The Undertaker vs. The Big Boss Man - Was it the right decision?

[Hard Hit Prince]

So I put my hands on the 1999 WWE Raw and Heat tapes, and I've been following the Road to WrestleMania XV. I've already watched the previous year, and so I think I can understand some of the position of the guys better than someone that started watching only in January '99 - so for those who don't remember I will break it down for you the career and path of both men until their clash at WrestleMania XV.

Bossman was brought in from WCW to be Vince's bodyguard - he came back to the WWF not as the police man, but as a SWAT Team kind of guy and, it really made him look good. He made his return between the McMahon vs. Austin feud, so in a matter of weeks, he was already a relevant star in the weekly television programming. He was used in the Survivor Series Tournament as the guy that would help The Rock become the WWF Champion - later on, he became Tag Team Champions with fellow corporation member Ken Shamrock. He would also become Hardcore Champion in that time. So he was relegated to being an enforcer and feuding with midcard guys, or at least very unimportant guys when compared to The Undertaker.

Speaking about him, The Undertaker in 98 started the year as the number one contender for the WWF Championship against Shawn Michaels. Later he had his legendary feud with his "brother" Kane, that culminated in a series of really bad matches at WrestleMania, Unforgiven and Judgement Day. He had his Hell In A Cell match with Mankind, yes THE Hell In A Cell match. He was the number one contender for Steve Austin's WWF Championship at SummerSlam, in one of the most underrated feuds I've ever seen, that in fact culminated in a great match. Since he was defeated, he started getting bitter towards Steve Austin and McMahon (it was an heel turn yes) - that lead to the WWF Rock Bottom 98 Buried Alive Match, where Steve Austin won.

Now in the beginning of the year 1999, you have a real main event guy in The Undertaker, specially after a very strong 1998, where he may not have won the championship, but where he did had the best storylines around. He was creating The Ministry of Darkness and he targeted McMahon and The Corp. as his mortal enemy. Now we know that this will lead to the "It Was Me Austin... It was me all along" - but it pains me to see The Undertaker being in a feud with Bossman, just because Bossman doesn't have any remarkable feud or match to even be a legitimate opponent to the "Deadman". I mean, he lost to Jesse James on some occasions, so you should get my point by now.

So, my question is:

• Do you think that The Undertaker should have had a match at WrestleMania XV with The Bossman?
• If you had to choose other opponent who would it be, considering the fact that Big Show, Austin, Mankind and Rock were already booked?
• If you watched this feud unfold, what was your thoughts on that?

 

[The Brain]

I watched this feud unfold and it was terrible. There were a few things wrong with this match. First of all, heel vs. heel just doesn’t work very well. When we’re talking about big names at WrestleMania the fans need someone to cheer for. Secondly, Boss Man just wasn’t a very good opponent for Taker at mania. Maybe during Taker’s earlier years but after winning the title at WM13 and wrestling Kane at WM14 Taker turned the corner and needed a better opponent than Boss Man. Finally, Hell in a Cell was just not a good idea. I’ve always felt that Vince made it HIAC because he knew Taker vs. Boss Man was a weak match not worthy of WrestleMania. The problem is this was only nine months after Taker vs. Mankind in HIAC and that was still fresh on everyone’s mind. There was absolutely no way in the world Boss Man could live up to that. Nobody could. Fans weren’t into the feud but had at least some hopes of something special based on the last HIAC. It was doomed to fail from the start.

The real problem is I don’t know that there was a better option for Taker. Big Show would have been good but there was still the problem of heel vs. heel. Show would have definitely been more intriguing that Boss Man but I think I like Show vs. Foley better, on paper that is, the match sucked. With Taker feuding with McMahon we were going to get heel vs. heel so it may have well been Boss Man I guess. I’ll give it some thought and post again later if I come up with a better idea. Maybe Ken Shamrock?

 

[toon126]

If you look at the feud as an isolated thing then yes it was very.. meh. The match itself at WM was absolutely awful.

However I like to look at it in the bigger picture, that is the Ministry v Corporation feud, and Bossman v Taker was just another link in that chain, even though it took a spot on the biggest show.

