I called you a fanboy because you take this shit too personally and were freaking out over an opinion on a wrestler.
You're the one who insulted me first kid.... Again, typical of posters like you on this site.
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.
So, do you believe The Streak SHOULD be considered or not? Because you've flip flopped on that point about three times now... People use The Streak as leverage because it's a once in a lifetime thing that will never be matched again, and you're just assuming that people don't remember how Undertaker "made the Streak awesome". You're not the only one who grew up watching Taker. I think most people know how Taker made the Streak legendary.... Maybe that's why people are so outraged with you? Something to think about...
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.
Ok, by "today's standard". That doesn't take away what people like Hogan, or Andre, or Lou Thesz, or Sammartino or Taker did in their day and era. Put somebody like Lou Thesz in his prime in the ring today, and he'd get booed out of the damn building. But he's not overrated just because the game changed. I think the fact that Taker evolved over 5 eras (Golden Age, New Generation, Attitude Era, Ruthless Aggression era, and PG era) proves that if he were able to still go, he would be just as likely to be a main event player in this day and age. Hell, he kind of is.
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'm referring to Taker vs Michaels... I was in the heat of the moment when I made the Cena comment, and I was wrong. He is a good wrestler... but he's not in the same league as Taker IMO, because again, Taker is remembered as one of the greatest in the ring of all time. I doubt Cena will.
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.
Ironic, as a matter of fact, I JUST got finished re-watching the year 1997 and am through 5 months of 98. I've recently watched Taker feud with Bret, than Shawn, than Kane, and he is clearly the number 2 face behind Bret and than Austin at this point. His Cell match with Shawn never ceases to amaze me (and I've seen it about 7 times), and I'm still amazed at his presence at this time. Believe me, I've re-watched the 90's so many times I can probably recite what happens in order from 95-99... Don't try me.
Well, it's been fun but I think I'll leave my point at this.
