Undertaker-Overrated

[peter_midnight]

Continuing with my overrated series, I'd like to focus this time on one The Undertaker. Why is this guy so liked amongst so-called smart fans? He's probably the second best big guy ever (behind Andre the Giant), but when your competition for that title is the likes of Giant Silva, Nash, and El Gigante, that's not really saying much. I think he's overrated for the following reasons:

-He never drew as a main event guy. I think the one WM he did headline barely did 13,000. It was in Chicago, but the numbers I heard back in the day were somewhere between 13,000-15,000. This despite getting mega pushed in the beginning beating none other than Hulk Hogan for the title. In the later part of his career the streak became part of why people watched WM, but I highly doubt anyone bought a ticket JUST to see the latest match in the streak.

-He wasn't very good in the early part of his career until Cactus Jack made him in what felt like a 3 year feud. I remember before this match his offense mostly consisted of choking people, punching, and walking the ropes. I do give him credit in expanding his move set later in his career, but that doesn't make up for the years of terrible work he did before hand.

-The zombie gimmick. I get that people like it, but I don't get it. I even recently heard on a podcast Jericho saying that this was Vince's best creation. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!! "The Million Dollar Man" was a Vince creation and it did MUCH better. Ted Dibiase had nuclear heat w/the crowds and if it weren't for Honky Tonk politicking his way out of doing a job for Randy Savage, Dibiase would have likely been one of the hottest WWF heels ever. He probably would have been the hottest heel champion over Yokozuna, which never happened unfortunately. Dibiase's heat sizzled a little bit after losing to Savage, but my point is that at no point in time did the Undertaker even come close to the work of Dibiase making him second at best of Vince's creations.

-Did he even job to anyone clean? I can't think of anyone that he jobbed to clean, but I admit that I usually changed the channel if the Undertaker was on the TV. Especially before his Big Evil stuff where I noticed that his work improved.

I was a fan of Mean Mark, but never got the Undertaker especially in the beginning. I don't think he was ever great, but pretty good for his size. That being the case, I don't see why he gets all this love from the fans that are supposed to know better.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on this as I only know one person in my personal life that shares the same opinion. Actually, my friend thinks the Undertaker sucks worse than I do and feels like his psuedo-MMA is the worst he's ever seen. I will at least give him credit for trying, lol.

 

[relentless1]

Undertaker is BIG TIME overrated, another talent helped out immensely by the WWE propaganda machine. Don't get me wrong, he took that character and ran with it, doing more with it than anybody else could have but as far as being Andres successor as the main attraction of the WWE, he falls a bit short. Don't even get me started on the streak, so this guy has a better streak than Andre, Goldberg, Brock, Mr Perfect, Hulk, Tatanka etc? please... so the guy wins once a year for 21 years; non consecutively I might add and he's supposedly the man to beat?? This is the so called greatest streak of all time?? Don't make me laugh. Anyways, bottom line Undertaker is overrated, but he's also a great big guy who can move and hang with the smaller guys, his best matches always came against the Bret Harts and HBKs and his character was quite engrossing; for that I place him in the top 15 WWE greats.

 

[Stone Cold Tea]

Continuing with my overrated series, I'd like to focus this time on one The Undertaker. Why is this guy so liked amongst so-called smart fans? He's probably the second best big guy ever (behind Andre the Giant), but when your competition for that title is the likes of Giant Silva, Nash, and El Gigante, that's not really saying much. I think he's overrated for the following reasons:

So you admit he is one of the greatest big men ever. Are you with us in over rating him?

-He never drew as a main event guy. I think the one WM he did headline barely did 13,000. It was in Chicago, but the numbers I heard back in the day were somewhere between 13,000-15,000. This despite getting mega pushed in the beginning beating none other than Hulk Hogan for the title. In the later part of his career the streak became part of why people watched WM, but I highly doubt anyone bought a ticket JUST to see the latest match in the streak.

I am so sick of hearing the 'He never drew argument. In the Shawn Michaels thread you claimed he never drew as the guy. This is the same time period. You realise they were going up against the hottest angle in the business.