So much of that time didn't really center on two wrestlers feuding but more the stables themselves, hence why I was mostly disappointed with the match itself than the overall feud.

I think the fact that it was at WrestleMania is what the issue is here, which is a fair point, but around WM 15/16 the WWF was using the show to develop feuds rather than simply be the culmination. You look at HHH's turn at 15, his win at 16, Big Show KO'ing Vince, it was a time when things kept progressing regardless of it being WrestleMania or not.

 

[Wald]

The only other possible match I think he could have had at WM15 would be in a tag match with someone from the Ministry (lets say Viscera) vs the Legion of Doom.

Given that I hate heel vs heel matches I'll go ahead and say that would have been preferable to what we got. If they wanted a spectacle match they could have made it Hell in a Cell 6 man tornado with Undertaker & the Acolytes vs LOD & Steve Blackman perhaps. Either way Undertaker wasn't get booked higher on the card

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

However I like to look at it in the bigger picture, that is the Ministry v Corporation feud, and Bossman v Taker was just another link in that chain, even though it took a spot on the biggest show.

That was it, Boss Man was the hired gun. But the match was still terrible and it's not like The Corporation didn't have any other Superstars to use. Ken Shamrock could have easily filled that void and more over than the Bossman at the time. Sure Shamrock's popularity took a bit of a dip compared to 1997 and 1998 but it was still early 1999 so he was still a legit threat against the Undertaker.

Sure Shamrock had a feud for the IC Title, but seeing as how the WWE liked to do so many swerves at the time. It would have been easy to take Shamrock out of the IC Title hunt right after he lost it.

I disagree about the Heel vs. Heel argument though since there are times those kind of feuds work. Let's not forget Survivor Series 1997 had the highest buy rates of any PPV in 1997 (including WM13) and the main event was a Heel vs. Heel match up (Bret and Shawn were both Heels at the time).

 

[#heel420]

The fact the you think Undertaker Vs. Kane at WM14 was a bad match makes me not take you seriously.

Looking at the 99 roster Boss Man was really the only guy ready to fight Taker, besides Show, Austin, Mankind & Rock.

Shamrock or HHH could have fit the bill.

 

[OutsiderDX]

I have to believe the reason the Bossmn was fed to Undertaker was so they go do the "Hanging" gimmick after the Hell In the Cell match at WM.

Bossman's outfit was perfect for the spot because he could wear the neccessary support and still make it look legitimate.

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

The fact the you think Undertaker Vs. Kane at WM14 was a bad match makes me not take you seriously.

Looking at the 99 roster Boss Man was really the only guy ready to fight Taker, besides Show, Austin, Mankind & Rock.

Shamrock or HHH could have fit the bill.

What? What? The match was awful, damn it was slow and they showed no chemistry whatsoever. Have you ever seen the match for yourself? I think Meltzer gave it 1,5/5 and he was very nice to do so. The match had a very good build up and it turned into a legendary feud thanks to the importance of both characters and thanks to the storyline aspect - not the matches. Nobody in this world can safely say that The Undertaker vs. Kane bout at WrestleMania XIV was a good match.

I think that The Undertaker should have been out of Mania XV, he had no opponent fit for him while he was "feuding" with the McMahons. Ken Shamrock could have been used for the match, he was a decent worker and he had a very good 97/98 in the WWF. Also I don't even remember watching them both work together. But ideally The Undertaker would have been out of the WrestleMania as far as having a singles match goes. He could have a tag match of some sorts against Vince, Bossman and Shamrock, or even putting himself in the Big Show vs. Mankind for the special referee place in the main event of the Rock vs. Steve Austin match - at least it would have been better than what they gave him.

 

[#heel420]

What? What? The match was awful, damn it was slow and they showed no chemistry whatsoever. Have you ever seen the match for yourself? I think Meltzer gave it 1,5/5 and he was very nice to do so. The match had a very good build up and it turned into a legendary feud thanks to the importance of both characters and thanks to the storyline aspect - not the matches. Nobody in this world can safely say that The Undertaker vs. Kane bout at WrestleMania XIV was a good match.

