The Undertaker: Which Version is Best?

[Uncle Sam]

So me and Jake had the idea of this. Basically, which version of The Undertaker is best. I have a feeling this has been done before but if it has it was a while ago. I'm also sure this one will get a lot of discussion as I believe that the recent and current version of The Undertaker is the best version.

The different versions have been shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia as I have trouble differentiating between them. The American Bad Ass and the deadman, that's all I see, so I'll be judging this on time periods.

Since he's been back in his deadman gimmick in 2004, Undertaker's had some great matches: vs. Orton @ WM 21, vs. Angle @ NWO '06, vs. Batista @ WM 23 and his Royal Rumble win being the most notable examples. I think the Undertaker performs more consistently now than he may ever have done. Angle/Taker being one of my favourite ever matches I think is also something I use to base my argument that the 2004-20?? version is the best.

Results are here: http://forums.wrestlezone.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1328

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I'll do it year by year.

1990: Can't really give a proper assesment. He made his debut on a poor PPV. He made an impact for about 10 minutes, then looked stupid by getting counted out.

1991: Meh. He wasn't having good matches. His Mania match was ok. Snuka wasn't great when he was younger, that wasn't going to change when he was older. I really can't remember what else he did that year. Oh yeah. He won the WWF title. In a poor match. He was then defeated a week or so later. To make things worse he wasn't really a contender in the 1992 Rumble.

1992: Other than a lengthy feud with Kamala it was another poor year from an in ring standpoint.

1993: Two words: Giant Gonzalez. Pretty much all year. I enjoyed it. But it was terrible.

1994: Gone for months. Bad matches. But all guilty pleasures of mine. Undertaker vs. Undertaker was so good, Kane vs. Kane didn't stand a chance. Oh no wait. They were both as bad as each other.

1995: Kama, Mabel, Bundy. Need I say more. That mask was incredibly stupid as well. Phantom Of The Undertakers.


1996: Thank fuck for Foley. And to a lesser extent Goldust. He started to evolve at this point. Best year so far.

1997: I'll go more into this later.

1998: He was a fat ass in this year. Poor matches. He was carried by Austin, Foley and even Kane.

1999: More poor matches. But it was obvious he needed a break.

2000: Other than his return in the Iron Man match I struggle to remember what else he did that year.

2001: See above.

2002: I enjoyed the Lesnar feud. But that's about it.

2003: Really what did he do all year? I struggle to remember.

2004: Terrible year. Awful. The return was a total disappointment , dead biker essentially. I thought the reason he returned as the Dead Man was to get away from the biker gimmick.

2005: Ok I guess. Really depends how you feel about his feud with Orton. It was good, but nothing special.

2006: His Angle match is the best of the year. Without a doubt. Then mid card mediocrity.

2007: I'll get to it later.

Overall he's overrated. He's been in WWE for 18 years or so. So he has had enough quality matches to be considered great. But the bad outweighs the good. He is one of the only wrestlers who has got better with age. He's quick and pretty athletic now. Imagine what he could have been like in the early 90's. Such a waste.

 

[xmoshx]

im gonna pick the current version of the undertaker at this present time he is such a better wrestler then he was in any version before and has stepped up his wrestling game alot and doesnt always just have gimmick matches any more

 

[klunderbunker]

First of all it's fairly amazing to me that Taker has had 7 fairly distinct personas. I voted for Lord of Darkness. To me, sometimes the more over the top a character or a feud is the more entertaining it is, and this might be the most over the top of all time. His build up for the Kane match was excellent. The match itself wasn't the best, but it worked for me as Kane wasnt supposed to be a ring veteran or anything but a man out for revenge. All of the supernatural elements are a guilty pleasure to me still. Classic stuff.

 

[MattButcher]

I would have to go with the current version as well. The old Taker was definitely rooted in the cartoon gimmick and later his various uses of magic powers (lightning, flying spirit whatever, etc.) makes my brain hurt. I thought the bad ass character was an important step for Taker as a performer and allowed him some new avenues to pursue, but I wasn't a big fan. His current run as part legit ass-kicker and part spooky dead guy is a nice hybrid of his past work and makes it easier to get behind an often ott gimmick.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Overall he's overrated. He's been in WWE for 18 years or so. So he has had enough quality matches to be considered great. But the bad outweighs the good. He is one of the only wrestlers who has got better with age. He's quick and pretty athletic now. Imagine what he could have been like in the early 90's. Such a waste.

