Undertaker: Just Retire Already

As big as a match with Cena or HBK? I doubt it.



Yep, the streak is good stuff.



That doesn't even make sense.



That is true, if someone spends 60 bucks on Wrestlemania, they will likely watch all of the matches.



Because he hasn't. He's consistently been a main eventer, but he's never been the number 1 guy.



I'm not the one using 3 question marks and useless smilies.



If you take out all of the times he's disappeared it's really closer to 12.



Taker may have beaten Hogan, I don't recall, wasn't watching then, but Hogan was still the bigger star.



It's actually "because", are you slow. Of course he was and is still ever, have I ever said otherwise.



Obviously.



So?



Which comment, the one that was more logical than any of yours.



He hasn't been a star for 2 decades straight, he's taken lots of breaks. Even so, longevity doesn't always mean you are the best, just look at Dreamer.



You're just repating yourself.



Undertaker has been important to the WWE, but not as much as Flair, Hogan, Austin, the Rock, Triple H, or Cena.



No, you.



Pimply faced kid, what an original insult. Have you seen my face? It is perfectly clear. If you can randomly make stuff up about me, how about I call you a 500 pound Portuguese woman who hasn't walked in 4 years.

I also never said that Undertaker should retire, if you would've read my first post in this thread you would've seen that. Heck, I argued with someone who thought otherwise.

However, you have brought this thread to a new level of crap with you awful and inaccurate post. Undertaker is certainly not the most important superstar or the biggest dreaw in WWE history, and he is definetly not "the glue that has held the company together."

Did you just say that HHH has been more important to the WWE than The Undertaker .....?

You don't even know what you're talking about kid! :rolleyes:
 
Did you just say that HHH has been more important to the WWE than The Undertaker .....?

You don't even know what you're talking about kid! :rolleyes:

Triple H, the man who has been a constant main event, one of the companies biggest draws, a 13 time world champion, and a member of one of the WWE's most popular tag teams hasn't been more important that someone with a limited gimmick who constantly takes time off? Like I've said, I don't really have a problem with the Undertaker, but you are completely overrating him.

I also find it amusing that you ignore 99% of my post to argue such a trivial and not very significant point.
 
GOD just stop man. GD has you on this one.

I am the, again, the biggest 'Taker fan that you will talk to on here, but the truth is, the Attitude Era, which is probably the most important time period in WWE history, would have gone on without a hitch if 'Taker wasn't there. The same cannot be said about HHH.

However, I do think that 'Taker is much needed now more than ever because the things that he will be able to do for the future of this business by giving the rub, will be, along with the streak, one of his biggest accomplishments. Things like the casket match, Buried alive match, and such will not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gd
Triple H, the man who has been a constant main event, one of the companies biggest draws, a 13 time world champion, and a member of one of the WWE's most popular tag teams hasn't been more important that someone with a limited gimmick who constantly takes time off? Like I've said, I don't really have a problem with the Undertaker, but you are completely overrating him.

I also find it amusing that you ignore 99% of my post to argue such a trivial and not very significant point.

I wasn't gonna waste my time on your posts becuz you didn't even explain yourself or state facts ... Just tried to argue that I was wrong!


HHH has been a main eventer this long becuz he's the father of Vince's grandchildren.

He's been a 13X Champion becuz of that same relationship!

DX never was even a tag team ... But becuz HHH is married to Stpeh DX will go down as the greatest faction of all time & the greatest tag team of all time ... . :LMAO

HHH is where he's at becuz of his relationship with the McMahon's ... But only the kids watching like you are fooled into believeing he's that damn good .... :lmao::lmao::lmao:

No I'm not overrating The Undertaker. I'm pointingout that he has been one of the most important wrestlers to the WWE of all time!
 
GOD just stop man. GD has you on this one.

I am the, again, the biggest 'Taker fan that you will talk to on here, but the truth is, the Attitude Era, which is probably the most important time period in WWE history, would have gone on without a hitch if 'Taker wasn't there. The same cannot be said about HHH.

However, I do think that 'Taker is much needed now more than ever because the things that he will be able to do for the future of this business by giving the rub, will be, along with the streak, one of his biggest accomplishments. Things like the casket match, Buried alive match, and such will not.

No that's where you guys are wrong! You guys didn't even watch the Attitude Era. I did! HHH was nothing more than HBK's side kick. he was just as inportant as the Outlaws...

Just goes to prove that WWE can force kids to beleieve anything!

The Attitude Era would have still gone on without HHH!
 
