with that. I think that the Undertaker sucks because of how injury prone he is. I mean, you can not deny that The Undertaker gimmick is like a treat because UT spend so much time on the mend from injuries that he has compiled over the years. There is no reason why UT should not have just as many title reigns or even more than Triple H. But it's hard to slap the title on him because he the injury bug seems to bite him whenever he is in a major program. And maybe it's the inexperience of the people he's worked with or just that his body was so injured in the 80's trying to prove his worth, but UT can barely make it through a long term program without having to take time off or getting prematurely injured.

And it's a shame because Undertaker is a company man. A man who is willing to do whatever is best for the company. Whether is be laying down to give a rub to a newcomer, coming back early from an injury to help ratings, or taking the lead and being the champ. He puts the company before himself. And you really have to wonder if being injury prone will put a dent in his legacy when future generations look back at him the way we look back at Hogan or Flair. But regardless, he is one of the greatest who ever stepped into the ring.

 

[saladin01]

Taker is THE best pure striker in wwe today, look at his age, size tell me if he sucks, he can wrestle better than half of the wwe roster, move faster, leap higher and talk better than most of them and to think wwe shouldn't center around guys like him then there's something wrong with wrestling fans.

sad old Undertaker alone....

Oh yea he's sad alright. With a WWE payroll like his and a wife like her, oh i'm sure he's really sad.

And at that Zeven dude, oh yea, he's a moron.

 

[ThePeoplesChampion]

So WWE is building around "old farts"......hello TNA is a damn nursing home!...Ric Flair is all i have to say honestly..im not trying to bash TNA though...first off WWE is mixing quite well old and young talent...wrestlers like Edge, Taker, Mysterio have blended well with younger ones such as Sheamus, Wade Barrett, and Randy Orton (age wise young)....now on subject now...Undertaker hasnt had a good match?...hello two match of the years in a row at Wrestlemania with fellow old fart Shawn Michaels! also had a great match with Randy Orton at Mania as well...granted he is older and he isnt at his best at times the man can still out wrestle more than half the wrestlers in TNA's and for that matter WWE's roster...He main events because he is entertaining and good in the ring...now onto wrestlemania...yupp Hogan (who is in TNA) slam Andre totally lame as hell....Brett Hart vs. Shawn Michaels in the ironman borefest.....Rock vs. Hogan so little i barley remember it....Eddie and Chris beniot's title hug disgusting....your so right Mania is only good for fireworks!.....like Rick James said Cocaine is a hell of a drug the "smart" guy who said Taker sucks, WWE only uses old people and Mania sucks must Know that for a fact

 

[Undertaker the 5th]

Hell yeah he can wrestle. Why do you want a boring ass DB to be built as a bigger star than Taker? Dolph will end up being one of those midcard-main eventer types. He is old and I think most superstars have predictable matches, but we still watch. It's like a Pokemon game, they are all the same, yet people keep buying them. Why? Because that's what we like. He ain't Kurt Angle, but he can put on a good show.

 

[Aotearoa (Bushwacker)]

Yeah he sux in the ring, old, slow etc. etc. etc. But he's the Undertaker. I still mark out for him and still buy a pay-per-view with him in it cause he's the Undertaker.

 

[Jackal960]

Undertaker has great in ring ability. And i mean GREAT!

By saying that you need to compare apples with apples. Undertaker is a "big man" not small or not middle, he is big for an average wrestler. So you can't expect him to move like Rey Mysterio. Whoever your great wrestler is, think of him with Undertaker's size and just imagine how his size would limit him.

Now think of the big men from the past and present, how many of them really move fast as Undertaker? How many of them can dive outside the ring like he did against Micheals. Kane? Big Show? Just think... How many of them use the ropes?

It can be boring for you to watch a big man, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have in ring ability. If you want to watch wrestling of guys who just jump everywhere you should have watched WCW cruiserweights.

Undertaker's in-ring ability is great considering the limitations that his body gives him.