-He wasn't very good in the early part of his career until Cactus Jack made him in what felt like a 3 year feud. I remember before this match his offense mostly consisted of choking people, punching, and walking the ropes. I do give him credit in expanding his move set later in his career, but that doesn't make up for the years of terrible work he did before hand.

The fact you admit he improved himself but still claim he's over rated makes you sound stupid. You counting 5-6 years of what you call poor work more significant than the 15+ of world class work he did after.

-The zombie gimmick. I get that people like it, but I don't get it. I even recently heard on a podcast Jericho saying that this was Vince's best creation. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!! "The Million Dollar Man" was a Vince creation and it did MUCH better. Ted Dibiase had nuclear heat w/the crowds and if it weren't for Honky Tonk politicking his way out of doing a job for Randy Savage, Dibiase would have likely been one of the hottest WWF heels ever. He probably would have been the hottest heel champion over Yokozuna, which never happened unfortunately. Dibiase's heat sizzled a little bit after losing to Savage, but my point is that at no point in time did the Undertaker even come close to the work of Dibiase making him second at best of Vince's creations.

I don't know enough about Dibiases work to compare.Saying that 20 years of longetivity and evolving his character makes me believe it is the greatest gimmick ever. He took something handed to him in a time when there were mounds of cartoony gimmicks and made it pure gold. You say it's the second best of Vince's creations? Nothing wrong with that.

-Did he even job to anyone clean? I can't think of anyone that he jobbed to clean, but I admit that I usually changed the channel if the Undertaker was on the TV. Especially before his Big Evil stuff where I noticed that his work improved.

Yes numerous times he lost clean. To Lesnar last year? Oh but you turned the channel over. How the fuck can you form an opinion on someone if you admit to barely watching them?

I was a fan of Mean Mark, but never got the Undertaker especially in the beginning. I don't think he was ever great, but pretty good for his size. That being the case, I don't see why he gets all this love from the fans that are supposed to know better.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on this as I only know one person in my personal life that shares the same opinion. Actually, my friend thinks the Undertaker sucks worse than I do and feels like his psuedo-MMA is the worst he's ever seen. I will at least give him credit for trying, lol.

If you don't think he was ever great that's entirely your opinion. Trust me though you are in the minority. If you can't understandwhy he gets the love he gets you should probablyquit watching. 20 years of constant evolvement. Some of the most memorable matchesever. Some of the greatest feuds ever. A career spanning 6 different eras of wrestling.

At least you haven't said his career was built on the streak

 

[Spidey Revivey]

If clean losses, absurd gimmicks, and wrestling ability in their rookie years is all it takes to label somebody overrated, I can't wait to see what the consensus is going to be for guys like John Cena and Steve Austin.

So what if The Undertaker wasn't the biggest draw? He was running around with an undead gimmick. It would actually worry me if people went to see a zombie character more than a patriot like Hogan or a technical wizard like Bret Hart. The fact that a person can portray a walking corpse without looking like a complete joke is a miracle of wrestling. He was a novelty character that became a fan favorite. That's not overrated. That's doing your job well.

Keep in mind he was selling merchandise and getting cheered while playing a satanist. If there's anyone that's done it better, please argue it. Because there's nobody that's done more and evolved more with a shit gimmick than The Undertaker.

 

[peter_midnight]

Undertaker is BIG TIME overrated, another talent helped out immensely by the WWE propaganda machine. Don't get me wrong, he took that character and ran with it, doing more with it than anybody else could have but as far as being Andres successor as the main attraction of the WWE, he falls a bit short. Don't even get me started on the streak, so this guy has a better streak than Andre, Goldberg, Brock, Mr Perfect, Hulk, Tatanka etc? please... so the guy wins once a year for 21 years; non consecutively I might add and he's supposedly the man to beat?? This is the so called greatest streak of all time?? Don't make me laugh. Anyways, bottom line Undertaker is overrated, but he's also a great big guy who can move and hang with the smaller guys, his best matches always came against the Bret Harts and HBKs and his character was quite engrossing; for that I place him in the top 15 WWE greats.

I'm actually glad I wasn't alone on this. With you, I give him credit for running with it, but yeah he's not even close to Andre if we're talking big men.