Why should The Undertaker retire? Just because he was an active wrestler for 19 years in the WWE? Since when was the number of years performing determine when it's time to retire? I could name more reasons for The Undertaker to stay than reasons for him to retire. The reason guys such as Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair should retire/stay retired is because they are in no condition to perform anymore nor do they have as much to deliver as they did twenty years ago. The same can not be said about The Undertaker. Although he might have some pains every once in awhile with his knees he is in the best shape in his life. The fact he had his best match of his career recently after being with the WWE for 19 years says a lot. I would go on and on but I'd be repeating a lot of stuff that was already said.
 
Why should The Undertaker retire? Just because he was an active wrestler for 19 years in the WWE? Since when was the number of years performing determine when it's time to retire? I could name more reasons for The Undertaker to stay than reasons for him to retire. The reason guys such as Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair should retire/stay retired is because they are in no condition to perform anymore nor do they have as much to deliver as they did twenty years ago. The same can not be said about The Undertaker. Although he might have some pains every once in awhile with his knees he is in the best shape in his life. The fact he had his best match of his career recently after being with the WWE for 19 years says a lot. I would go on and on but I'd be repeating a lot of stuff that was already said.

I don't think he should retire at all! I think both him & HBK are contributions to the WWE! :confused:
 
I wasn't gonna waste my time on your posts becuz

Because.

you didn't even explain yourself or state facts ...

Actually, I did. You, however, opted to rely on smilies and insults.

Just tried to argue that I was wrong!

Because you are wrong.

HHH has been a main eventer this long becuz he's the father of Vince's grandchildren.

Or maybe because he's one of the most over and most popular wrestlers in WWE history.

He's been a 13X Champion becuz of that same relationship!

Proof?

DX never was even a tag team ...

Actually, they were. Triple H and Shawn Michaeals competed in tag team matches, therefore they were a tag team. Heck, DX was even more than that, they were a powerful, anti-establishment faction, led by Triple H.

But becuz HHH is married to Stpeh DX will go down as the greatest faction of all time & the greatest tag team of all time ... . :LMAO

They won't go down as the greatest of all time, that honor belongs to the nWo, Four Horsemen, or the Hart Foundation. However, they will go down as one of the most important and influential stables of all time, and it has nothing to do with Stephanie McMahon.

HHH is where he's at becuz of his relationship with the McMahon's ...

Because.

But only the kids watching like you are fooled into believeing he's that damn good ....

How am I being fooled? He is one of the top wrestling in the company. I'm not a big fan of his, but I do recongnize how important he's been.


What are the point of smilies?

No I'm not overrating The Undertaker.

Yes, you are.

I'm pointingout that he has been one of the most important wrestlers to the WWE of all time!

The Undertaker has been very good and has his place in the WWE, but he isn't anywhere near being the most important of all time. Even your fellow Undertaker fan has admitted that.
 
Because.



Actually, I did. You, however, opted to rely on smilies and insults.



Because you are wrong.



Or maybe because he's one of the most over and most popular wrestlers in WWE history.



Proof?



Actually, they were. Triple H and Shawn Michaeals competed in tag team matches, therefore they were a tag team. Heck, DX was even more than that, they were a powerful, anti-establishment faction, led by Triple H.



They won't go down as the greatest of all time, that honor belongs to the nWo, Four Horsemen, or the Hart Foundation. However, they will go down as one of the most important and influential stables of all time, and it has nothing to do with Stephanie McMahon.



Because.



How am I being fooled? He is one of the top wrestling in the company. I'm not a big fan of his, but I do recongnize how important he's been.



What are the point of smilies?



Yes, you are.



The Undertaker has been very good and has his place in the WWE, but he isn't anywhere near being the most important of all time. Even your fellow Undertaker fan has admitted that.

So I guess Jim Ross was wrong when he ranked The Undertaker in Top 5 of All Time in the WWE history books! Yes Jim Ross was wrong & some fan was right ....
 
So I guess Jim Ross was wrong when he ranked The Undertaker in Top 5 of All Time in the WWE history books! Yes Jim Ross was wrong & some fan was right ....

The only reason why Jim Ross rated him so instead of Triple H is because Taker is probably the best Big Man wrestler to ever grace the WWE & has contributed a lot to make lackluster feuds become great. However, Triple H has done a lot more for the business than people think. His backstage endeavours greatly surpass Undertaker & is more of a businessman contributing to the company than Taker that does not include the wrestling side. Yes, Taker has done more in the ring lately to improve other wrestlers but Triple H is going to be moved to the same boat very soon judging by the match he had with Legacy.

Think, before you post.
 
No that's where you guys are wrong! You guys didn't even watch the Attitude Era. I did! HHH was nothing more than HBK's side kick. he was just as inportant as the Outlaws...

Did you just say that I didn't watch the Attitude Era? I have been a wrestling fan for a very very long time and I guarantee you that I know more about wrestling than you do.