 

[Klown_Karnage]

I have to say it's rather silly to say that 'Taker sucks in the ring, especially given what we've had to compare him to, but that's another argument. I'd like to assert that The Undertaker does not suck in or out of the ring. Many reasons have already been expressed, but I think one more needs to be addressed.

The Undertaker is one of the best wrestlers that the WWE has or has ever had in terms of versatility in his move set. It's obvious he can fight "like a big man" with various power moves, slams, throws, etc. but he can also take it to the mat, go for almost an MMA feel at times, sheer out and out brawl, go hardcore from time to time, and even take the top rope even nowadays. The guy's got the total package and in a time when, from what I've seen from many wrestlers, getting it close is considered good enough.

And all of that is considering how old 'Taker is in the business, which makes it even more impressive. Face it, folks. Even now, The Undertaker is fully worthy of his status as "Legend".

 

[Max Moon]

So WWE is building around "old farts"......hello TNA is a damn nursing home!...Ric Flair is all i have to say honestly..im not trying to bash TNA though...first off WWE is mixing quite well old and young talent...wrestlers like Edge, Taker, Mysterio have blended well with younger ones such as Sheamus, Wade Barrett, and Randy Orton (age wise young)....now on subject now...Undertaker hasnt had a good match?...hello two match of the years in a row at Wrestlemania with fellow old fart Shawn Michaels! also had a great match with Randy Orton at Mania as well...granted he is older and he isnt at his best at times the man can still out wrestle more than half the wrestlers in TNA's and for that matter WWE's roster...He main events because he is entertaining and good in the ring...now onto wrestlemania...yupp Hogan (who is in TNA) slam Andre totally lame as hell....Brett Hart vs. Shawn Michaels in the ironman borefest.....Rock vs. Hogan so little i barley remember it....Eddie and Chris beniot's title hug disgusting....your so right Mania is only good for fireworks!.....like Rick James said Cocaine is a hell of a drug the "smart" guy who said Taker sucks, WWE only uses old people and Mania sucks must Know that for a fact

What?! Rick James? What the hell does he, or cocaine for that matter, have to do with this? Maybe use some punctuation and I'll know what the hell you're talking about (take note of periods and commas.) Undertaker is getting up there. His matches decreasing in value, but his ability to draw is staying put. He knows what he's doing. And WWE, in the 20+ years I've been watching them, know what to do with him. He's their go to. Their staple. But god damn don't put down WM3!! You're nuts if you don't think Hogan slamming Andre isn't the most iconic moment in wrestling history. Also, what don't you get about the Iron Man Match being 60 minutes long, the build up to it, and the pay off of it being the reason HBK's 1st reign meant something? Yikes, you're like, the reason I hate coming on these boards. All opinion, no (yes I said no) knowledge.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I think Taker's great, or at least he has been for the vast majority of his time in the WWE. I do think that the injuries have really taken their toll on him, especially over the past year or two, and he's definitely not on the same level he was 3 years ago. But for anyone to say that he sucks is pure and utter nonsense.

A lot of younger fans today only think a wrestler is good if he flips around all over the ring or wrestles on barbed wire or gets cut open every other match that he's in. The Undertaker has always been a wrestler that can tell a good story during matches and the psychology of his character has as much to do with the success he's had as anything else.

Taker has had bad matches in his career, every wrestler has and anyone that says otherwise is either a damn fool or a liar. He's been stuck in some shit feuds against some shit opponents in his career as well. However, one way of telling if somebody is a great wrestler is if they're able to make you care about what feud they're in and who they're involved in it with even if it turns out to be shit. Undertaker/Kamala, Undertaker/Giant Gonzalez, Undertaker/King Mabel, Undertaker/Kama were all shit feuds in which Taker was paired with some of the worst wrestlers to set foot in the WWE in the past 20 years. But, Taker was ALWAYS able to make fans care about these feuds even though his opponents weren't exactly top of the line.