I actually agree. Luckily, he's been in the WWE long enough and had enough of an impact to be able to still be considered pretty highly, however. I've come to the same conclusions you did on a few occasions.

The first was when I was thinking about his streak and how many good matches it contains - I'd say three: Orton, 'Tista, Triple H. That's one fifth of the matches he's had on the "grandest stage of them all" and why, on a side note, Shawn Michaels is Mr. WrestleMania.

The second time was when I got his best of DVD and was disappointed by so many matches, thinking they could have chosen others instead if they didn't give a shit about missing off about half of his career in the process.

And then there was the third time when I was thinking about how many great matches Undertaker had had compared to others in certain years - few. Despite all that, I'm still a massive, massive Undertaker fan. I think his match with Angle shows how good he could have truly been (and has been, otherwise that match wouldn't exist) given a lack of restraints and the right opponents at the right time.

Say, why don't you tell us more Jake?

 

[Shocky]

When you take the Undertaker into consideration, throw his career under the microscope, analyze it, you have to take things with the context of the times. Also, I'm going to right this knowing full well that people simply don't like or don't get the Undertaker. I understand that, it's like how I don't understand the appeal of the Rock, or why people insist on saying Jeff Hardy is good. I don't understand their appeal, so I understand people won't see things my way on the Deadman.

1990-early 1992.
The Western Mortician. The Original Deadman. The Undertaker was created to be exactly the opposite of Hulk Hogan. Hogan was all about bright colors, believing in the man upstairs, charisma, energy from the fans, dark tan, bleach blonde colorful guy. It worked, and to standards everyone is well aware of. The Undertaker comes along, the epitome of death. A man that was completely engrossed by the Darkside. It didn't matter how much light you had, or charisma, the Undertaker had a mystical power. You couldn't hurt him because he was dead, it was brillaint, and struck a chord with people. In his first year, I don't think he was terrible. He was slow, yes, but he was a zombie. The man wasn't going to have any technical classics. He feuded with an aging Snuka, which he buried at Mania, and had some Matches with Warrior, no major programs, but it says a lot in a rookie that they put him in feuds with Snuka, Warrior, and Ultimately Hulk Hogan. The Undertaker, a relative unknown, was the heel that managed to take the belt off of Hogan (arguably he was a part of ending two of his title reigns in 1991 due to the controversy of Tuesday in Texas). Bundy, Orndorff, Savage, DiBiase, Perfect, Piper, the list goes on and on. All guys that fell to Hogan and couldn't do what the Undertaker did. At this point, the Undertaker has become the attraction to replace Andre. The character was over, and he didn't need to grow as an in ring performer. He played the character, and played it well.

1992-1995:
As much as I like the Undertaker, this is the part where I have a hard time defending the man. However, I say that with this disclaimer, the WWE, especially 1995, was unbearable to watch. It was terrible, and in fact, I quit watching because it got so ridiculously bad. The Undertaker turned face, and the gimmick became over the top. The character shouldn't play to the crowd, and he did, and it didn't work. It wasn't bad until about 1995, when the Undertaker began addressing his fans as the "Creatures of the Night" it's cringe worthy. But, I don't blame the character, blame the booking.

The Undertaker had some shit feuds with guys like Kamala, Gonzalez, Bundy, "The Undertaker". So out of those guys, do you really expect the Deadman to have a good match? Those guys are terrible, absolutely terrible. He had good matches with Yokozuna in my opinion. A guy that he could actually have a good match with, he had good matches with.

1996-1998.
This is when the Undertaker grew, and grew tremendously. First of all, he started the year off with a tremendous match with Bret Hart at the Rumble. A solid 30 minute match which led to his feud with Diesel, and a good match at Wrestlemania. After that, the character grew. Mick Foley and Goldust are pretty much the names synomous with the Undertaker and 1996. As I said, you give the man someone good to work with, he'll do wonders for you. He had solid matches all throughout 1996 because he was actually given good people to work with, something he hadn't had to that point. I don't think it's a coincidence that his workrate and matches improved with the quality of the opponents he faced.