The streak is the dumbest thing ever. It only makes sense to me to bring it up in title matches where having never lost at a certain event would matter. Why would it matter that the guy has never been beaten at a certain PPV in non-title matches?

I think placing him even in the top 15 is a bit much, but at least you're willing to admit it's more for what he was able to do with what he was given than anything else.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

Anyone who calls the Undertaker Over-rated is completely not a Wrestling fan or a Sports Entertainment fan. Undertaker came to the WWF as a slow worker, but with an amazing aura and he captivated the fans imagination - so much so he had to turn face within 18 months of his debut. Undertaker had some awful bouts between 1993 and 1996 but in his defence he was paired against "monsters" who he could not build a match with. But look at how he performed with Bret Hart, Mick Foley, Vader, Stone Cold and other spectacular performers between 1996 and 1999. He went on a dip for a bit after 1999 but that was because he had a lot of injuries. When he came back as the American Bad Ass in 2000 - he had spectacular matches with the following; Rock, Stone Cold, RVD, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar and HHH. He also had excellent matches with Kane throughout 1998- 2003. Taker also had excellent matches with Batista, Ric Flair, HHH, Edge, Shawn Michaels, CM Punk, Lesnar in the 12 years that have followed.

More to the point - Taker has been a locker room leader for the WWE and has helped shape talent behind the scenes as well as on Camera.

If you read ANYONES who is ANYONE's autobiography - from Edge, Bret Hart, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, Hulk Hogan, Chris Jericho, Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock - they would all tell you that Undertaker is their leader and was an excellent locker room leader as well as a professional.

Underated Undertaker more like!!

Absolutely disgusting comment - the man is the number one performer consistanlty in 25 years for WWE. A credit to the profession and someone the fans should be immensley grateful to and proud of.

 

[Stone Cold Tea]

I'm actually glad I wasn't alone on this. With you, I give him credit for running with it, but yeah he's not even close to Andre if we're talking big men.

The streak is the dumbest thing ever. It only makes sense to me to bring it up in title matches where having never lost at a certain event would matter. Why would it matter that the guy has never been beaten at a certain PPV in non-title matches?

I think placing him even in the top 15 is a bit much, but at least you're willing to admit it's more for what he was able to do with what he was given than anything else.

How about the fact it's the Superbowl of wrestling. The one night all wrestlers strive to be on the card. He became a challenge for people at Wrestlemania.

I'm interested in you top 15 if you don't think 'Taker or Shawn belong in it.

 

[Logisticalbooker86]

You've made back-to-back threads calling unanimous legends overrated, so I have to believe this thread is just a way for you to get attention.

Your observation, opinion or not, is totally wrong. Why should we care what you think about the Undertaker? Who cares whether you think some of the best wrestlers ever are overrated?

What's your next attention grabbing thread going to be? Triple H-Overrated Sting-Overrated, or go for the gusto and start a thread called Daniel Bryan-Overrated? Call Macho Man overrated too, while you are at it.

All of your points suck. Where and when Undertaker jobs clean is not Mark Calloway's decision. You like Mean Mark, but you don't get Mark Calloway's other gimmicks? Your gimmick of calling very popular wrestlers overrated sucks more than any zombie gimmick.

I actually completely agree that his MMA evolution was horrendous. If he had gone over Brock last year by making him tap out I would've soiled myself.

I still maintain your posts are just trolling or attention. Shame. It seems to have worked.

 

[Prince Vee]

I'm searching for the Slap-The-Bitch-Outta-His-Face button on my phone! I just don't understand why this post isn't even considered as a fan. This is why everyone makes fun of Internet Wrestling Community

But from the first line that quoted by the OP I figured how dumb as fuck he is!! "Continuing with my Overrated series" If you want attention grab a pen and write some songs and become a Justin Bieber or Kayne West! Don't write about wrestling!!

 

[peter_midnight]

So you admit he is one of the greatest big men ever. Are you with us in over rating him?



I am so sick of hearing the 'He never drew argument. In the Shawn Michaels thread you claimed he never drew as the guy. This is the same time period. You realise they were going up against the hottest angle in the business.