As far as Taker in the ring goes, I don't see what the problem is. Especially over the past 10 years or so, Taker has had a lot of great matches. If someone wants to complain about the wrestling ability of a guy roughly the same size as The Undertaker, I'd target Kevin Nash. Sure, Nash is in his 50s and has had so many surgeries that he can barely move around the ring. The problem is that Nash was still slow as hell and could barely move around the ring when he was in his 30s.

 

[Chess]

So WWE is building around "old farts"......hello TNA is a damn nursing home!...Ric Flair is all i have to say honestly..im not trying to bash TNA though

Ric Flair is fucking awesome and makes TNA a whole lot better, best ever on the mic. Take a look at who is champions in both companies before bitching.

Anyway back to the Undertaker.

Taker has been and always will be a legend. Having said that watching the undertaker now is a really hard task. His matches are extremely slow, and rarely actually have any wrestling in them, they are simply slow street fights with only punches. The last "great" match he had was with HBK, he will never reach these heights again.

I love Taker but the only interesting thing he does now is his Wrestlemania entrance. Please retire once you have the 20-0 streak

 

[Reddannihilation]

Shocked that somebody thinks Undertaker sucks in the ring. I didn't want to reply to this in that thread since it was going way off topic, so I figured I'd start a new thread about Undertaler's ability, or lack of it in the yes of some, apparently....

Lol you're quite butthurt, you actually tried to call Zeven out by making a thread in a section you'd know a bunch of WWE fans would jump on to support you. Maybe you should be a man and take it up with him via PM.

I think you need to explain yourself. You're basically saying Undertaker sucks in the ring because you don't like his gimmick and you don't think WWE should be building the company around older guys. First of all that is laughably ironic considering that from your signature, I gather you are a TNA fan, and most of TNA's angles involve guys in their 40s, 50s or even 60s who's best days were in another company years/decades ago.

LOL I believe his point is that the WWE's supposed "youth movement" is full of shit because their most prominent story centres around 3 guys all over 40.

Secondly you have not actually commented on what makes him bad. You say he is old and slow. So what? Since when has wrestling been about flying around the ring? Pro wrestling is about telling a story and Undertaker does that better than most. Sure he is more limited now than he used to be due to his injuries mounting up and him no longer being in his physical peak, but when you are a great wrestler you can work around these things. Undertaker knows how to tell a story, he knows how to get fans to buy into a match, his offence is realistic (best striker in the WWE), his selling is absolutely amazing and has made many a match great, just look at this year's Wrestlemania match against Shawn Michaels for an example of that. There are many Undertaker matches when I honestly believe he is badly hurt and can't continue his selling is so good. In addition, he is a guy who has managed to protect his finishers well despite being in so many big match scenarios over the years.

Someone needs to take Vince's cock out of his mouth, that whole "best pure striker" thing is laughable, Undertaker couldn't throw a punch to save his life in a real fight. Those matches against Michaels are grossly overrated as is the Undertaker.

So yeah, you're going to have to do better than just saying he is old and slow since neither of those things make somebody a bad wrestler. You seem to be one of those guys who thinks wrestling is all about MOVEZ!~ and overlooks the real point of pro wrestling and what makes a wrestler great. The fact that you are a TNA fan does not surprise me.

LOL someone who nows nothing about TNA bitching about TNA, there's a new angle. It's rather amusing he knocked the Undertaker and your immediate defence is "Well TNA SUX!!!!" Actually counter his points dumbass.

For the record Undertaker is better than the entire TNA roster.

Bahahahahaha no he isn't. Kurt Angle has always been better than the Undertaker, same with Hogan, Nash, Sting, etc. Undertaker hasn't got half the charisma of TNA's best talkers and nowhere near the in-ring ability of their best performers.

WWE are pushing younger guys and their time will come. I don't see a problem with spotlighting Undertaker and Kane one last time when both guys are going to be retiring before too long. It's only a few PPV matches and isn't representative of the company's attitude to youth.

LOL their big Youth Movement has been buried by everything, The angle set to put a group of younger stars over has been commandeered by a laptop and John Cena.