The Undertaker broke away from Paul Bearer, and finally the deadman was given a chance to shine solo. The Undertaker had arguably his best year in 1997. Contrary to popular belief, the Undertaker's title reign was a succesful draw. His title reign brought in higher numbers then Michaels and Harts reign. When the title was taken off him, it dropped. The Undertaker's title reign in 97 was fanfuckingtastic. Let's not forget, he had two good matches before his title reign. Vader at the Rumble, and the Final four with Hart, Austin and Vader. WM 13 was okay, but the confusion of that match took away from it in my opinion. Then he had an awesome match with Foley at Revenge of Taker, his best match with Austin at Cold Day in Hell, a good match with Simmons at King of the Ring, another Good match with Vader at Calgary Stampede. This leads to one of his best matches ever, another solid 30 minute match with Bret Hart. This was followed by two thirty minute affairs with Shawn Michaels, which led to the Hell in the Cell. Taker finished the year off with a good match against Jarrett.

So I'll continue this later, but I could write a book on the Undertaker. Prettty much, to sum things up. Taker is very capable of having good matches, it depends on the talent he works with. Do you really expect someone to get great matches out of Bundy, Kamala, Mark Henry, Giant Gonzalez and Great Khali? No one can.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I will admit that I very much enjoyed the American Badass becuase of his patriotic undertones. And I enjoyed the first iteration of the Undertaker, not only for his ability to play it, but this was during the timeframe when Bobby Heenan was calling the action for the WWE, and there are very few better worker/commentator combos than Old Take ad Heenan. Bobby was just fantastic whnever calling a young undertaker match.

But the best over all id say is the current phenom iteration. Great agility, striking, and even submission techniques now, he is almost like a mystical dead MMA fighter. Id also say his workrate is FAR more consistently solid now than back then. Not that he was ever a bad worker, but his matches are far more consistenly entertaining nowadays.

 

[RVDgurl]

The Undertaker is one of my all time favorite wrestlers. I have enjoyed the gimmick since his very first WWE match. I do have to confess that the American Badass was by far my least favorite revision of the character. It just didn't fit. He cut his hair, came out to Limp Bizkit and refrained from using his signature finishing move.
Personally, I prefer the darker versions of the character- Lord of Darkness/Ministry. I think that the character really reached it's true potential at this stage.

 

[Dark Blaze]

Welll I'm not a huge fan of Undertaker like one of my best friends is....but I still like him alot...and respect him. I absolutely loved the American Badass Gimmick, I feel at this time 'Taker most entertained me- I usually love heels, especially when they're cocky. Thus this character was perfect for me...his confidence, charisma, mic skill and portraying that character was simply awesome.

However, his current "Phenom" gimmick, I believe is his best. He was evolved so much, added new moves to his repertoire and solidified himself as one of the greatest of all time.

 

[reddevil69]

I'll do it year by year.

1990: Can't really give a proper assesment. He made his debut on a poor PPV. He made an impact for about 10 minutes, then looked stupid by getting counted out.

1991: Meh. He wasn't having good matches. His Mania match was ok. Snuka wasn't great when he was younger, that wasn't going to change when he was older. I really can't remember what else he did that year. Oh yeah. He won the WWF title. In a poor match. He was then defeated a week or so later. To make things worse he wasn't really a contender in the 1992 Rumble.

1992: Other than a lengthy feud with Kamala it was another poor year from an in ring standpoint.

1993: Two words: Giant Gonzalez. Pretty much all year. I enjoyed it. But it was terrible.

1994: Gone for months. Bad matches. But all guilty pleasures of mine. Undertaker vs. Undertaker was so good, Kane vs. Kane didn't stand a chance. Oh no wait. They were both as bad as each other.

1995: Kama, Mabel, Bundy. Need I say more. That mask was incredibly stupid as well. Phantom Of The Undertakers.


1996: Thank fuck for Foley. And to a lesser extent Goldust. He started to evolve at this point. Best year so far.

1997: I'll go more into this later.