Just goes to prove that WWE can force kids to beleieve anything!

Kid? See, your arguements are not relevant nor do they make sense. You should just stop.

The Attitude Era would have still gone on without HHH!

After Michaels left, if HHH hadn't have formed the new DX and have had the classic marriage with Stephanie, you really think that the Attitude Era would have been the same? What was 'Taker doing at this time? His matches with Kane were really just gimmick based matches. I loved them and all but they weren't special. His biggest moment came when he threw Foley off the top of that cage and that could have been anyone else. What else was he trying to do? He tried to marry Steph one time and the Ministry of Darkness, although I liked it, wasn't a very big deal for the Attitude Era.
 
So I guess Jim Ross was wrong when he ranked The Undertaker in Top 5 of All Time in the WWE history books! Yes Jim Ross was wrong & some fan was right ....

Wait, Jim Ross said that the Undertaker is in the top 5 of all time? I must be wrong then, JR is the be all and end all of all wrestling knowledge in the world today. How silly of me. My apoligies.

Even though Flair, Hogan, Austin, Savage, the Rock, Bret Hart, Triple H, and Cena are all easily more important to the WWE, because Jim Ross said Taker was in the top 5, it must be true. At best, Taker is in the top 10 of the most important of all time, but that may be pushing it. Undertaker is a very good character that is over, but there have been others that are much more important to the WWE.
 
Did you just say that I didn't watch the Attitude Era? I have been a wrestling fan for a very very long time and I guarantee you that I know more about wrestling than you do.


Kid? See, your arguements are not relevant nor do they make sense. You should just stop.

After Michaels left, if HHH hadn't have formed the new DX and have had the classic marriage with Stephanie, you really think that the Attitude Era would have been the same? What was 'Taker doing at this time? His matches with Kane were really just gimmick based matches. I loved them and all but they weren't special. His biggest moment came when he threw Foley off the top of that cage and that could have been anyone else. What else was he trying to do? He tried to marry Steph one time and the Ministry of Darkness, although I liked it, wasn't a very big deal for the Attitude Era.

No you don't know more than me! But I might be wrong about your age! I was referring to the GD... wrong post. I really don't know it! As far as the Attitude Era. it would have been perfectly fine without HHH or Taker for that matter. If anyone gets the credit for it-its Austin!
 
Wait, Jim Ross said that the Undertaker is in the top 5 of all time? I must be wrong then, JR is the be all and end all of all wrestling knowledge in the world today. How silly of me. My apoligies.

Even though Flair, Hogan, Austin, Savage, the Rock, Bret Hart, Triple H, and Cena are all easily more important to the WWE, because Jim Ross said Taker was in the top 5, it must be true. At best, Taker is in the top 10 of the most important of all time, but that may be pushing it. Undertaker is a very good character that is over, but there have been others that are much more important to the WWE.

Yes it is silly of you to think that you know more than Jim Ross about the WWE!

Jim Ross's opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>> your opinion! I accept your apology!

Flair doesn't matter in the WWE! Hogan is problably the most important with Austin! Taker is higher than Savage, Rock, Bret, & HHH tho.

His contributions for the past 19 years >>>>> Theirs
 
Wait, Jim Ross said that the Undertaker is in the top 5 of all time? I must be wrong then, JR is the be all and end all of all wrestling knowledge in the world today. How silly of me. My apoligies.

J.R. is pretty knowledgable.

Even though Flair, Hogan, Austin, Savage, the Rock, Bret Hart, Triple H, and Cena are all easily more important to the WWE, because Jim Ross said Taker was in the top 5, it must be true. At best, Taker is in the top 10 of the most important of all time, but that may be pushing it. Undertaker is a very good character that is over, but there have been others that are much more important to the WWE.

See, this is where I am going to have to disagree with you.

Flair was not pivital to any of WWE's success at all. He came to the WWE in the twilight of his career and really was never a big draw for the WWE. If he had the planned match with Hogan at WM 8 like it should have been, then you might have a case for Flair.

I don't think that Savage is more important to WWE than 'Taker either. Savage was great in the Golden Years, but he was not ever a huge draw for WWE either. When Raw first started Savage was an announcer.

Bret screwed Bret! He could have been one of the best ever, but he didn't want to do business.

Cena isn't nowhere near the status that 'Taker has gained with the fans or with his peers over the last 20 years. He might be the face right now, but he isn't on 'Taker's level.

Of course, however, Hogan, Austin, and The Rock are more important to WWE's success than 'Taker, but 'Taker will prove his worth in the coming years. 'Taker is a company man and a huge influence back stage. He is quite possibly the greatest big man wrestler of all time. So, to say that he isn't important is a stretch, but it is accurate to say that he isn't the most important and has never been the most important in WWE history.
 