Their young mid-carders are constantly squashed by established talent, Rhodes and McIntyre both got their asses kicked by Super Cena. Barrett's push to the top is over-shadowed by this deal with Cena and Orton. Sheamus got two world title reigns and now he's down to fighting Santino, Swagger had his reign and now he's nothing. Ziggler's been in IC title hell for the past 2 years, Danielson got his ass kicked twice by the guy who just jobbed to Santino.

They've devalued their tag titles again, to a point less than zero which previously I believed was impossible. So yeah, go YOUTH MOVEMENT.

As for the Wrestlemania comment, ha ha. You think that considering the history, the tradition and the sheer scale of Wrestlemania, it is only special because of the pyro/production and Undertaker's streak? You must be joking. Think of all the great Wrestlemania moments throughout history. That is the reason Wrestlemania is special. The name is synonymous with sports entertainment.

Wrestlemania's been shit for years, due in part to the WWE's inability to offer good match ups. The last 2 years have relied exclusively on the Undertaker's streak to sell.

-----

This isn't just a thread for me and Zeven though. It can serve as a general discussion thread regarding Undertaker's ability.

The Undertaker has been on a downward spiral for years, his best years are overrated as it is, but since his return in 2004 he's been terrible. His latest appearances have lead to broken bones and surgery, he shouldn't be wrestling anymore because every time he does he ends up hurt and on the shelf. Undertaker sucks, deal with it.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

This is bizarre, I clicked on the forum link wondering what the main arguments were going to be, and it's crazy how many hard-line stances there are; "Taker Sucks!" "Taker's better than all of TNA"

Are Taker's best years behind him? Yes. There's only so much time that a human performer can keep up the 'Immortal' figure convincingly before injuries, fatigue and other factors come into play. The fact he's been able to keep it up for so long and still remain one of the biggest draws in the business is testament to how much he's done for the company.

Remember also that he's been facing Kane for the past 3 PPVs. Now whatever you think of Kane's in-ring ability, the fact is he is almost 7 feet tall and over 300 pounds. A match with anyone falling into that category is always going to take a lot out of the competitor, and Taker's been doing this with an injured shoulder which he's probably hurt more by not getting it seen to earlier.

Taker's near the end of his career, he's been a part of some amazing and hellacious matches that have taken their toll on his body forcing him to slow down and limit his moveset. Does he suck? No, he's getting old

 

[therealblob]

As someone who first saw the Undertaker wrestle the Giant Gonzalez I have to say that there is no-one better who always puts the wrestling business first. I have always been struck at how he constantly connects with the fans by following that tradition of building a storyline, seeing it through to the end and more often than not helping one or more wrestlers get more airtime, improve their mic skills and improve their standing amongst the wrestling world. The number of wrestlers he has helped along the way especially during his time on Smackdown has been, pardon the pun, phenomenal. You can tell just by looking at Kane and listening to his mic work how much spending time both in and out of the ring with the Undertaker has benefited him. I'm not going to name all the wrestlers he has helped or we would be here all day. I remember a quote from Bret Hart's autobioigraphy when talking about a PPV he stated that on that night, as on so many during those early 90's, he (Undertaker), made a silk purse out of a sow's ear when fighting other big guys.

Yes his body is starting to fail him, and by the way, show me someone who is in his mid 40's who doesn't start having the odd twinge here and there and who takes a litlle longer than normal to get out of bed!!! That doesn't mean he has to be shipped out to the old wrestler's retirement home, it means that he has to be given the time to heal and come back.

After all the man has done and has given to the business, and for those of us with longer memories than others, he has done so to the detriment of his own personal career advancement, give him the respect he deserves, the time to heal so he can carry on helping the business he loves as well as the fans he loves and then when it's time to hang the hat and coat up he will.

 

[Ferbian]

The Undertaker is a fine wrestler. Especially considering the very fact that he has gone through numerous injuries, and continuously nagging injuries. He used to be able to perform better, we know that. But once again Undertaker has been in the business since the 80's and have been wrestling consistently up until the latest few years, where he has gotten older and needed a break.