1998: He was a fat ass in this year. Poor matches. He was carried by Austin, Foley and even Kane.

1999: More poor matches. But it was obvious he needed a break.

2000: Other than his return in the Iron Man match I struggle to remember what else he did that year.

2001: See above.

2002: I enjoyed the Lesnar feud. But that's about it.

2003: Really what did he do all year? I struggle to remember.

2004: Terrible year. Awful. The return was a total disappointment , dead biker essentially. I thought the reason he returned as the Dead Man was to get away from the biker gimmick.

2005: Ok I guess. Really depends how you feel about his feud with Orton. It was good, but nothing special.

2006: His Angle match is the best of the year. Without a doubt. Then mid card mediocrity.

2007: I'll get to it later.

Overall he's overrated. He's been in WWE for 18 years or so. So he has had enough quality matches to be considered great. But the bad outweighs the good. He is one of the only wrestlers who has got better with age. He's quick and pretty athletic now. Imagine what he could have been like in the early 90's. Such a waste.

I'd like you to go and watch Summerslam 1998 and tell me that Austin carried Taker in that match, quite the opposite as Austin was nearly knocked unconscious in the match and Taker bottle-fed him for the rest of the bout....Kane never carried Taker at any of their matches that i've seen...2001 he had a great match at Mania with HHH that blew the roof of the Astrodome and good feud with Austin once again...and what did he do in 2003?....he and Angle only had what many have called the match of the year on smackdown in september that year, even with a non-finish the two got standing ovations that night, were you even watching wrestling at that point?...and i think you are overlooking the fact that while he has been consistently one of the biggest stars in the company, selling more merchandise on a consistent basis, (i'm not talking about a couple of hot years) than anyone, the reason he's had so many bad matches and mid-card feuds is because he's not a politicking asshole who has to be in the main event every night and clog up 6 segments of raw or smackdown...he could have easily have used his stroke and be like HHH and always main event and have a title belt, but he didn't...now he is more popular than ever and Vince is going to run him on top as champ while he can still get the main event value out of him...he's 43 years old and won't be around forever...

 

[Y 2 Jake]

The Summer Slam main event is a babyface bout between the two. Which didn't work as Taker was turning heel at that point. Both played as babyfaces and it resulted in a pretty average match.

He was carried by Kane's momentum. Matches wise they both sucked balls.

His match with HHH was good. But it wan't some stone cold classic.

As for not politicking? Please. That is a stupid statment. He only put over Angle because of his legit wrestling ability and he'd only put over Lesnar in a heavily gimmicked match, with a ''broken arm''.

He's consistently sold merch because he's consistently been a focus of the programing. Same as Edge, HHH, Austin and so on.

 

[hoodboilu4]

We can add the edge match at WM24 as another great, I loved it, but there's no point in continuing the feud now. The rosters need to be juggled a bit, coz the feuds are getting old.

 

[Thewarnole]

It should be obvious that the original Undertaker gimick is the best. He was so far ahead of the times back then in terms of athletic ability for a man of his size. It should also be noted that Vince was the only one right in predicting the Undertaker gimick would work...Callaway originally didn't think it would. On top of that...the bringing in of Paul Bearer and his unique ability to entertain a crowd whether heel or face was awesome. It was also nice when he came back in 1994 after having "died the first time" after his casket match with Yokozuna at RR 94.

His american bad ass gimick was stupid...if anything he shouldn't have been known as the Undertaker with that gimick but i guess it was the median point between his original character and what he wanted to do. Now...he is closer to his original persona but still looks the part of the american bad ass gimick. Go back to the classic choke holds and throat thrusts...

 

[Skullz Crack'Em]

We can add the edge match at WM24 as another great, I loved it, but there's no point in continuing the feud now. The rosters need to be juggled a bit, coz the feuds are getting old.

No point in continuing the feud? If you think Edge isn't going to exercise his rematch clause, you obviously don't know the Ultimate Opportunist. This feud will continue to at least Backlash where they will probably have a gimmick match like a Casket match or a Cage match. Taker will keep beating Edge until Creative has a new opponent ready for him(rumored to be the Big Show). Taker vs Edge was good and it is definitely one of his best Mania' matches, along with his matches against Batista, Triple H, and Orton.

