Taker overrated? Are you kidding me? As stated earlier in the thread he took a gimmick that could have easily failed, and made it the greatest gimmick of all-time. With Taker's looks and acting ability the first few years as the dead man in WWE. Add WWE's production of the character with the lighting and entrance. I remember the reaction when he went back to the dead man gimmick in 2004. He is a legend and not overrated.
Undertaker overrated?
- Thread starter DCLXVI
- Start date
Probably one of the best posts I've seen on here and you post some good ones. I guess the thread kind of derailed and I probably should have worded it better. The reason I asked that is that he is usually bulletproof and defended by the "IWC community" that is usually hypercritical and tears guys up. I still think he is overrated but a great wrassler. I think he gets a reprieve by being very private and smart about staying out of the public eye - but we can't forgot he had "Sara" tattooed on his throat (removed) and his wife involved in a stalking angle that buried DDP. Interesting topic.
Cats Pajamas
Serenity now!!!
Depends on how high you rate The Undertaker, I guess. His matches are generally good, and have been for the majority of the last 25 years. He got a great match out of Batista, something I thought was impossible until Mania 23. His promos? Meh, I always thought they were shit and feel genuinely stupid listening to him address his Mania opponents each year. Even his American Badass stuff was bad, though. His locker room leadership and loyalty doesn't mean horse tacky to me, nor does his politicking (at least not when judging their career).
If you're the kind of person who thinks the Undertaker is the unparalleled best in the business, then you may be overrating him just a smidge. He's definitely pulled a fantastic body of work out of a stupid gimmick. So to answer your question, Goldust is criminally underrated.
If you're the kind of person who thinks the Undertaker is the unparalleled best in the business, then you may be overrating him just a smidge. He's definitely pulled a fantastic body of work out of a stupid gimmick. So to answer your question, Goldust is criminally underrated.
He benefits from some real protection, take Kane, a big guy who can go, at his highest point arguably the more popular Brother of Destruction, popular gimmick. But over the years he suffered some horrible booking and real watering down, resulting in what we have now. Undertaker, if he's ever lapsed has had it covered and protected, and everyone sells for him like crazy.
Overrated simply because of how much his dick is sucked, anybody would be. Still good though.
Overrated simply because of how much his dick is sucked, anybody would be. Still good though.
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
It depends on how you were to rate him and your criteria. If you were just to gauge him on his ability or longevity, then Undertaker most certainly belongs up with the elite. In those criteria he's not underrated in the least.
If your criteria is accolades, popularity, and consistency then he's profoundly overrated. Undertaker was never a top era star like Austin or Hogan or Cena or Rock. He was a weak champion. His title reigns were all short and only lasted a few months. When headlined at Mania against Sid in 97 he bombed as a headliner. His consistency outside Mania has been pretty weak. He'd be one of the WM selling points that year only to be jobbing to the likes of Khali or Kozlov or Kane months later. Even his Streak, he didn't start having really important matches until 2007. Before that Mark Henry, along with Randy Orton, had both been prime candidates to end the Streak.
So to answer the question: is Undertaker overrated? Yes. As a champion and a headliner. But were his abilities overrated? Absolutely not.
If your criteria is accolades, popularity, and consistency then he's profoundly overrated. Undertaker was never a top era star like Austin or Hogan or Cena or Rock. He was a weak champion. His title reigns were all short and only lasted a few months. When headlined at Mania against Sid in 97 he bombed as a headliner. His consistency outside Mania has been pretty weak. He'd be one of the WM selling points that year only to be jobbing to the likes of Khali or Kozlov or Kane months later. Even his Streak, he didn't start having really important matches until 2007. Before that Mark Henry, along with Randy Orton, had both been prime candidates to end the Streak.
So to answer the question: is Undertaker overrated? Yes. As a champion and a headliner. But were his abilities overrated? Absolutely not.
That's precisely what I think is overrated. Those were all scripted wins and not real fights so win/loss records do not really make someone great. The question is whether he deserved the streak in the first place. The streak wasn't really a thing until about 10 years ago when Randy Orton challenged him. It was rarely ever mentioned until then and the quality of matches was hit and miss early on.