The fact you admit he improved himself but still claim he's over rated makes you sound stupid. You counting 5-6 years of what you call poor work more significant than the 15+ of world class work he did after.



I don't know enough about Dibiases work to compare.Saying that 20 years of longetivity and evolving his character makes me believe it is the greatest gimmick ever. He took something handed to him in a time when there were mounds of cartoony gimmicks and made it pure gold. You say it's the second best of Vince's creations? Nothing wrong with that.



Yes numerous times he lost clean. To Lesnar last year? Oh but you turned the channel over. How the fuck can you form an opinion on someone if you admit to barely watching them?



If you don't think he was ever great that's entirely your opinion. Trust me though you are in the minority. If you can't understandwhy he gets the love he gets you should probablyquit watching. 20 years of constant evolvement. Some of the most memorable matchesever. Some of the greatest feuds ever. A career spanning 6 different eras of wrestling.

At least you haven't said his career was built on the streak

Read the second part of that quote referring to him as a great big man. He's competing against guys like Nash, El Gigante, and Giant Silva. If you throw in the Great Khali, you'll see that being the top of a group of terrible guys doesn't make you that good to begin with.

You can hate the drawing argument, but it's the single most objective way to determine someone's success in the wrestling business. Everything else is subjective, but numbers don't lie. The Undertaker & Shawn Michaels were before & after the nWo and never drew as top guys. The nWo was from 1996-2000. Are you telling me that the Undertaker didn't have a chance to become a top draw outside of that time frame? Face it, he just couldn't pull it off. In his defense, it probably had to do w/the lame gimmick, but it wasn't like he couldn't have done it as the American Badass or Big Evil year later. Drawing ability is the reason why old school smarks like Dave Meltzer give Honky Tonk Man so much credit. To this day, I don't think I've ever seen anyone sell out arenas holding a secondary belt like HTM did in his time. It's also why I give Bret & Davey credit by being able to draw 82,000 in Wembley headlining for the IC title. That's stuff that's never been done before or since.

I consider his poor work to last until around 2002 or so. That's a lot longer than 5 years, although Cactus Jack certainly helped him improve in the late 90s. From 2002 on he went from terrible to about average, but that's when he was able to shed the ridiculous gimmick and do some better stuff in the ring. I am acknowledging that the gimmick had a lot to do with his limited ring work, but that doesn't mean he isn't overrated. Calling his work world class when there were guys like Chris Benoit that made people like Sid Vicious look good is really pushing it.

Dude, we're in an old school forum and you don't know about Ted Dibiase's work? Just when does old school wrestling start then? Go back and watch old tapes of Dibiase before WM 4. He was far and beyond the hottest heel in wrestling at that point. There's a promo he delivered at I think it was either MSG or Boston Garden before a match w/Bam Bam where I could barely hear him over the crowd that was booing the shit out of him on the mic. It happened sometime after he was stripped of the belt after buying it off of Andre the Giant. It was on my old Wrestlemania the VCR board game tape, which I don't have at the moment, but I remember the clip. He sort of sizzled down after that until the angle where Virgil turned on him, but that match had the crowd going nuts too because Dibiase was that good at generating heat. He doesn't get enough credit in my opinion, but that's mostly because of his push getting killed thanks to Honky Tonk. I say it's second best of Vince's creations, but it's not like Vince has created that many good gimmicks. If he has, he's certainly not given much credit for them because all I ever hear about are the failed ones and these two that worked.

Losing clean to Lesnar last year doesn't count. Undertaker was WAAAAY over the hill at that point to matter. Did he lose clean prior to 2000? How about between the American Badass and the second run as the zombie?

I actually have stopped watching. If it weren't for Brock Lesnar coming back, I would never watch at all. I don't like CM Punk (saw him in ROH and didn't get him then), but I think he should have been pushed considering how much mainstream publicity he was getting after the worked-shoot promo. How you don't push a guy that gets on Jim Rome after doing a worked-shoot is beyond me. Yeah, I know they gave him the title, but they were treating him like Bret Hart in his final days in '97. He had the belt, but he wasn't in the main angle or main event on the show. Once he lost the belt, he got a Hugh Jackman makeover and his heat dropped off quick. I feel the same way about Daniel Bryan. Personally, I don't see why he's so popular, but when the guy gets so much mainstream publicity, how the hell do you handle them the way the WWE has?