Overall, for a man that has been in the WWE for nearly two decades, he hasn't had very many great matches, his career was built around squash matches for the longest time, but having good matches isn't what got him over, it was the gimmick. I am probably the only person who is going to say this, but I am tired of the Deadman gimmick, it restricts him from doing a lot of things to the point where every year he has the same damn storyline with a different wrestler(A cocky wrestler tries to ruin his WM streak, lights go out and Taker accepts, in a couple weeks the cocky wrestler brings a casket to the ring which symbolizes the burial of Taker's streak, but Taker is inside the casket and cleans house, same old crap, year after year). Last night on RAW, Taker didn't even come out to thank Ric Flair until RAW was off the air, I bet his gimmick was the reason why he didn't come out earlier, that's just sad.

When he first became the American Bad Ass/Big Evil, I didn't like it, but now that I am older and more mature, the Deadman gimmick doesn't appeal to me anymore(It was brilliant in the past, but today I am sick of it) and I would rather see him as the Big Evil Taker again. He had a wider arrange of options when he wasn't the Deadman such as: he could speak on the mic more often, he could effectively be a face OR a heel, he could expand his Shoot Wrestling style because it fits the Bad Ass gimmick more than the Deadman gimmick, and he can do more than turn the lights off and pop out of caskets every week. The Deadman will never change, as long as most people love it, the gimmick IS Taker.

 

[BrooklynBuc]

I have to strongly disagree with Jake Tunney. I'm not going to flame him, but I will explain my thoughts and opinions.

I don't see how a wrestler who has been around for 18+ years with the size, strength, agility and ability of The Undertaker can be so disrespected or considered overrated, though. Are we judging him solely based on his opponents or his own abilities? It is not fair to the legacy of The Undertaker to call him overrated simply because he was stuck in a feud with Giant Gonzalez. So he fought crappy big men...so what? Would they even be a threat if Taker didn't make them look good? Who else should they have fought...or should they simply have not been signed at all? Were they not even worth a job in the WWF? Despite the fact that they couldn't do moonsaults and armlocks, they did their job: look scary and imposing so The Undertaker could stop them. They didn't last long; oh, well. They did their job and outlived their usefulness.

Keep in mind this: The Undertaker was main eventing after less than a year of debuting because the fans were literally in awe of him. Yes, the gimmick was a little far-fetched, but the fans took to it. Look how many gimmicks never worked: the Gobbledy Gooker, Nailz, the Doinks, Zeus, plumbers, garbagemen. Through the craziness that was the early 90's, The Undertaker stood out because you had 1. a man that could play the character to perfection (notice that he never flinches or changes emotion, and he barely acknowledged pain until he changed over), 2. a heel that was not only a legit threat to the faces, but could take out the top faces without breaking a sweat, 3. a heavyweight that could walk the top rope (unheard of in America at that point) and could look as agile as men much smaller than him, and 4. a wrestler that was emotionless and painless, which made matches against him very intriguing.

My vote is for the Original Western Undertaker because watching his match against Hulk Hogan got me into wrestling. For 18 years, I've watched The Undertaker evolve and turn human after creating an aura of invincibility. At first I was curious as to how he would turn more human, but as I watch his matches become more realistic, The Undertaker is trading in the character for the quality of matches. As for his "worries" for being the top guy, don't you find it odd that Taker has only been top champion 6 times? 3 WWF titles, 1 Undisputed title, and 2 World Heavyweight titles. Add in 1 Hardcore title and 6 Tag Team titles and that's it for a man around 18 years? Shawn Michaels has 4 World titles to his credit (3 WWF titles and 1 WHC) and add in 3 Intercontinental titles, one European title, and 3 Tag Team titles, but he also spent about 5 years on the shelf. Taker could EASILY have been U.S. champ or Intercontinental champ for years, but he is such a strong character that the belt wouldn't even make sense for him to have.