Yeah they are scripted wins but Vince wouldn't just let any wrestler take that spot. I think if there was infinite universes and someone was different in everyone, I would still doubt the Big Show would even be considered to go 21-0 at WrestleMania. Of course the matches early on were average because look at some of the wrestlers he was fighting. All guys that just are more of a gimmick than wrestlers and obviously showed in the ring. Once you put him with someone that could do something in there then he was putting on good matches. He is someone you would watch and a lot of non wrestling fans would know the Undertaker. Non wrestling fans don't know people that aren't good.
I don't think the streak was talked about is because while 11 is a high number, you had Goldbergs streak to compete with and every wrestling fan knew about that. For a storyline point of view as well, who wants to take down someone who is 7-0 or 9-0 when you can go for a World title match. Randy was the legend killer so that is how it started to spiral. Then he is in a few main events and all of a sudden he is at 15 and 16 and superstars are like well if I take him down then I will be the best thing in the company and I will get my shot and be champion forever. I think that is a believable thing to portray to the fans and it worked out.
However like I said, you couldn't name many superstars who Vince would let have a big massive streak at Mania, if any. So overrated, no. Good matches, good promos, good feuds, awesome career.
But that's the point though. Whether he was given the streak and everything else simply because Vince thought he was a nice guy and loyal to the company. It is common knowledge that Vince had this vision of a dark, larger-than-life Undertaker character in mind and that he was just waiting for the right kind of guy to show up. It can be argued that Vince was therefore personally and emotionally invested in the character and would have wanted to see him do well.
Personally I could never get into the character due to the reasons stated by some of the other posters. The undead gimmick was just too cheesy and unrealistic for my liking and the problem with such gimmicks is that they need to always be booked strongly in order to be taken seriously in the first place and when you are booked strongly throughout your entire career you obviously end up losing very few times and even fewer times cleanly, which is why you cannot use Taker's win/loss records to say how great he is. This is the same reason why I don't like Bray Wyatt's character. When he first debuted with the Wyatt family he was being protected until WM when he lost to Cena and quickly became irrelevant for a while until he came back and is now being protected again during the runup to WM. I am not knocking Taker but I think it is a combination of his gimmick and him being perceived as a nice guy that has led to the streak.
As for superstars I can think of who could have been viably booked as being unbeatable at WM, Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle are two guys I can think of. Neither of them needed to win at WM in order to steal the show but in my opinion they could have been viably booked as unbeatable at WM. Vince did not do it because they did not need it and also because like I said, The Undertaker character was entirely Vince's idea so he had an inherent bias towards it.
This isn't WCW, you generally deserve what you get here in the WWE. Just because Vince likes a character does not mean he would let him be relevant if he was bad in the ring and couldn't cut a promo. That makes no sense from a business stand point. I am sure Vince has loved the idea of lots of characters but after seeing what was happening in ring and fan wise he thought they aren't for him.
Yes it can be argued but it would be silly to make the arguement in the first place. Countless WWE legends, and I am talking about absoutely legends of the business and said Taker is the most respected guy in the locker room. That's all that should be said. You think just because he has been with the company for so long he is the most respected? That could play half a part but I bet you if Matt Hardy or the Miz or anyone like that was in the company as long as Taker everyone would still say yeah Taker is the guy to go to. That's how it is. If people in the business say this guy is a legend, people that actually do wrestling and would know what a good match is and isn't because they don't have unrealistic goals like fans do, then that is saying something.
John McCass
You talkin' to me?
Just,hell no. Undertaker was the best creation by Vincent Kennedy McMhon. He was (and is) the most respected guy on the roster and overrated wrestlers are never ever respected. You are saying that he is not talented. His Wrestlemania 25 match with Shawn Michaels was one for ages and Wrestlemania 28 match with Hunter was the best Hell in a Cell matches of all time. He had great charisma. He connects with the crowd very easily. Just look at the pops he get when he comes back. Plain and simple answer to your question is NO.
I have never disputed the fact that the majority of people who have worked with Taker hold him in high regard. What the OP and I are talking about is whether that justifies the accolades he has been given because in terms of in-ring ability and promos we don't think he is THAT great.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree here because some of us find the supernatural gimmick to be way too unrealistic even by pro-wrestling standards and we think a lot of his accolades (such as his high win rate which eventually grew to become the streak) were a result of his character which by its very nature was supposed to be unbeatable and also due to him being well liked by people backstage.