Yes it is silly of you to think that you know more than Jim Ross about the WWE!

It is also silly to think that Jim Ross's opinion wouldn't be biased towards guys that are actually still in the WWE

Jim Ross's opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>> your opinion!

I think your math is a little off.

I accept your apology!

Enough sarcasm.

Flair doesn't matter in the WWE!

How so? One of the most over wrestlers ever, part of the Evolution faction that jumpstarted Batista's and Orton's careers, had one of the greatest matches in recent memory at WM 25. I think he matters.

Hogan is problably the most important with Austin!

Yep, by why the exclamation point?

Taker is higher than Savage,

Savage was one of the most important wrestlers in the Hogan era, along with Hogan. He was one of the first high flyers and one of the most popular wrestlers ever.


The Rock/Austin feud is more important and significant than anything in Taker's career.


Bret carrried the WWE for a period of time, along with HBK. Undertaker was in the WWE during that time, but he wasn't the number 1 guy.


We've already been over this, HHH is more important, and not because he impregnated Stephanie.


Though. BTW, you didn't adress HBK or Cena, I guess you couldn't come up with some great info on them.

His contributions for the past 19 years >>>>> Theirs

Once again, your math is flawed. Just because Taker's been in the WWE for a long time, it doesn't make him the best or the most important. You are getting boring now, unless you give me something interesting in your next post, I think I'm done.
 
J.R. is pretty knowledgable.



See, this is where I am going to have to disagree with you.

Flair was not pivital to any of WWE's success at all. He came to the WWE in the twilight of his career and really was never a big draw for the WWE. If he had the planned match with Hogan at WM 8 like it should have been, then you might have a case for Flair.

I don't think that Savage is more important to WWE than 'Taker either. Savage was great in the Golden Years, but he was not ever a huge draw for WWE either. When Raw first started Savage was an announcer.

Bret screwed Bret! He could have been one of the best ever, but he didn't want to do business.

Cena isn't nowhere near the status that 'Taker has gained with the fans or with his peers over the last 20 years. He might be the face right now, but he isn't on 'Taker's level.

Of course, however, Hogan, Austin, and The Rock are more important to WWE's success than 'Taker, but 'Taker will prove his worth in the coming years. 'Taker is a company man and a huge influence back stage. He is quite possibly the greatest big man wrestler of all time. So, to say that he isn't important is a stretch, but it is accurate to say that he isn't the most important and has never been the most important in WWE history.

I totally agree with what you said here. But I think Taker has contributed more in his 19 career with the WWE than The Rock too. That's just my opinion! I think Rocky's career could have went further than what it is if he stayed .....
 
Flair was not pivital to any of WWE's success at all. He came to the WWE in the twilight of his career and really was never a big draw for the WWE. If he had the planned match with Hogan at WM 8 like it should have been, then you might have a case for Flair.

Fair point, but Flair was a very big draw, even at the tail end of his career. Evolution was something very important that he was a part of and of course, his last match.

I don't think that Savage is more important to WWE than 'Taker either. Savage was great in the Golden Years, but he was not ever a huge draw for WWE either. When Raw first started Savage was an announcer.

Without Savage, I don't think Hogan would have ever been as big as he was. Savage was the secondary big star to go along with the Hulkster.

Bret screwed Bret! He could have been one of the best ever, but he didn't want to do business.

I'm not as knowledgeable on the Screwjob incident, but I don't think Bret screwed Bret. For a few years in the mid 90s, Bret was the main draw in the WWE, he was the clear face of the company. Undertaker was not.

Cena isn't nowhere near the status that 'Taker has gained with the fans or with his peers over the last 20 years. He might be the face right now, but he isn't on 'Taker's level.

Cena is the top guy in the company, Taker has never been the top guy. John Cena is one of the most popular and successful wrestlers in WWE history and has already been a part of many huge matches in his relatively short career. He is definetly more important to the WWE that Taker.

Of course, however, Hogan, Austin, and The Rock are more important to WWE's success than 'Taker, but 'Taker will prove his worth in the coming years. 'Taker is a company man and a huge influence back stage. He is quite possibly the greatest big man wrestler of all time. So, to say that he isn't important is a stretch, but it is accurate to say that he isn't the most important and has never been the most important in WWE history.

Completely agree, I never said he wasn't signifcant or important, just that he wasn't the most important like that troll was trying to say. Taker is likely in the top ten, which is a great accomplsihment. He is one of the greatest in WWE history, no doubt.
 