Taker has never balked at jobbing to guys like The Great Khali, Randy Orton, Edge, JBL, Kurt Angle, HHH, Shawn Michaels, Kane, Mankind, and John Cena, ALL of whom are former or current World champions. He practically gave notoriety to Mankind, Cena, and Khali, all of whom were mid-card or special attractions until their 1st victories over Taker. Hell, he jobbed to Maven to give him the Hardcore title! Maven!!

Undertaker is one of the few legends in this sport that can do almost any role you ask of him: top face, top heel, mid-card attraction face or heel, legend, unbeatable monster champion, unbeatable monster challenger, overmatched challenger vs. a larger opponent, or simply squashing annoying heels. The fans still love him after all these years, and he's still believable in any situation. He and Edge put on an amazing Wrestlemania match, as did he and Batista, he and HHH, and he and Randy Orton. You may not like him, but respect The Undertaker and the great moments he has created in the WWE for nearly 20 years, and name me any other wrestler that has gone that long and can STILL do the things he does flawlessly.

 

[DeadmanInc.]

Overall, I like his current Phenom gimmick because it shows how even veterans have room to improve. Since returning as the Phenom in 2004, Undertaker has had some of his best matches and he has added several new maneuvers to his arsenal. There are shades of all his past gimmicks in the Phenom gimmick, which makes it most enjoyable for me. The only thing I don't like about this gimmick is the constant "dying and resurrection" angles. It gets old after being used over and over.

However, if based on PURE gimmick, I would have to say the Ministry Undertaker was the best. It combined the realism of the Bad Ass gimmick and the darkness of the deadman gimmick. Satanic cults are very real, which is why this era of the Undertaker was so entertaining. There were a lot of controversial moments too, such as the "Logofixion".


This thread has made me realize how awesome Mark Calaway is. I completely agree with BrooklynBuc. Undertaker is someone who can play just about any role in wrestling. He jobs to rising stars (how many people of Undertaker's status would allow themselves to be squashed by Khali?), plays effective Heels (Damn, I loved the Big Evil era), and baby faces. He is great at carrying his opponents through matches too. Come on, he got 3 top quality main event matches out of BATISTA. It'll be a sad day when he finally retires.

 

[Summerr]

I vote for the present persona. He has the best moves, the techniques and most of all the agility for a man of his size. He did very well for himself (feuding with hogan, warrior, austin, bret, shawn michaels, lesnar to name a few. He deserves to be called the phenom of wwe.

 

[kenvin100]

hmm well I liked the change to American Badass, didnt see it coming..well guess i was 10 that time lol

And I also like the current taker..I gotta tell ya I really want to pay tons of money for front seat tickets to WM..all i want to see is his entrance, those things are bone chilling!

@XRisan: I think the Undertaker is probably #2 in my list of favorite attitude era wrestlers..simply cause Mark Callaway is a man who is willing to take a back seat..to bad trips cant do that! And that guy is married to the boss's daughter!

Undertaker rocks!

 

[jr4190]

I basically agree with everyone else. The American-Bad Ass taker was so much fun to watch, especially when you heard the opening chords of the theme.. or "Dead Man Walking" You knew it was gonna be game time. I really like the current Taker', but there was just something about the ABA and Big Evil Taker that appealed to me. Whether it was the cockiness, the motorcycles, the fact that he was just drowning in his own charisma. I dunno. But that's my favorite.

 

[aaronw4]

I will have to disargee with Jake. How are you going to dis the undertaker. Yo he's had some great matches with some great guys. besides Your not going to find anyone that big with his ability's in the ring.

 

[reddevil69]

The Summer Slam main event is a babyface bout between the two. Which didn't work as Taker was turning heel at that point. Both played as babyfaces and it resulted in a pretty average match.

He was carried by Kane's momentum. Matches wise they both sucked balls.

His match with HHH was good. But it wan't some stone cold classic.

As for not politicking? Please. That is a stupid statment. He only put over Angle because of his legit wrestling ability and he'd only put over Lesnar in a heavily gimmicked match, with a ''broken arm''.