What you said about the streak matches all being good to excellent was probably not true though because some of the earlier matches were utterly terrible and some were average at best, although at the end of the day all of this is just opinion.
A11oftheLights
Getting Noticed By Management
And yours is stupid. You're doing anything you can to dismiss his accomplishments.
You cant throw out wins and losses on the basis its a fake sport or else I can say Tyson Kidd is the biggest star on the roster right now, who cares if he loses all the time. You say the streak doesn't matter because his gimmick made him unbeatable, please tell me why Papa Shango didnt go 21 matches unbeaten at Mania. So he was liked backstage Vince isnt going to book someone strongly because he is liked both. He made both Nash & HBK champions and they were not popular backstage outside of the Kliq.
No I have not dismissed his accomplishments nor am I saying wins and losses don't matter at all. Using the streak as a basis to state that he is the best and that he has done something that nobody else has done feels kind of dumb because the results are all predetermined. Many Taker fans claim that Taker would be as big of a star even without the streak but I'm not so sure of that considering how many bring it up when talking about how good he was. Up until Orton challenged Taker at WM21 the streak wasn't really much of a thing and many of his earlier matches were forgettable. Post 2005 is when the streak really became a focal point and to me personally, it became rather boring because everyone knew he'd never lose. But then I've never been able to get into the deadman character all that much because it was just too cheesy with all the lightning and supernatural stuff like some of the others have pointed out. I preferred Biker Taker for this reason because I felt he had more opportunities to cut promos and be himself. I give him credit for playing his character very well and making it iconic but I still think he is overrated in terms of ability.
MartialHorror
Mid-Card Championship Winner
I actually see Sundar's point about the streak. While it has cemented Taker's legacy as a legend, they could've technically have done that with anyone. If Taker himself deserves any praise, it's consistently remaining 'over' with the crowds so that it would continue to mean something.
It would be one thing if his streak was the highlight of all Wrestlemania's, but there have been quite a few duds that most people would like to forget...Giant Gonzales, King Kong Bundy...not good matches.
It would be one thing if his streak was the highlight of all Wrestlemania's, but there have been quite a few duds that most people would like to forget...Giant Gonzales, King Kong Bundy...not good matches.
A11oftheLights
Getting Noticed By Management
For every bad match there are 2 good matches, nobody wrestled a 5 star match every time, nobody even wrestles a 4 star match every time they enter the ring.
MartialHorror
Mid-Card Championship Winner
No but Wrestlemania is supposed to be the highlight of the year, THE big event. One does have higher expectations from it. Now I'm not blaming Undertaker or anything as he can only do so much with someone like Giant Gonzalez, but look to my primary point. Anyone could've been given the streak.
The only reason Undertaker himself should be praised for it is that he has always been over with the crowds. Had they attempted something similar with Big Show or Kane, the 'streak' would've ended much sooner. But using the streak in itself as a justification as to why he is NOT overrated is kind of a weak point. The only thing that matters is his abilities and why he has remained so popular over the years.
Another point in Undertaker's defense, remember that he appeared back during the days of Hogan and Warrior, where in-ring ability wasn't considered as important. Compared to a lot of those guys, he was great. But when placed against what we have become accustomed too, even at his best he is not on par with Punk, Bryan, Rollins or even Ziggler. But do we call Andre or Hogan overrated? Some might, but they resonated with the masses during their time. It does not matter if Ultimate Warrior sucked as a wrestler, because people were interested in him. They were more interested in him than modern day audiences are interested in Fandango or Sin Cara- who do excel when it comes to in-ring action.
Unfortunately, while this is an intriguing topic, it's kind of a pointless one. It's like saying 'Is John Cena overrated?'. Fans will say one thing, detractors will say another. Opinions likely won't be changed.