And even with all of that, Undertaker never fails to deliver. He might not be Shawn Michaels ala the 90's, Bret Hart, Bryan Danielson or for that sake Chris Jericho. However he is still one of the biggest names in the business, and still wrestles some damn good matches. Especially when it truly matters (Wrestlemania).

So to say that The Undertaker is a bad wrestler, and has bad wrestling skills after so many years, and considering the fact that he still manages to perform better than a good part of the active roster, really makes it out to be rather bullshit if you will.

 

[Rayne]

All you need to know about how good a wrestler is is how many asses he puts in the seats. If there's a guy out there who's getting consistent pops for a finishing move where he pulls knotted hankerchiefs out of his ass and chokes his opponent with it, he's a good wrestler.

By any standard that matters, Taker is still one of the best. He's selling a lot more PPV's then Daniel Bryan and Dolph Ziggler, or for that matter, Hulk Hogan.

 

[Chill]

His early stuff was incredibly boring, no doubt about it. If you look back on his early nineties matches it's surely for nostalgic purposes but that's about it. Imagine had WWE allowed him to perform in the way he does now instead of confining him to acting like a Zombie? It's strange because The Undertaker wrestles more exciting matches now than he did in his prime. I also remember in 2001 he was receiving awards for being the 'most boring big man' and 'most overrated wrestler' and then he left in 2003 and returned in 2004 and that is when I really started to think he was excellent in the ring.
His matches with Kurt Angle, Randy Orton, Batista, Edge and HBK were some of the finest performances of his career and they all came later in his WWE stint when he lost weight and introduced new moves to his arsenal. So yes, Undertaker is like a fine wine that has actually got better with age (although the injuries do seem to be catching up on him lately).

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I think Taker has improved with age. He was boring when he started out, he wrestled some good matches between 1996 and 1999. Then he returned as the american badass in 2000 and stayed that way until 2004. During this time he had one or two good matches against Triple H and Lesnar but he sucked for most part. Then he returned as the deadman and in my opinion this has been his best run in the WWF/E.

I think that Taker is still a good wrestler. Sure his last feud with Kane hasn't exactly produced stellar matches but that I think is more of a reflection of Kane's wrestling ability than Taker's. But its been a decent feud nonetheless mainly for the nostalgia. Its brought a smile to the faces of the Attitude Era fans.

 

[Tommy Rage]

What pisses me off out your whole post is the TNA references. Since when can't you be a fan of both companies? Or wrestling in general. Why does this always come down to a WWE vs TNA battle, when it really shouldn't?

Oh don't get me wrong, you can be a fan of both companies, but if you criticise a company for one thing while at the same time advocating another company which does the same thing 10x worse, you have to expect to be called out on it once in a while.

Now with that said, I have to agree that the Undertaker does suck. But not that his skills or gimmick has anything to do with that. I think that the Undertaker sucks because of how injury prone he is. I mean, you can not deny that The Undertaker gimmick is like a treat because UT spend so much time on the mend from injuries that he has compiled over the years. There is no reason why UT should not have just as many title reigns or even more than Triple H. But it's hard to slap the title on him because he the injury bug seems to bite him whenever he is in a major program. And maybe it's the inexperience of the people he's worked with or just that his body was so injured in the 80's trying to prove his worth, but UT can barely make it through a long term program without having to take time off or getting prematurely injured.

And it's a shame because Undertaker is a company man. A man who is willing to do whatever is best for the company. Whether is be laying down to give a rub to a newcomer, coming back early from an injury to help ratings, or taking the lead and being the champ. He puts the company before himself. And you really have to wonder if being injury prone will put a dent in his legacy when future generations look back at him the way we look back at Hogan or Flair. But regardless, he is one of the greatest who ever stepped into the ring.

His injury prone-ness is indeed a shame but I don't think that makes him sucky. If he was injuring other wrestlers then sure, but I guess this is the price you pay for being on the road wrestling hard hitting matches for 20 years. You can't expect to not get injuries when you're working the gruelling WWE schedule for that long and it is only natural that as you get older, you body won't be able to hold up as well as it did in your younger days. Obviously Taker is slowly on his way out now, but the last few years have been one of the best runs I've ever seen in wrestling.

