The Undertaker: Which Version is Best?

[The Dungeon]

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.

Are you like one of those guys who thinks having a classic match at every turn is always the most important thing? Sure, 'Taker had his fair share of stinkers....but lets actually assess how many were his fault! Despite some of the bad mathes...he was ALWAYS entertaining....and was ALWAYS drawing money....so I don't see at all how that can be considered overrated! To say that, is a slap in the face, to the legacy of the Deadman!

Now I love how you merely credit Mick Foley on carrying 'Taker through 1996....but lets get one thing straight here....'Taker & Foley brought out the best in EACH OTHER! It wasn't just one or the other! Foley has acknowledged 'Taker's hard work in those matches on numerous occasions!

I also think it's sad that you discredit his 1998 performances.....Kane couldn't carry a frigging toothbrush..who are you kidding??? It was the storyline and the drama that help make there first couple matches really good! And I just watched the Summerslam '98 match with Austin & 'Taker....I tried to see where exactly was Austin carrying him in the match....I couldn't find it....how could Austin carry anyone when he was legitamately knocked out for part of the match! If anything...'Taker carried HIM for the rest of it!

I'm at least glad you acknowledged the fact that after 9 years (with the exception of his break in 1994), he's been go go go go go, all the way! He did need the time off, and was sluggish!

I'll also agree that 2000 wasn't the most eventful year for the Deadman...however, he was in the six-man tag main event for KOTR....feuds with Angle, another one with Kane, in the 4-way dance at Unforgiven, main events title match with Angle, and being involved in the 6-man HITC match at Armageddon, were what followed.

2001...featured him and Kane feuding with the Samoan's (Rikishi & Haku), then the AWESOME 'Mania match with Hunter! A feud with Austin over the belt, producing another good match....then of course the terrible feud with DDP, which is rumored, that 'Taker didn't like it one bit!!

2002...what about the Jeff Hardy feud????

2003....just feuded with Show & Gay Train pretty much! Renewed the Lesnar feud...and feuded with Vince to end the year, and prepare for his return!

2004...funny...his return seemed to get over! He was booked in bad feuds, and had to fight JBL...not exactly his fault!

2005...I thought the feud with Orton was awesome...and they drew a strong buyrate for Armageddon that year....up dramatically from the previous two years for that show!

Now I agree that 'Taker has been stuck with mediocore mid-carders for a good chunk of his career....but as bad as some of those matches were...it's what made 'Taker a strong charcter in the end! Again...'Taker wasn't always paid to have great matches, but he's had his fair share....

I mean...I've seen some stuff with Andre The Giant from the 70's....and granted he had a lot of good matches two....but there were plenty where he was doing nothing except his power stuff...not giving ANYTHING back to his opponents.....and yet he's considered an all-time great!

'Taker always gave it his all in that ring.....even in 1999...when he was in no decent shape to do so!

So I don't see how he can be overrated....I mean not anyone can have **** matches on a weekly basis like Mr. Be all and all Shawn Michaels (who btw, hasn't seemed the same since his injury, at least until Wrestlemania anyway).

 

[reddevil69]

I was telling YOU.

I'm allowed to say that. Why? Because I give more to WWE than they do to me.



Who mentioned the language? I mentioned lack of paragraphs.

..... is not how you separate different sections of a post.



Are you really debating Undertakers popularity with me? Where did I say he wasn't popular?



Nobody reacts to HHH?

Discussion over. I'm wasting my time.



Eh? What are you on about?

I used Yokozuna as a mock example. You completely missed it.




What does this have to do with Undertaker?

Just because I use something as an example I'm not being literal.

If you want to continue then do it by not going off topic and talking about Triple H, Batista & Umaga.

By the way. You say that the buy rates for the end of 2007 were terrible. Who was main eventing most of those PPVs?

Rhetorical question.

uhhhh....April's PPV was headlined by the RAW title match and from May until Sept. Taker was out with an injury and he did not appear at No Mercy in October so what are you talking about?

that is a total of 7 PPV's that Taker did not appear on so how can you claim that he main evented the majority of the PPV's in 2007? Cyber Sunday drew it's best buy rate ever with him and Batista main eventing and that includes the Taboo tuesday ppv's...the buy rates from late October through December were up and those were the one's that featured Taker.

and before you go ripping apart how i separate my posts why don't you learn how to spell first...DECYPHER????...there is a difference between a typo and incorrect spelling.

and i've got every episode of Raw from the last 8 weeks recorded on disc if you'd like visual proof of HHH's crowd reaction...he gets a reaction, but nowhere near the level of a performer that is supposedly the best and biggest star in the business today...Cena, Hardy, Flair and HBK all consistently get a bigger reaction than the "King of Kings".

and you give more to WWE than they do to you?....do you break you back 280 days a year on the road, working through constant pain and injuries in order to entertain people and bring them happiness on a weekly basis?...somehow i sincerely doubt it.

and as far as straying from topic, i'm not the one who started this 'taker is overrated garbage' to begin with. This is supposed to be about which incarnation of the character you like best, not about critiquing his matches over an 18 year period and coming to the conclusion that YOU think he's over-rated.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Are you like one of those guys who thinks having a classic match at every turn is always the most important thing?