First of all I think it should be noted that if Mark Callaway didn't still mean something in the industry then a passionate debate like this would not be raging. Honestly, I usually read the entire thread before replying, but I pretty much get the gist of most of the arguements because I've heard them many times.
I've been The Undertaker's pro and con man in such debates as these. I know he can work slow sometimes, but honestly... he's The Undertaker. He's always worked slow. Bursts of speed implemented themselves slowly into his moveset over the years to counteract the boredom that began to occur after about two years of his gimmick, but the gimmick is that he's a freakin zombie! Until recent zombie flicks they've always been slow moving. Seems as though the horror industry learned a thing or two from Taker as well. But I digress.
It would be an incredibly stupid thing to do on both WWE and Callaways parts to pack it up if he can still deliver. Even if it's only a few months a year, that just adds to the drama of the character. The reason The Undertaker gimmick became stale towards the late 90s, before The American Badass (aka DOAs Dad), was the over saturation of the Undertaker. He was simply on the screen WAY to much for a character that is supposed to convey a sense of mystery. I feel that has been the real success of The Undertaker. Mark Callaway has been able to sustain a cheesy comic book gimmick from 1990 and carry it into the 21st century because he IS the template for a successful wrestler. He took a this crazy storyline and had people ( including yours truly) glued to their sets for the last 19 years.
Next year marks the 20th anniversary of The Undertaker character's debut in the WWF/E. What will happen in the next 18 months is anyone's guess, but another title run (or a good program intended to further legitamize CM Punk in WWE fans minds at the very least) seems to be in the DeadMan's future. I think one thing will be certain. It will entertain. It will draw. And the naysayers may very well ...rest, in, peace.
 
Right, where to start:

J.R. did in fact say that 'Taker was one of the top 5 BIG MEN in the history of WWE. Not top 5 in WWE or wrestling, but among the superheavyweights over the 'E's history.

Furthermore, J.R.s opinion is a lot more valid than anyone here on WZ forums. A 30+ year veteran announcer and former head of talent relations for WWE compared to a bunch of guys who watch the show and read the dirtsheets (half of which is bullshit anyway). No contest.

DX is only NOW considered to be a tag team. Before it was a stable of 3, that had the occassional tag match. It also was not all about HHH. HBK was the primary focus of that group, and while HHH and Chyna were a big part of it, HBK was the star. When the expanded DX formed, what did it accomplish? Nothing, it just gave a returning X-Pac somewhere to fit and the NAO something to do as well. By then, the focus was on the group as a whole, NOT just HHH.

HHH has also not been a constant ME draw. He didn't even get a sniff at the ME until '99 after joining the company in like '94? '95? So roughly 4 years, when guys like Taker and Cena were both winning their first World titles in half that time. In fact Taker did it in half the time Cena did it as well, going over Hulk Hogan of all people.

The Attitude Era was not successful JUST because of Rock and Austin. To say that is an insult not only to Taker, but HBK, Bret, Foley, Kane, Big Show and the scores of other talent that worked their asses off to give us so many wonderful memories, as well as Vince and his writers, during a time where their jobs could have been taken from them at any given moment.

Taker is not on Hogan, Austin or Rock's level. They are the pinnacle of success in wrestling. He IS on the same level as HBK, Bret, Savage, Sting etc. Flair is on a level all his own, and Cena is in none of ther leagues. Another 5 years and i'll say he is, but not yet.

To say that HHH is helping out new guys is a joke. He might be helping Legacy out at the moment, in between DX segments and while he waits for his next title reign, but it'll never be enough to outweigh the number of people he's buried over the years i.e. Booker T, Foley, Orton etc.

Flair wasn't really a draw during his last run either was he? He was more of a novelty act put their for nostalgia and arguably only drew during his retirement angle which he had to ask for in the first place. If he hadn't kicked up a massive fuss, he'd have been jobbing for another 5 months until WM.

To say Taker hasn't accomplished anything is stupid as well. How many gimmick matches do we have now based on his character alone? He made the HIAC match what it is today (as did HBK and Foley). When new guys need a rub, or are debuting wth no build up, they more often than not fued with Taker and he does all he can to make them look good. He accomplished making you give a fuck about god knows how many people. Kennedy is a great example.

I am also so sick of people saying 'he takes so much time off'. So does HBK, where's the 'HBK should retire thread' then, eh? Perhaps Taker has so much time off because he's been burnt, buried, thrown off stages, smashed in the face with just about anything you can name, slammed through tables, pushed off ladders to the arena floor, driven through the ring on 2 separate occassions, had his hand broken with a gas canister, flew off the turnbuckle through the announce table well before Shane was doing it, and diving on to guys WHO DON'T FUCKIN CATCH HIM, for the better part of 20 years, and that's not even including his WCW run. Name another wrestler who wrestled with a shattered orbital bone, or had a HIAC match with a broken foot, or had a Last Man Standing match with a torn bicep.