If there is one criticism you could aim at Taker it is that it took him so long to become good. For most of his early career he was average and it was only really 1997 when he started producing standout performances. A lot of wrestlers now become good quicker than Taker did, but nowadays he is hard to criticise because over the course of the last 5-6 years he has been the best, producing many great matches with guys like Michaels, Edge, Batista, Angle, Big Show, Orton etc.

Lol you're quite butthurt, you actually tried to call Zeven out by making a thread in a section you'd know a bunch of WWE fans would jump on to support you. Maybe you should be a man and take it up with him via PM.

This is a discussion forum. I am posting a thread to create and partake in discussion. I am making it in this section because it concerns a WWE wrestler and not a TNA wrestler. Does this seem logical? I think it does. The whole TNA thing is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with company vs company. I only brought up TNA because some of the things the guy said were hilariously ironic in light of his signature. The idea of "being a man" on the internet is laughable, but if such a concept does exist, then I would suggest that stating an opinion, or indeed criticising one, out in the open would be more "e-manly" than doing it via PM. This way he and everybody else who disagrees can jump on me.

I'm butthurt yet you are the one taking things personally.

LOL I believe his point is that the WWE's supposed "youth movement" is full of shit because their most prominent story centres around 3 guys all over 40.

I think that you will find WWE's most prominent story centres around a group of rookies who weren't even on TV a year ago.

Kane vs Taker is one feud. You can't say the youth movement is "full of shit" because of one feud when so many younger guys are getting exposure/pushes.

Someone needs to take Vince's cock out of his mouth, that whole "best pure striker" thing is laughable, Undertaker couldn't throw a punch to save his life in a real fight. Those matches against Michaels are grossly overrated as is the Undertaker.

This is pro wrestling. What does a real fight have to do with anything? Being tough in real life is nothing to do with being a good wrestler and if you think it is then you can't be taken seriously. He is the best striker because his strikes look more realistic than others and therefore enable you to buy into the match more. What was overrated about the Michaels matches anyway?

LOL someone who nows nothing about TNA bitching about TNA, there's a new angle. It's rather amusing he knocked the Undertaker and your immediate defence is "Well TNA SUX!!!!" Actually counter his points dumbass

.

You must not have read my post, because I did counter his point. Resorting to flaming exposes you as the dumbass if anybody is.

Bahahahahaha no he isn't. Kurt Angle has always been better than the Undertaker, same with Hogan, Nash, Sting, etc. Undertaker hasn't got half the charisma of TNA's best talkers and nowhere near the in-ring ability of their best performers.

Kurt Angle hasn't been good since 2006, while the idea that the likes of Nash, Sting and Hogan are better than Taker is laughable. When did any of those guys last produce a decent match?

LOL their big Youth Movement has been buried by everything, The angle set to put a group of younger stars over has been commandeered by a laptop and John Cena.

Their young mid-carders are constantly squashed by established talent, Rhodes and McIntyre both got their asses kicked by Super Cena. Barrett's push to the top is over-shadowed by this deal with Cena and Orton. Sheamus got two world title reigns and now he's down to fighting Santino, Swagger had his reign and now he's nothing. Ziggler's been in IC title hell for the past 2 years, Danielson got his ass kicked twice by the guy who just jobbed to Santino.

They've devalued their tag titles again, to a point less than zero which previously I believed was impossible. So yeah, go YOUTH MOVEMENT.

Barrett has been in the company like 6 months and is getting major exposure as the leader of a faction in the main angle in the company, and has already challenged for the title. How you can criticise that I don't know. It's only natural that you would need main eventers involved in the angle to help it draw, but this will only help Barrett long term.

What exactly is "IC Title hell"? Because I call that a steady push.

Danielson looked very good against Sheamus and has made the next big thing (Miz) tap out twice. He is US Champion. Citing this as an example of WWE not pushing guys is, quite simply, ******ed.