I think havng consistently good matches is important.

But I give Taker this. He's always been part of the best angles.

Despite some of the bad mathes...he was ALWAYS entertaining....and was ALWAYS drawing money....so I don't see at all how that can be considered overrated! To say that, is a slap in the face, to the legacy of the Deadman!

It depends if you find his bad matches entertaining. For the most part I do. I love his matches with Gonzalez. But it doesn't stop them from being absolute shit. And I think I'm one of the few that find his really bad matches entertaining.

Now I love how you merely credit Mick Foley on carrying 'Taker through 1996....but lets get one thing straight here....'Taker & Foley brought out the best in EACH OTHER! It wasn't just one or the other! Foley has acknowledged 'Taker's hard work in those matches on numerous occasions!

Taker and Foley had chemistry. But it's no coincidence that Taker was having slow, methodical matches before Mankind arrived. Foley forced Undertaker to adapt and evolve.

I also think it's sad that you discredit his 1998 performances.....Kane couldn't carry a frigging toothbrush..who are you kidding??? It was the storyline and the drama that help make there first couple matches really good!

That's what I said. It was the storyline that made the feud. The storyline that wouldn't have happened without the Kane character.

And I just watched the Summerslam '98 match with Austin & 'Taker....I tried to see where exactly was Austin carrying him in the match....I couldn't find it....how could Austin carry anyone when he was legitamately knocked out for part of the match! If anything...'Taker carried HIM for the rest of it!

It was a typical Austin match. Yet both were portraed as babyfaces. Despite the fact that Taker was turning heel at that point.

I watched it again. Neither of us are right. Nobody carried anybody. It was just an ordinary Austin match. Good but nothing special.

2002...what about the Jeff Hardy feud????

That was a couple of matches and a few interactions. There wasn't a PPV blow off match. Jeff Hardy just got to hang with the big boys for a few weeks is how I interpreted it.

Now I agree that 'Taker has been stuck with mediocore mid-carders for a good chunk of his career....but as bad as some of those matches were...it's what made 'Taker a strong charcter in the end! Again...'Taker wasn't always paid to have great matches, but he's had his fair share....

Personally I feel that his bad matches have outweighed his good matches.

I mean...I've seen some stuff with Andre The Giant from the 70's....and granted he had a lot of good matches two....but there were plenty where he was doing nothing except his power stuff...not giving ANYTHING back to his opponents.....and yet he's considered an all-time great!

Not by me. Andre sucks balls. But I've been informed he was good before he was a WWE wrestler.

So I don't see how he can be overrated

I'll try to explain how I view him as overrated.

Ric Flair is overrated. He's overrated because everyone rates him so highly. Yet why? For the best part of a decade and a half he was absolute garbage. He wasn't the great wrestler he was in the 70's and early 80's. He was a shell of his former self. Yet he was never really considered overrated by fans because of how great he used to be.

I consider Flair to be ovverated because he's not as great as everyone says he is. He was great, but wasn't at the end of his career.

Taker has kind of worked the reverse of Flair. He's started off badly, but improved with age. But I remember when he was having poor matches so I'll always take that into account. No matter how good him matches are today.

 

[The Dungeon]

I think havng consistently good matches is important.

But I give Taker this. He's always been part of the best angles.

Well being a part of great angles is what draws the money...and 'Taker certainly did that!! Doesen't that matter? You don't seem to take that into account!

It depends if you find his bad matches entertaining. For the most part I do. I love his matches with Gonzalez. But it doesn't stop them from being absolute shit. And I think I'm one of the few that find his really bad matches entertaining.

You're not one of the few...otherwise his career would've been over years ago!

Personally I feel that his bad matches have outweighed his good matches.

I really don't see it that way....and even so....shouldn't the sharp storylines and angles make up for it??

It was a typical Austin match. Yet both were portraed as babyfaces. Despite the fact that Taker was turning heel at that point.

I watched it again. Neither of us are right. Nobody carried anybody. It was just an ordinary Austin match. Good but nothing special.

I personally thought it was an amazing brawl...and an excellent classic showdown!

That was a couple of matches and a few interactions. There wasn't a PPV blow off match. Jeff Hardy just got to hang with the big boys for a few weeks is how I interpreted it.

Yet people still remember it!

Taker and Foley had chemistry. But it's no coincidence that Taker was having slow, methodical matches before Mankind arrived. Foley forced Undertaker to adapt and evolve.

But it also helped Foley understand the WWF style of things!!

That's what I said. It was the storyline that made the feud. The storyline that wouldn't have happened without the Kane character.

You stated earlier that Kane carried him....I don't see where or how...in terms of storyline or matches!

Ric Flair is overrated. He's overrated because everyone rates him so highly. Yet why? For the best part of a decade and a half he was absolute garbage. He wasn't the great wrestler he was in the 70's and early 80's. He was a shell of his former self. Yet he was never really considered overrated by fans because of how great he used to be.

Glad somebody finally said it!

Flair's matches however have always been his fault mainly...for phoning it in, and not giving much of an effort, unless it was someone he liked!

Where 'Taker...gave his all, despite being injured at times, and shouldnt've been wrestling on a couple occasions....every night...personal feelings aside!