If clean losses, absurd gimmicks, and wrestling ability in their rookie years is all it takes to label somebody overrated, I can't wait to see what the consensus is going to be for guys like John Cena and Steve Austin.

So what if The Undertaker wasn't the biggest draw? He was running around with an undead gimmick. It would actually worry me if people went to see a zombie character more than a patriot like Hogan or a technical wizard like Bret Hart. The fact that a person can portray a walking corpse without looking like a complete joke is a miracle of wrestling. He was a novelty character that became a fan favorite. That's not overrated. That's doing your job well.

Keep in mind he was selling merchandise and getting cheered while playing a satanist. If there's anyone that's done it better, please argue it. Because there's nobody that's done more and evolved more with a shit gimmick than The Undertaker.

I for one think that John Cena doesn't get enough credit from the smarks. The guy has to be one of the most consistent main event guys they have ever had. Is he a great technician? No. Does he look like he's trying and do more than punch, kick, brawl, get blood, end the match? YES!

Steve Austin on the other hand was pretty good as Stunning Steve. I thought he did a pretty good job back in those days. Ringmaster work was solid too even if the gimmick made no sense. I prefer his original heel days as Stone Cold work wise. Once Owen broke his neck, his work suffered big time, but he sort of had to do that so I don't blame it on him entirely.

Personally, I think Kevin Sullivan did the gimmick better in Florida, but he couldn't be that controversial once he went mainstream. Also, Kevin would have never turned babyface under that gimmick given his booking mentality based on his shoot interviews. So he probably would not have sold merchandise like the Undertaker. But I think Sullivan was much more believable as a satanist. Was Taker originally a satanist? I remember him just literally being an Undertaker with zombie features. Then the casket match with Yoko is when the lightning crap started. It was Russo that made him an obvious satanist with all of his Lord of Darkness references and blood rituals.

 

[OYDK]

-He never drew as a main event guy. I think the one WM he did headline barely did 13,000. It was in Chicago, but the numbers I heard back in the day were somewhere between 13,000-15,000. This despite getting mega pushed in the beginning beating none other than Hulk Hogan for the title. In the later part of his career the streak became part of why people watched WM, but I highly doubt anyone bought a ticket JUST to see the latest match in the streak.

Undertaker has been main event for 24 years now. WWE was at its hottest during his angles with Austin and Kane in 98, and of course he was part of the biggest angle in the greatest year in WWE history, ratings wise: The Ministry of Darkness in 1999. As for not drawing at Mania 13, you AGAIN omit the fact that hottest wrestling angle in history was going on around this time. "Mega-push"... he beat Hogan and than lost the title back 6 days later... yeah WWE had REAL confidence in Taker... He also headlined 3 Manias... Mania 24 against Edge and Mania 26 against Shawn Michaels... just like your last post, this one is FILLED with inaccuracies. Also, just because you say you doubt something doesn't make it true. Imo, The Undertaker was the biggest draw of Wrestlemania from 20 onwards... The Streak is what Mania was built around for ten years.

-He wasn't very good in the early part of his career until Cactus Jack made him in what felt like a 3 year feud. I remember before this match his offense mostly consisted of choking people, punching, and walking the ropes. I do give him credit in expanding his move set later in his career, but that doesn't make up for the years of terrible work he did before hand.

Bad matches for the first 4 years of his career. Amazing matches for the next 20... yeah let's focus on the 4... Also, I don't remember Hulk Hogan or Ultimate Warrior putting on many gems throughout their career. Guess they're overrated too?