Yes, many times not so recently though. I know there were definitely a couple rough spots, but I honestly don't remember it being as bad as you're saying it is. I'm about to watch it again to refresh my memory. Granted Im a huge Undertaker mark and it's probably more the story I love than the match.

 

[Makaveli31]

OK, Taker was fed Giant Gonzalez at WM 9, Bundy at 11, Diesel at 12, Sid at 13, Kane at 14....anyone see a pattern here? They weren't going for classic main event matches for Taker at WrestleMania....yet. I think they were still trying to build his streak and give him a run of big men to put him over. Why blow the load early on 'Taker's streak when you still had Austin/Rock as the main event? His was the top guy money-wise regardless. He would've been paid the same payoff whether he was main event or not so I think we had no problem taking a backseat to Austin/Rock.

 

[#HELLNO]

Personally, NO! He should not have had a match with Bossman at WM. Like people have already said, there was a time whenever Taker was only being booked in matches to make him look over as a big guy, and a threat, at WrestleMania. So even though I said that this shouldn't have happened, this was the only logical decision that could have been made. I mean would you have rather have seen Undertaker vs. Shane McMahon, I really wouldn't have.

If I had to choose a different opponent for him at WrestleMania XV it would have been, Ken Shamrock. He lost the Intercontinental Championship and his rematch so it only seemed fitting that he would move on to other things and possibly try to end the streak. But what did WWE do but, give him another shot and not a match with Taker!? WHY? Because they wanted to see a lousy Fatal-4 -Way take place, with less than meaningful performers.

The feud was lousy and it was one of the matches that I used the 'bathroom break' as an excuse to not watch it. Also the fact that they decided to throw in the stipulation of Hell in a Cell was completely and utterly meaningful. It should be used to end feuds and not help to progress one that is in the making.

Also like others, I really don't like Heel vs. Heel matches, they just irritate me because it always ends up making one person look more like a face, because they are made to look like the weaker one. And whenever this match was over you felt a 'little' sympathy for the Bossman, something I didn't want to as I really did resent him as a Heel.

 

[Wolf Pac]

I think they should've just moved Taker's feud with Shamrock down one month earlier and had Taker vs. Shamrock at Wrestlemania. Shamrock would still represent The Corporation in the match but he'd be the clear babyface and the one you would know who to cheer for in the match as Taker was stalking Shamrock's sister, kidnapping her, and sacrificing her on his T symbol during their feud, so that would've brought sympathy for him from the crowd coming into the match and they would be rooting for him to win in their match. Shamrock was slowly turning babyface after Wrestlemania anyway, so it would've made sense if it were him instead of Bossman.

 

[The Brain]

I disagree about the Heel vs. Heel argument though since there are times those kind of feuds work. Let's not forget Survivor Series 1997 had the highest buy rates of any PPV in 1997 (including WM13) and the main event was a Heel vs. Heel match up (Bret and Shawn were both Heels at the time).

That's one rare example of when heel vs. heel works. 1997 was a unique time in the WWF as Bret Hart was a heel in the US but a fan favorite throughout the rest of the world. Shawn Michaels had recently turned heel but still had some fan support because they liked the DX group. Those that didn't like DX were coming back to Bret. The longtime rivalry and real life tension brought the fans into that feud and had them picking sides. Undertaker vs. Boss Man was nothing compared to that. Has there ever been another example in WWE where heel vs. heel worked well?

OK, Taker was fed Giant Gonzalez at WM 9, Bundy at 11, Diesel at 12, Sid at 13, Kane at 14....anyone see a pattern here? They weren't going for classic main event matches for Taker at WrestleMania....yet. I think they were still trying to build his streak and give him a run of big men to put him over. Why blow the load early on 'Taker's streak when you still had Austin/Rock as the main event? His was the top guy money-wise regardless. He would've been paid the same payoff whether he was main event or not so I think we had no problem taking a backseat to Austin/Rock.

I, more than anyone here, have defended Taker's early mania matches. I have no problem with his opponents those first seven years (13 could have been better). We didn't need an HBK or HHH classic for Taker at WM15. We needed an opponent that wasn't just thrown to Taker because there was nothing else. That's obviously what happened with Boss Man.