He's consistently sold merch because he's consistently been a focus of the programing. Same as Edge, HHH, Austin and so on.

and he also laid down for Khali in his first match and let him pin him with one foot on his chest in order to get him over, before anyone knew anything about him in 2006...he's put over many mid-carders, something HHH has failed to do, including Mabel, and Heidenreich,and he elevated Orton to the next level after Orton was buried by HHH, he also took Kennedy to the next level and groomed him for money in the bank last year..., and HHH and Edge have sold nowhere near the merchandise that Taker has...it is a fact that his 3 disc dvd set is the single highest selling non-wrestle mania dvd as well....he sells merch because the fans love him and have consitently supported him....he came in in 1990 and went straight to the top of the company and has remained there since...and if you think that Summerslam 1998 was just an average match then you must be really hard to impress....the sight of Undertaker doing a leg drop off the top turnbuckle onto a table was pretty awesome in my opinion, and i thought it was a great match that told a great story, and it stands to this day as the highest buy-rate for a summerslam ever...

 

[Straight_Edge_Mystic]

I believe that the current Undertaker is the best version of all as it incorporates the best qualities of his previous incarnations. He truly is a hybrid. In past versions, there were aspects that stood out more than others such as the mystery in the Western period and the outright evil of the Ministry period and his mic work in the Badass/Big Evil period. However, he is constantly improving and tweaking his character as to create a balance of mystery, darkness, evil, and badass. Some weeks, we see more Badass and others we see more Ministry. Because of the balance created in the currnet version of 'Taker, he is more mysterious than ever as we can not know what to expect from him. Wrestling-wise, his game is always amazing. He can adapt his style to nearly any opponent. He adds new moves to his repertoire consistently. We've seen these additions majorly during the current version. The current version is a hybrid off all versions and because we see facets off all versions in the current version, I believe the current version to be the best.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

and he also laid down for Khali in his first match and let him pin him with one foot on his chest in order to get him over, before anyone knew anything about him in 2006...

Khali is over 7ft tall. Losing to him at that time wouldn't have harmed anybody.

he's put over many mid-carders, something HHH has failed to do, including Mabel, and Heidenreich,and he elevated Orton to the next level after Orton was buried by HHH, he also took Kennedy to the next level and groomed him for money in the bank last year...,

He defeated Mabel & Heidenreich. Neither got over and the matches were terrible.

He didn't exactly put over Orton either. Randy had to have his dad for help, and had gimmick matches to defeat Taker.

Putting him over was what he did to Khali, not Orton.

and HHH and Edge have sold nowhere near the merchandise that Taker has...

I'm not disputing his popularity.

it is a fact that his 3 disc dvd set is the single highest selling non-wrestle mania dvd as well....

But that DVD sucks. Again though, I'm not saying he's not popular.

he sells merch because the fans love him and have consitently supported him....

Fans love him. But the consistency of his merch selling ability is down to him being consistently on the roster in a top position.

he came in in 1990 and went straight to the top of the company and has remained there since...

Not really. He was a main eventer for a few months before Survivor Series 1991. Come Rumble time he was upper mid card, where he stayed for years.

and if you think that Summerslam 1998 was just an average match then you must be really hard to impress....

Probably. But if he's acted like more of a heel that he did it would have come of as being a much better match.

the sight of Undertaker doing a leg drop off the top turnbuckle onto a table was pretty awesome in my opinion, and i thought it was a great match that told a great story, and it stands to this day as the highest buy-rate for a summerslam ever...

It was a good show. But people buy it based on the hype before. The hype was good, but the end result for the main event was an average match.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

I voted for the Phenom Undertaker (2004-Today)

I liked all incarnations of The Undertaker but this one tops my list. It seems to me he has just gotten better with age, he's added more moves to his repetoire, he's gotten in better shape hes adopted more of a shoot fighting style. Not to mention his charisma. I mean how over can you be when you dont speak at all?? Taker' accomplishes it though.

His return in 2004 was a big dissapointment but he got the ball rollin again. His fued with Randy Orton was superb with just a few bad matches involved. Then he went into No Way Out and stole the show with Kurt Angle in possibly the Best Match of 2006. Then went on to have more good matches throughout the year. Then he went into 2007 as the Royal Rumble winner, then to take the title off of Batista in a good match and all in all a good series of matches with him. Tore His Biceps but when he returned he picked up right where he left off. This year is still to young to tell whats going to be of him but with the way its going already it might go on to be the best year of his career.