He adapts his repetoire frequently, sticks up for the boys, and gives his all. You can not be a fan, that's your perogative, but to state that he's achieved nothing and is over the hill is fucking bullshit.

He'll retire when he's good and ready or (god forbid) suffers a career ending injury, and not before. Get over it.

And GOD, word of advice, if you want to stay a member of this forum, stop making assumptions about people. The MODs will blatently imprison you, and if you don't wise up you'll be gone.
 
I posted this in the other thread about the undertaker winning the world title, and noticed it is even more appropriate in this forum about his retirement, if this counts as some sort of double post, well i got TWO WORDS FOR YA!..... i apologize

The Undertaker is one of thee most famous wrestlers in the history of the wwe. that being said, i think its time for grampa Callaway to either start doin' the job, or "get the F out" (the sad thing is, that 2002 wwe catch phrase is more fresh than the undertaker's gimmick...)

First of all, The Undertaker is incredibly stale. here is the general idea behind every modern Undertaker angle
feeder heel: I am not afraid of the Undertaker
*Undertaker's music plays or the lights go out, heel looks scared
this continues with the heel looking more and more scared until they collide on PPV, with the Undertaker pickin' up the W

now someone please tell me how Undertaker going over benefits anyone? does Taker look more dominate? No, he can't get any MORE over, clearly he does not need it. Does he use the momentum to set up another big feud? No, he disapears for another 6 months. basically that feud was used for a quick ratings boost, and thats it. at least pushing someone new would give u some long term worth from the zombie.

now ppl say "Well the Undertaker is one of their best draws, he can't leave" well hey, you got a point there. but if undertaker draws such a large audience, wouldnt that be an ideal time to establish a new young star in front of the huge drawn crowd? if wwe continues to keep Taker going over, than he will continue to be one of their few draws, which fucks the wwe over when he retires. it would be ideal for 'taker to put over these young guys cuz
a) he doesnt need the win
b) it establishes new stars to replace him

In conclusion, despite his stale gimmick and predictable angles, i see no problem with keeping undertaker around if he is ugnna use his iconic status to push other's. but if he is just gonig to come around and hold new talent down, well good riddance.
 
now someone please tell me how Undertaker going over benefits anyone? does Taker look more dominate? No, he can't get any MORE over, clearly he does not need it. Does he use the momentum to set up another big feud? No, he disapears for another 6 months. basically that feud was used for a quick ratings boost, and thats it. at least pushing someone new would give u some long term worth from the zombie.

now ppl say "Well the Undertaker is one of their best draws, he can't leave" well hey, you got a point there. but if undertaker draws such a large audience, wouldnt that be an ideal time to establish a new young star in front of the huge drawn crowd? if wwe continues to keep Taker going over, than he will continue to be one of their few draws, which fucks the wwe over when he retires. it would be ideal for 'taker to put over these young guys cuz
a) he doesnt need the win
b) it establishes new stars to replace him

In conclusion, despite his stale gimmick and predictable angles, i see no problem with keeping undertaker around if he is ugnna use his iconic status to push other's. but if he is just gonig to come around and hold new talent down, well good riddance.

I hear what you're saying (or read what you're typing as it were) but for it to be said that Taker doesn't help out the new guys is a little off base no offense. Some of the biggest stars in the company have gotten over huge with their programs against Undertaker. From, Edge to Jeff Hardy. John Cena to Kurt Angle. Undertaker has ran a program with damn near every major player in the WWE since his debut. He even made Maven look good. He has done the job and has of course went over because he IS dominate and having him job all the time would sully the character. Besides, he is on the way out. It's obvious, but now I think the WWE and the Smackdown! brand in particular could use Callaway for at least two more years. If they choose to revamp the character then fine, but he is who he is and will continue to do his "Undertaker thing" whatever that means. Will he go over against Punk? Most likely and it'll be the best Punk has looked in a while. Hope so anyway. Either way the fued will push him up in the cred department with the WWE.
 
I posted this in the other thread about the undertaker winning the world title, and noticed it is even more appropriate in this forum about his retirement, if this counts as some sort of double post, well i got TWO WORDS FOR YA!..... i apologize

You should have left it in the other thread.

The Undertaker is one of thee most famous wrestlers in the history of the wwe. that being said, i think its time for grampa Callaway to either start doin' the job, or "get the F out" (the sad thing is, that 2002 wwe catch phrase is more fresh than the undertaker's gimmick...)

He has always done the job, so I guess he will be around for awhile.