I think they should've just moved Taker's feud with Shamrock down one month earlier and had Taker vs. Shamrock at Wrestlemania. Shamrock would still represent The Corporation in the match but he'd be the clear babyface and the one you would know who to cheer for in the match as Taker was stalking Shamrock's sister, kidnapping her, and sacrificing her on his T symbol during their feud, so that would've brought sympathy for him from the crowd coming into the match and they would be rooting for him to win in their match. Shamrock was slowly turning babyface after Wrestlemania anyway, so it would've made sense if it were him instead of Bossman.

I mentioned Shamrock because I thought his match with Taker a month later was pretty good. I don't think the build would have been all that great as Shamrock was still heel but it's better than Boss Man. They already screwed up Shamrock's four way match anyway so they could have just scrapped it all together. You make a good point about Shamrock turning face shortly after mania. Maybe he could have lost to Taker and Vince could have come out after the match like he did with Big Show and have the official turn. That way Mr. McMahon loses two of his corporate members and the championship all in one night as the show goes off the air with Austin celebrating over him.

 

[Makaveli31]

I have to believe the reason the Bossmn was fed to Undertaker was so they go do the "Hanging" gimmick after the Hell In the Cell match at WM.

Bossman's outfit was perfect for the spot because he could wear the neccessary support and still make it look legitimate.

That's the reason why. I would have to think the Hell in a Cell plus the "hanging" took precedent over quality of the opponent.

 

[Whipwreck]

Interesting thoughts and a good thread. I agree that Boss Man vs Taker at WM15 was a below par match, and the idea that the match was made simply for the hanging spot is very plausible. It was probably all a great idea on paper and other than HHH or maybe Goldust there weren't many other options. At the time it was OK, but looking back and considering what Takers streak has become, it does stand out as a low point in the legacy of the streak. Also, had he faced HHH back then, what would we have gotten at WM17? Or WM27 and WM28 for that matter, HHH vs Undertaker 3 times is easily enough.

 

[toon126]

Just going back to the debate about the Kane/Taker match. Granted it wasn't the greatest, still pretty decent, but it just shows what a great storyline can do. That's been the great thing about the Undertaker, his gimmick and the impact on feuds he has take away from some of his less than glamorous matches, including 15 vs Bossman as nobody really thinks of the match, just the hanging at the end and the Ministry angle in general.

Even going back to WM8 vs Roberts wasn't a thrilling match, but back then the aura and mystique of Taker made him mesmerising to watch. Testament I suppose to how great the character and Mark Calloway are.

But the match with Bossman did suck beyond belief. They could have easily thrown another member or two from each stable as someone suggested earlier and made it a tag match, that way it would have allowed for a couple of the younger guys, possibly Edge or Christian, to take some big bumps and spots to at least give the match itself some highlight.

 

[RicSpade]

Personally I agree with the decision to face bossman, but i disagreed with it being contested within HIAC. Realistically the only other person who would've been viable to face Undertaker would've been McMahon himself. The problem I had was HIAC is usually a hard hitting, blood spilling match, and honestly it was contended like a regular wrestling match IMO. I get Bossman isn't a Mick Foley or a HBK, but why not contest it in a cross match and have Bossman Crucified on the Taker Symbol, because it seemed like that was the only reason the HIAC was contested just to make the hanging angle

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Bear in mind that Bossman was a veteran who had never had a "Mania moment" in the way others had or have gotten since. He had always been a "nearly" man in terms of push but loyal in the main to Vince and a company guy. The match was likely about giving Bossman one last big pay day as his career wound down and with Rock/Austin headlining he would have made 7 figures off of that show for working Taker. He and Taker were old friends and they were always going to want to work together at least once.

Bossman's push of the time didn't quite work, but it wasn't too dissimilar from Mark Henry's renaissance. Bossman was always a strong, big man heel worker who had good psychology and that match needed just that. He didn't win the belt and the aftermath is what he's more remembered for but it wasn't anywhere the shit sandwich that Taker put on with Diesel or Giant Gonzales at Mania. He didn't embarrass himself, WWE or Taker but it was an average match in an era of stellar ones, so it gets a bad rap...I hope he enjoyed the cash that brought in for him cos the Kennel from Hell really did kill his career.