Well nobody is saying he is the GOAT in terms of wrestling ability or promos. As an all round wrestler though he is one of the icons of the business. If you and the OP are just going to disregard everything people say from guys that have actually been in the business for 10+ years to guys that watch wrestling all the time, then that is fine and you can do that, but there is no point in telling me he isn't that good when he is getting such a high praise from legends of the business. Ric Flair, Vince, HHH, Stone Cold, JR etc etc wouldn't be praising the Undertaker if he was average in the ring because of his gimmick right?
Gimmick has nothing to do with how you are in the ring and promos. Okay maybe promos a bit but no matter what you portray your mic skills and fan interaction shouldn't differ that much. I would say Eddie Guerrero didn't even really have a gimmick than being a sterotypical Mexican who would have a bad side to himself, yet if he had a better gimmick or a different one at least would that change any of his skills? Not one bit. Gimmick didn't accumulate to multiple would title reigns and numerous awesome feuds and matches and promo. Look at Kane for example.
His earlier matches! For one like I said, look at the people he was going up against. Hard to work a good match with many of them. I would say 2 or 3 at best. The rest of the guys were basically gimmicks, like I said. Once he got to Randy Orton though all his matches were good. Except obviously Kanes one was just like always. Mark Henrys wasn't the best but like I'm trying to say, how can these too really work a spectacular match.
Still doesn't disclaim the streak at all, or hurt Taker in my opinion. Edge won his first world title by cashing in his MITB after a elimination chamber and then won another world title after Taker was smashed by Mark Henry and probably someone else. I think Batista? Anyways the point is does that take any credit away from his as a wrestler or a main eventer because he won 2 of his world titles as a cash in, heck even his survivor series one was sly in a storyline kind of way. Not at all, he deserved to win those world titles because of the wrestler he was and the work he was doing. Taker deserved the streak and the world titles he got because of the work he put into the company not because he had some gimmick that Vince apparently likes so much we wants to marry it. They couldn't of just done it with anyone at all.
MartialHorror
Mid-Card Championship Winner
I'm not saying he didn't deserve the streak or his world Titles. But I don't think they have much of a placement in this debate. In a way, that's like saying Reigns is phenomenal because he won the Royal Rumble. If someone wants to defend Taker, they should instead be focusing on his abilities and whether they hold up.
OYDK
King Of The Ring
STOP THIS. How many times does somebody have to say this on this thread? And what does it even mean? It's easy to say Taker's overrated when you COMPLETELY ride over and devalue the biggest moments in his career. So the Streak, wins and losses, and World Titles don't count? What the fack do you base anybody's career off of then? How can you even compare Taker's 21-0 Mania Streak to Reigns winning the Rumble?
Let me spell this out for you without coming off as too much of a dick. The REASON The Undertaker won those world titles, had a phenomenal win-loss record, and held the Wrestlemania Streak is because he was GOOD. His gimmick has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that he was a "nice guy" had nothing to do with it... His athleticism and presence obviously did. You think Mcmahon looked at Taker and said, "Y'know what... I like that kid, let's push him for 20 years and pile accolades up. I mean he's got everything! My finest gimmick AND a good attitude!" There were many good wrestlers with outlandish gimmicks who are nice guys... Where are they all at now? In all honesty, Taker's gimmick sucked. How anybody can use the excuse that he was handed this AMAZING gimmick that had "longevity" written on it... The only reason The Undertaker gimmick is seen as the GOAT is because Taker made it the GOAT. If he had only lasted one year in the WWE, we would all be laughing at the "stupid dead person" gimmick to this very day. He's wrestled MULTIPLE 5 star matches. Can't think of one Taker feud that I was let down by. Probably the greatest big man in the ring of all time. 20+ career with basically the same gimmick and massively over those entire 20+ years.
There, I focused on his abilities and they sure as hell hold up.
Like I said, we use different criteria to assess how great a pro-wrestler is. Initially when the streak began, I'm not sure if they had any plans for him to stay unbeaten for as long as he did, nor were the matches very memorable in my opinion. The fact that his gimmick was supposed to be unbeatable certainly helped him get multiple wins early on. I'm not sure how many of us even realized that he was unbeaten at WM until he started feuding with Orton. By then he was already a legend and guys refused to beat him out of respect. While I acknowledge the fact that his peers rate him so highly, it still doesn't change the fact that as a fan, I found the gimmick too cheesy and boring. As iconic as his entrance was, it was awfully long and I found myself fast forwarding through it or taking a bathroom break whenever he made his way out. I didn't find his promos to be very entertaining or enjoy many of his matches and so I think he is overrated when compared to guys like HBK, Rock, HHH, Bret Hart, Angle etc who many claim weren't as good as Taker. It doesn't mean I don't acknowledge or respect the fact that he is rated highly by his peers or that he probably is a good man personally.