First of all, The Undertaker is incredibly stale. here is the general idea behind every modern Undertaker angle
feeder heel: I am not afraid of the Undertaker
*Undertaker's music plays or the lights go out, heel looks scared
this continues with the heel looking more and more scared until they collide on PPV, with the Undertaker pickin' up the W

Undertaker's character remains a hell of a lot fresher than something from John Cena these days. Yes, it is because he was gone for a while, but 'Taker is probably the best in the business at making his character remain relevant.

now someone please tell me how Undertaker going over benefits anyone? does Taker look more dominate? No, he can't get any MORE over, clearly he does not need it. Does he use the momentum to set up another big feud? No, he disapears for another 6 months. basically that feud was used for a quick ratings boost, and thats it. at least pushing someone new would give u some long term worth from the zombie.

The sad thing is, is that you consider 'Taker as going over all the time. He has only had 6 title runs in 19 years, 6! Compare that to HHH or even compare that to what Cena has done since 2005! Yea he might have had two back to back main events a WM, but Batista and Edge came out looking better after those feuds than 'Taker did. Hell, he came off the top of a ladder and went through two tables just to make Edge look good. That's going over isn't it?

now ppl say "Well the Undertaker is one of their best draws, he can't leave" well hey, you got a point there. but if undertaker draws such a large audience, wouldnt that be an ideal time to establish a new young star in front of the huge drawn crowd? if wwe continues to keep Taker going over, than he will continue to be one of their few draws, which fucks the wwe over when he retires. it would be ideal for 'taker to put over these young guys cuz
a) he doesnt need the win
b) it establishes new stars to replace him

'Taker is always actively trying to put over new talent. He got the best matches out of Batista's career. He put Edge over when Edge first went to SD. Maven, Kennedy, Angle, Lesnar, Mankind, Kane, and that's just to name a few.

In conclusion, despite his stale gimmick and predictable angles, i see no problem with keeping undertaker around if he is ugnna use his iconic status to push other's. but if he is just gonig to come around and hold new talent down, well good riddance.

CM Punk will come out of his feud with 'Taker looking like a million bucks and it will finalely make this week as champ look like a credible heel. He has always done the job, so if you want to stick around for that reason, then I guess you are going to be seeing alot more from him.
 
He has always done the job, so I guess he will be around for awhile.

you are correct, how could i forget that time that he...beat edge HIAC and won that feud... oh well edge had some wins over undertaker at wreslema...backla... HA, he kept his title at judgement day by countout! and it only took a whole lame ass faction to beat the undertaker at ONS in edge's specialty match!

i get what your saying, the undertaker does give ppl the rub, i'm stating he should start jobbing out and really giving others a push instead of "you held your own with the MMA demon"

Undertaker's character remains a hell of a lot fresher than something from John Cena these days. Yes, it is because he was gone for a while, but 'Taker is probably the best in the business at making his character remain relevant.

LMAO
relevant? someone please tell me how being the lord of the undead is relevant? say what you want about cena's gimmick, atleast its believable. if the undertaker would have debuted anytime this decade he would have been chewed up and spat out by the audience (ecw's "the zombie" anyone?) also how does the Undertaker keep his gimmick fresh? his current gimmick involves him using the exact same scare tactics, than PPV MATCH. yes that never gets old


The sad thing is, is that you consider 'Taker as going over all the time. He has only had 6 title runs in 19 years, 6! Compare that to HHH or even compare that to what Cena has done since 2005! Yea he might have had two back to back main events a WM, but Batista and Edge came out looking better after those feuds than 'Taker did. Hell, he came off the top of a ladder and went through two tables just to make Edge look good. That's going over isn't it?

'Taker is always actively trying to put over new talent. He got the best matches out of Batista's career. He put Edge over when Edge first went to SD. Maven, Kennedy, Angle, Lesnar, Mankind, Kane, and that's just to name a few.

i already talked about the edge feud, the feud with batista where there was never a clear cut better man? decent but why not have batista beat the undertaker? maven was to bolster tough enough, if maven had not won that the undertaker would not give two shits about captain eyebrows. kennedy, he dummied kennedy. angle andlesnar yes he put over i'll admit. mankind got himself over with his HIAC bump, suprise suprise taker beat mankind several times. the only reason he made kane look good was because it also helped his career, if he dummied kane the angle would be silly.
i know that seemed hateful to the undertaker but iam not bashing the guy or never lies down, i'm just saying that currently, when his career cant get any better and he does not need wins, whatis so bad about being pinned by the new talent?

for example, if hypothetically you had austin vs orton. would it not be more fitting for orton to beat austin clean, making the current generation look good? would it not be silly to have austin win, which tells the audience the old days are better than what we are currently watching? basically my stance is that undertaker should full out job to certain newer stars and pass the torch. the Undertaker has had his time, now it is time to give other's that opportunity
 
Right, where to start:

J.R. did in fact say that 'Taker was one of the top 5 BIG MEN in the history of WWE. Not top 5 in WWE or wrestling, but among the superheavyweights over the 'E's history.