 

[Makaveli31]

I think you guys are reading WAY too much into this. I honestly believe the idea was to "hang" someone from the cage. The ONLY wrestler with the attire and equipment to pull it off was Boss Man. I don't think it had anything to do with Boss Man personally at all. Just my opinion. Plus I seriously doubt Boss Man got 7 figures work with 'Taker at Mania....more like 5 but that's besides the point.

 

[wooooo]

It's been a very long time since I saw the Undertaker vs Shamrock match from Backlash but from what I remember it bored the crap out of me, the Taker/Bossman HIAC match is extremely forgettable but I don't hate it like everybody else seems to, can't really think of any better alternatives for the time unless you had Undertaker against the McMahons in some sort of gimmick match.

 

[willross]

Vince Russo said that when he was on staff, the streak wasn't even discussed or really noticed to be taken seriously as a major booking and drawing tool. They were going to end it at WM13 (as per the original plan, he was going to lose) but they changed it with the whole Shawn Michaels "injury" fiasco.

The streak I don't believe began as a creative direction until WM18 when he beat Flair and did his infamous 10 finger count after he won.

Surely if Taker faced Austin at WM15 he would have lost and well tons of WM matches we have seen wouldn't have had the "umph" so to speak.

I always felt that Undertaker should of faced Vince McMahon because the booking took up all of the top Corporation members except him. But they needed him for the "referee, trying to screw Austin" angle so Bossman was the only one left.

 

[Rulk25]

No better would have been a 6 or 8 man match Taker and the Brood (Edge and Christian) vs Shane/Bossman/Shamrock (and 8 man adds in Test and a Ministry)
Shane could have sold some hellacious spots

 

[FarFromFine]

I completely agree about Bossman getting the nod solely for the hanging moment. Also, I'm not quite as die hard as some of you guys, but was the Bundy match really a clear Undertaker win when you saw it on the card? I was only around 8 or 9 years old at the time but I remember thinking of Bundy as an absolute monster and even looking back now, with the way I viewed the Undertaker at the time, I still think he was a viable and worthy opponent.

Some guys like Bundy, Bam Bam Bigelow, and Meng always made me feel like they were legitimate threats to beat anybody even though none of them ever really won a huge match that i can think of.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I think you guys are reading WAY too much into this. I honestly believe the idea was to "hang" someone from the cage. The ONLY wrestler with the attire and equipment to pull it off was Boss Man. I don't think it had anything to do with Boss Man personally at all. Just my opinion. Plus I seriously doubt Boss Man got 7 figures work with 'Taker at Mania....more like 5 but that's besides the point.

During that time period the money was rolling in for being on those top matches at Mania, the Austin machine. 7 figure payoffs for Mania were not uncommon for those top guys, and whoever works Taker at Mania is a top guy for that night at least and Vince is very loyal to guys who are loyal to him. Remember Bossman didn't defect to WCW, Vince let him go and BBM only went to WCW a year after...

Taker has never been booked purely from an angle, the character was too valuable for that. I am sure once Bossman was selected the spot became easier but there was no way the whole WM match for the 2nd top guy in the company was cos they wanted to hang someone...Evne then Taker had a big say in who he faced and he was in BBM facing someone he had known since the NWA in 87, his earliest days in the business. They came to the WWF about 2 years apart but Bossman was certainly someone Taker would have looked up to and been helped by when he came in. Indeed, one of Taker's earliest "bodybag" moments was Big Bossman. So when the chance came, of course he's gonna work with a guy like that at Mania rather than a rookie or someone who he didn't respect. They had made some early boobs in booking Taker, they were only now gonna put him into matches with people who could go, because they'd realised that he could go... Imagine if they'd booked him properly from the start rather than feeding him guys like Gonzales and Bundy...

Bossman wasn't someone who was "top tier" in terms of longevity, but during that initial comeback he was certainly pushed as being in that top tier. Je was immediatly main eventing against Big Show for the title and he had also done extremely well working with Hogan in 89 so he was a safe pair of hands and a credible opponent who was behind only Bam Bam and Vader as top big man of his era.

It was only really the backlash to the hanging that put him in a position to be facing Al Snow...