Rhodes and McIntyre did not get "squashed", they simply lost to a far more credible and established talent. Something tells me you are the sort of fan who thinks main eventers should be losing every week. If that were the case, nobody would benefit from a win over them. As it is, Cena is one of the best in the business at making guys look good in matches. Every Cena match is competitive with his opponent coming out looking better than they did going in.

Wrestlemania's been shit for years, due in part to the WWE's inability to offer good match ups. The last 2 years have relied exclusively on the Undertaker's streak to sell.

That is always going be a big drawing point, but I wouldn't call Cena vs Batista shit or small. It was a great match between two of the biggest names in the industry. I would agree with you that Wrestlemania 25 was nothing special outside of the Taker/Michaels match, but I felt this year's Mania delivered. Cena/Tista and Rey/Punk were both great for the time they were given while HHH/Sheamus was also very good.

The Undertaker has been on a downward spiral for years, his best years are overrated as it is, but since his return in 2004 he's been terrible. His latest appearances have lead to broken bones and surgery, he shouldn't be wrestling anymore because every time he does he ends up hurt and on the shelf. Undertaker sucks, deal with it.

Back up your opinions rather than just saying "he's bad". What was bad about the following matches:

vs Orton - Mania 21
vs Angle - No Way Out 2006
vs Batista - Mania 23
vs Batista - Backlash 2007
vs Batista - Cyber Sunday 2007
vs Batista - Survivor Series 2007
vs Edge - Mania 24
vs Edge - Backlash 2008
vs Edge - Summerslam 2008
vs Show - Cyber Sunday (I know many didn't like this but I did)
vs Michaels - Mania 25
vs Mysterio - Rumble 2010
vs Michaels - Mania 26

To name a few.

 

[Reddannihilation]

This is a discussion forum. I am posting a thread to create and partake in discussion. I am making it in this section because it concerns a WWE wrestler and not a TNA wrestler. Does this seem logical? I think it does. The whole TNA thing is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with company vs company. I only brought up TNA because some of the things the guy said were hilariously ironic in light of his signature. The idea of "being a man" on the internet is laughable, but if such a concept does exist, then I would suggest that stating an opinion, or indeed criticising one, out in the open would be more "e-manly" than doing it via PM. This way he and everybody else who disagrees can jump on me.

This is a call-out thread for a user who hasn't even seen it, at best you could've done it in General Discussion or you know told him this thread exists.

I'm butthurt yet you are the one taking things personally.

I'm not the one making a thread to rally supporters to my cause, buttzhurtz

I think that you will find WWE's most prominent story centres around a group of rookies who weren't even on TV a year ago.

Nope pretty sure it was Taker v Kane w/Bearer just like it was back in 1998.

Kane vs Taker is one feud. You can't say the youth movement is "full of shit" because of one feud when so many younger guys are getting exposure/pushes.

Sure you can, who's the world champion? Orton, who's the "other" world champion? Kane. Who's the challenger to Orton? Wade Barrett but his story is completely about Cena. No young challenger for the world title that really matters.

This is pro wrestling. What does a real fight have to do with anything? Being tough in real life is nothing to do with being a good wrestler and if you think it is then you can't be taken seriously. He is the best striker because his strikes look more realistic than others and therefore enable you to buy into the match more. What was overrated about the Michaels matches anyway?

Calling him a pure striker is ******ed because it implies he can strike. And for the record Kaval's strikes that actually hit people are a lot more realistic. The Michaels/Undertaker matches are grossly overrated Michaels had far better matches in the last few years, Undertaker hasn't had good matches in a long time, these matches get overhyped because of the names not the content.

.

You must not have read my post, because I did counter his point. Resorting to flaming exposes you as the dumbass if anybody is.

No you didn't, you whinged about TNA.

Kurt Angle hasn't been good since 2006, while the idea that the likes of Nash, Sting and Hogan are better than Taker is laughable. When did any of those guys last produce a decent match?