Of course it does. How many times has Taker lost by submission throughout his career? Gimmicks like his need to be protected and booked differently than others. Bray Wyatt is another example, the moment he started losing matches cleanly he quickly became irrelevant. Kane was always seen as the little brother and his character was more of a psychotic madman than a supernatural one. I would argue that a lot of the initial wins Taker got at WM were absolutely needed in order for his character to stay relevant.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you just say in your initial post that almost all of his matches were good to excellent? Now you're saying once he got to Orton almost all of them were good. Sounds kind of inconsistent. This is what Nostalgia does.
We are not saying the streak takes away anything from Taker's legacy. We are just saying that we don't think the streak itself can be used as a justification to say he is not overrated or that he is great. Whether someone else could have been given a streak, that remains hypothetical. I think someone like Kurt Angle could have been given a streak.
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
Which is correct. WWE created the streak as a marketing tool. Though they only chose to acknowledge the importance of the streak when it was convenient. Edge had a 6-0 streak and WWE only hyped it up when he was facing Taker. Otherwise nobody would have cared. WWE chose not to hype up the streak in the beginning because Taker proved early on not to be a drawing champion. After his match with Flair, I can't recall the streak becoming a big deal again until Randy Orton, and by that point the WWE was already considering breaking the thing.
It's only really been in the past 5 years or so that the WWE can really say that they've made allot of money off of the Streak. It's existence should not be used to gauge whether or not the Undertaker was successful or not successful, and it certainly shouldn't be used as way to gauge a "prime" for the Undertaker. The streak became self sustaining entity that drew in spite of Taker. And the point became less about Taker vs his opponent, and more about defending the streak.
Instead I believe Taker should be judged mostly by what he did outside Mania.
Undertaker's character was larger than life and his legacy of still being around after all these years add to it. He benefited from WWE having better writers than they do now.
MartialHorror
Mid-Card Championship Winner
lol, fanboys are so silly and you are being the quintisential fanboy. Even though I keep clarifying my points, the only parts you paid attention to are when I say 'the streak shouldn't be used to discredit the claim that the Undertaker is overrated'- the funny thing being that I don't really consider him to be overrated. I just don't believe in blind fanboying. I believe claims should be considered before they come out of your mout-er, fingers. I don't believe he is overrated as a whole, but I do believe there is enough validity in the claim that warrants a discussion.
The streak was a gift from Vince. Anyone can be given a streak. As I SAID, if you paid attention, that if Taker deserves any credit for it it's because he has remained popular after all these years. Presumably if crowds would've become bored of him, the streak would've ended. However, most fanboys don't really think about that. They immediately latch onto the streak in itself without considering why.
To your credit, you do bring up some good points. The Undertaker gimmick was a crappy one and he made it work, but I've always felt that it was a gimmick that perfectly fit within his strengths. The reason why there is justification behind the overrated claim is that
-Taker is subpar on the mic. He can deliver strong promos when his dialogue is minimal, but impactful. But once again, listen to his longer speeches and be blown away by the mediocrity.
- Taker is arguably the best big man, but once again, consider what it popular now. People think of Rollins, Bryan and so on when it comes to whom they consider to be great. Even John Cena, who would've looked amazing back in the 90's-early 2000's, tends to get "You can't wrestle chants". Undertaker was phenomenal 10-20 years ago, but the game has changed since then. These days, Taker looks slow and his moveset feels small.
I do want to stress that while I understand the argument and can see why Taker might seem unimpressive in retrospect, that I don't share these sentiments. If he excels in any area, it's sheer presence. When he challenged Lesnar, he was an old man who probably wouldn't hold a handle to Lesnar in ability even back during his prime, but his intense stare alone made me think he could kick Lesnar's ass. His limited talking abilities usually don't stand out because the writers (for once) seem to be aware of his weaknesses. His in-ring ability is just good enough that with the right opponent, he can be carried into greatness. But I do think it's a topic worthy of discussion and if that really bothers you, you don't belong on the web. No topic should be taboo, even if it's outright wrong.