Furthermore, J.R.s opinion is a lot more valid than anyone here on WZ forums. A 30+ year veteran announcer and former head of talent relations for WWE compared to a bunch of guys who watch the show and read the dirtsheets (half of which is bullshit anyway). No contest.

DX is only NOW considered to be a tag team. Before it was a stable of 3, that had the occassional tag match. It also was not all about HHH. HBK was the primary focus of that group, and while HHH and Chyna were a big part of it, HBK was the star. When the expanded DX formed, what did it accomplish? Nothing, it just gave a returning X-Pac somewhere to fit and the NAO something to do as well. By then, the focus was on the group as a whole, NOT just HHH.

HHH has also not been a constant ME draw. He didn't even get a sniff at the ME until '99 after joining the company in like '94? '95? So roughly 4 years, when guys like Taker and Cena were both winning their first World titles in half that time. In fact Taker did it in half the time Cena did it as well, going over Hulk Hogan of all people.

The Attitude Era was not successful JUST because of Rock and Austin. To say that is an insult not only to Taker, but HBK, Bret, Foley, Kane, Big Show and the scores of other talent that worked their asses off to give us so many wonderful memories, as well as Vince and his writers, during a time where their jobs could have been taken from them at any given moment.

Taker is not on Hogan, Austin or Rock's level. They are the pinnacle of success in wrestling. He IS on the same level as HBK, Bret, Savage, Sting etc. Flair is on a level all his own, and Cena is in none of ther leagues. Another 5 years and i'll say he is, but not yet.

To say that HHH is helping out new guys is a joke. He might be helping Legacy out at the moment, in between DX segments and while he waits for his next title reign, but it'll never be enough to outweigh the number of people he's buried over the years i.e. Booker T, Foley, Orton etc.

Flair wasn't really a draw during his last run either was he? He was more of a novelty act put their for nostalgia and arguably only drew during his retirement angle which he had to ask for in the first place. If he hadn't kicked up a massive fuss, he'd have been jobbing for another 5 months until WM.

To say Taker hasn't accomplished anything is stupid as well. How many gimmick matches do we have now based on his character alone? He made the HIAC match what it is today (as did HBK and Foley). When new guys need a rub, or are debuting wth no build up, they more often than not fued with Taker and he does all he can to make them look good. He accomplished making you give a fuck about god knows how many people. Kennedy is a great example.

I am also so sick of people saying 'he takes so much time off'. So does HBK, where's the 'HBK should retire thread' then, eh? Perhaps Taker has so much time off because he's been burnt, buried, thrown off stages, smashed in the face with just about anything you can name, slammed through tables, pushed off ladders to the arena floor, driven through the ring on 2 separate occassions, had his hand broken with a gas canister, flew off the turnbuckle through the announce table well before Shane was doing it, and diving on to guys WHO DON'T FUCKIN CATCH HIM, for the better part of 20 years, and that's not even including his WCW run. Name another wrestler who wrestled with a shattered orbital bone, or had a HIAC match with a broken foot, or had a Last Man Standing match with a torn bicep.

He adapts his repetoire frequently, sticks up for the boys, and gives his all. You can not be a fan, that's your perogative, but to state that he's achieved nothing and is over the hill is fucking bullshit.

He'll retire when he's good and ready or (god forbid) suffers a career ending injury, and not before. Get over it.

And GOD, word of advice, if you want to stay a member of this forum, stop making assumptions about people. The MODs will blatently imprison you, and if you don't wise up you'll be gone.


A word of advise to you! Do your research before you post!

These are JR's comments on The Undertaker's Legacy:


"Taker's legacy in the WWE will be every much as significant as Andre the Giant's when all is said & done."

"The Undertaker’s WM legacy will never be equaled"

"Taker has solidly achieved “Andre status” (there is nothing higher than that) in the WWE"

"Taker has established himself as one of the top 5 all time in the WWE and may well rank with Andre as the top two based on longevity and productivity."

"As I have mentioned in the past, Taker compares very favorably to Andre in many ways. By the time Taker hangs ‘em up his legacy may even super-cede Andre’s."

"In 34 years, I have never met a wrestler who has earned the respect of more of his peers than The Undertaker"



If that doesn't sound like Taker's been of importance to the WWE then I don't know...... :rolleyes:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,842
Messages
3,300,779
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top