Since 2006? Did someone miss his matches against Ken Anderson, Jeff Hardy and AJ Styles this year? Must've because those are all match of the year candidates. And tell me when did the Undertaker become synonmous with wrestling? Never? Well there's Hulk Hogan taken care of. How about the face of a company? Nope, seems Sting takes the cake on that one as well. And for the record Sting vs AJ at BFG 09 was great. And Kevin Nash unlike the Undertaker actually put over younger guys instead of crushing people in a few seconds (Drew McIntyre) and beating new champions to make sure everyone knows they can't beat him (swagger). Oh yeah and Kevin Nash during the nWo is better than anything Undertaker ever did and Kevin Nash can speak without sounding like a b-movie actor.

Barrett has been in the company like 6 months and is getting major exposure as the leader of a faction in the main angle in the company, and has already challenged for the title. How you can criticise that I don't know. It's only natural that you would need main eventers involved in the angle to help it draw, but this will only help Barrett long term.

Going into his match for the world title against Randy Orton the whole focus was on "what will Cena do" and that trend continues with the next title match being guest refereed by Cena and of course the added stipulation that if Barrett wins Cena is free. Do you see how Cena is the main point of that whole angle? Yeah, kinda like how Cena and HHH were the main points of Sheamus' rise to the top and now that they're gone he's nothing?

What exactly is "IC Title hell"? Because I call that a steady push.

A "steady push" that apparently keeps him in the exact same spot for 2 years.

Danielson looked very good against Sheamus and has made the next big thing (Miz) tap out twice. He is US Champion. Citing this as an example of WWE not pushing guys is, quite simply, ******ed.

The first time he got beaten in 2 minutes and the second time he struggled with a guy who has since gone on to job to all-star talent Santino Marella and looks to be entering a feud with John Morrison. Yeah, Bryan's looking great.

Rhodes and McIntyre did not get "squashed", they simply lost to a far more credible and established talent.

A yes a multiple time tag champion and an IC champion who were able to beat the best tag teams in the WWE (all 1 of them) are able to lose single handedly to a guy who isn't tagging and has no long term experience as a tag team wrestler. So let's look at that in review, your tag champs lose to a single guy so neither of the former champs gets over because they're apparently so weak they lose to one guy, the other guy on Cena's team didn't do anything so he gets no benefit and then the night after Cena lies down to give the tag titles to 2 other guys. Who's gained anything from that exchange?

Something tells me you are the sort of fan who thinks main eventers should be losing every week. If that were the case, nobody would benefit from a win over them. As it is, Cena is one of the best in the business at making guys look good in matches. Every Cena match is competitive with his opponent coming out looking better than they did going in.

Hahaha, no I don't think main eventer should lose every week, but I do think sending in your unstoppable battering ram against two guys you've been trying to get over for a year and then having the battering ram lie down and give the titles to someone else does nothing for no one.

That is always going be a big drawing point, but I wouldn't call Cena vs Batista shit or small. It was a great match between two of the biggest names in the industry. I would agree with you that Wrestlemania 25 was nothing special outside of the Taker/Michaels match, but I felt this year's Mania delivered. Cena/Tista and Rey/Punk were both great for the time they were given while HHH/Sheamus was also very good.

Nah it was shit.

Back up your opinions rather than just saying "he's bad". What was bad about the following matches:

vs Orton - Mania 21

It was a Randy Orton match also known as wrestle by numbers.

vs Angle - No Way Out 2006

Good because of Kurt Angle.

vs Batista - Mania 23
vs Batista - Backlash 2007
vs Batista - Cyber Sunday 2007
vs Batista - Survivor Series 2007

Batista was in them. They sucked.

vs Edge - Mania 24
vs Edge - Backlash 2008
vs Edge - Summerslam 2008

24 was the only good one, if you've seen on Edge vs Undertaker match you've seen them all.

vs Show - Cyber Sunday (I know many didn't like this but I did)

lol

vs Mysterio - Rumble 2010

The one where Mysterio broke his face and he looked like William Shatner in a fight scene? Bahaha.

To name a few.

All pretty awful, Undertaker hasn't been good since Austin left.