OYDK
King Of The Ring
Fanboy? Good one. Surprised you didn't use the almighty "mark" insult. Sure, I'm a fan of the Undertaker...oops guess that makes me an infamous mark huh? Anyway, if YOU were paying attention, I didn't "only" refer to your Streak argument, as YOU asked people to justify Taker's legacy by ability. So I outlined his ability by referencing his ring work, his popularity with the crowd, and his athleticism as a big man. Of course you say it's blind fanboying because I disagree with you...smh, but of course if YOU liked Taker it wouldn't be blind fanboying right? Typical. I try to be as nice as I can on these things but don't get me started with your stupid crap.
You act like what you say is fact, when in reality your argument is complete bullshit. Anybody could have gotten the Streak from Vince? Yeah and anybody can be given 16 World Titles too. The reason people are given these accolades is because they're amazing at what they do. Do you get what I'm saying, man? Sure, Vince can do ANYTHING that he wants. He can give Santino Marella the friggin WWE Title if he wanted to. There's a reason he doesn't. Name somebody else that has remained over for 20+ years on a full-time schedule? That alone warrants his legendary status, and sure IF the crowds became bored by him The Streak would have ended, but THEY NEVER DID... that's the whole damn point of pro-wrestling, and THAT'S why The Streak has to be considered when discussing Taker's legacy.
You seem like the kind of guy who bases your opinion off of only two things. Mic work and ring work and that's it. I never argued that Taker was god on the mic. Matter of fact, I agree with you that Taker is subpar in his promos, but that doesn't justify him being overrated. Bret Hart was not great at cutting promos, do you think he's overrated? Warrior? Hall? People don't base The Undertakers greatness off his mic work, so what your basing your criteria off of, is not what everybody else bases theirs off of. You can believe whatever you want, but don't call me blind or ignorant because my opinion differs from yours.
Taker was part of arguably the greatest match of all time, not 5 years ago. He's not John Cena who's basically just his look... Taker could actually go. He's widely considered, not only the greatest big man in the ring of all time, but one of the greatest in ring wrestlers period.
Maybe Taker looks slow nowadays because he's been GOING FOR 20 YEARS. Jeez, what does that even prove.
MartialHorror
Mid-Card Championship Winner
I called you a fanboy because you take this shit too personally and were freaking out over an opinion on a wrestler.
Didn't I pretty much say this? My whole issue was that people were using the streak as a crutch. Sure, it should be considered, but few people consider why. They just for some reason mark out because in their eyes, the streak makes the Undertaker awesome, when they should actually be focusing on how the Undertaker made the streak awesome.
There are many things that make a wrestler great, but these two seem to be the main attributes that people look for these days. Or at the absolute least, what WWE tries to emphasize. I remember hearing about how great the ladder match with Michaels and Razor Ramon was, but then I saw it and thought it was merely good. I've seen too many improved ladder matches since then. Or look at 'Hogan Vs Andre'. At that time, I probably would've loved it. But now? It has one cool moment and the rest is boring. Wrestling as of 2015 is a different beast than wrestling of the 80's. Hence, I can empathize with people who will find Undertaker to be unimpressive by todays standards. That doesn't make me any less of a fan.
If anything, you're calling me blind and ignorant because I'm willing to understand the opposing side.
I'm having difficulty understanding what you're saying. Are you referring to CM Punk Vs Taker? Because CM Punk Vs Cena- the guy who's basically just his look, as you say- is also considered to be one of the greatest. CM Punk was really good at carrying people. And if Cena was just his look, he wouldn;t have carried the company for 10 years.
I was referring to what he even did in the past. I'm not saying he hasn't been involved in some classics. As I said, wrestling is many things- pacing, psychology, story-telling, in-ring ability, promo skills, charisma, presence, appearance, gimmick, booking. But I personally wouldn;'t be surprised if you havent actually watched one of Takers 90's matches in quite some time and are just using a nostalgia filter.