-The zombie gimmick. I get that people like it, but I don't get it. I even recently heard on a podcast Jericho saying that this was Vince's best creation. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!! "The Million Dollar Man" was a Vince creation and it did MUCH better. Ted Dibiase had nuclear heat w/the crowds and if it weren't for Honky Tonk politicking his way out of doing a job for Randy Savage, Dibiase would have likely been one of the hottest WWF heels ever. He probably would have been the hottest heel champion over Yokozuna, which never happened unfortunately. Dibiase's heat sizzled a little bit after losing to Savage, but my point is that at no point in time did the Undertaker even come close to the work of Dibiase making him second at best of Vince's creations.

"Likely," "probably"... these words don't help your case. This is all subjective anyway and proves nothing. You think Dibiase is better than Taker, good for you... I assume you are in the vast minority.

-Did he even job to anyone clean? I can't think of anyone that he jobbed to clean, but I admit that I usually changed the channel if the Undertaker was on the TV. Especially before his Big Evil stuff where I noticed that his work improved.

Ahh, John Cena, Brock Lesnar, JBL, Randy Orton, Kurt Angle, The Rock, HHH, Stone Cold, The Great Khali, Batista, Mr. Kennedy, Edge... should I go on?

I was a fan of Mean Mark, but never got the Undertaker especially in the beginning. I don't think he was ever great, but pretty good for his size. That being the case, I don't see why he gets all this love from the fans that are supposed to know better.

So, you like Mean Mark who was just AWFUL, yet think The Undertaker who became one of the greatest ever is overrated? It's getting a lot harder for me to take you seriously.. I half think you're just trolling and if you are, kudos... ya got me...

 

[wrestler36]

If he's not your personal preference as a wrestler, that's fine and I totally understand that, but as far as being overrated, no way. Some of the biggest moments in WWE history include the UT, most notably, the King of the Ring Cell Match, UT vs Shawn Michaels, The Streak, etc.

He's not overrated because on paper, Undertaker and Paul Bearer is a gimmick that should have lasted 2 years max. They got it over in a big way, so much so that they turned face in a little over a year. He's been able to redesign the character to keep himself relevant over a 25 year span.

Also, he's wrestled continuously with some real major injuries. Remember in '96 when he wore that goofy mask? He could've been permanantly blinded in one eye, but still continued. Also in 98 with his feud with Mankind, you can see him limp through that entire match. He wrestled that match, if I'm not mistaken, with a fractured foot. And I think it was in 2010, he was literally burned badly before his Elimination Chamber match due to his pyros. Imagine standing in a pod with your skin burned for minutes AND THEN wrestling in the chamber.

There's very few big men who can wrestle matches with everybody. He's had great matches with people of all shapes and sizes. HHH, Shawn, Bret, Foley, just to name a few.

Not only did he just lose to Brock last year clean, he lost to him in 2002 or 2003 clean in a cage. He's tapped out to Angle's ankle lock. I mean Jesus, he lost clean to Kozlov on Smackdown for crying out loud. Hell, he was eliminated from the Royal Rumble by MAVEN!?!!

So no, he's not overrated. He's one of the best. Ever. And when you're 50, 6'10, 300 lbs and established by fans and the locker room, you don't have to justify 1 match a year at WM

 

[Stone Cold Tea]

Read the second part of that quote referring to him as a great big man. He's competing against guys like Nash, El Gigante, and Giant Silva. If you throw in the Great Khali, you'll see that being the top of a group of terrible guys doesn't make you that good to begin with.

Been to of a bad list doesn't make you good i'll give you that. Been absolute quality and top of a list does though.

You can hate the drawing argument, but it's the single most objective way to determine someone's success in the wrestling business. Everything else is subjective, but numbers don't lie. The Undertaker & Shawn Michaels were before & after the nWo and never drew as top guys. The nWo was from 1996-2000. Are you telling me that the Undertaker didn't have a chance to become a top draw outside of that time frame? Face it, he just couldn't pull it off. In his defense, it probably had to do w/the lame gimmick, but it wasn't like he couldn't have done it as the American Badass or Big Evil year later. Drawing ability is the reason why old school smarks like Dave Meltzer give Honky Tonk Man so much credit. To this day, I don't think I've ever seen anyone sell out arenas holding a secondary belt like HTM did in his time. It's also why I give Bret & Davey credit by being able to draw 82,000 in Wembley headlining for the IC title. That's stuff that's never been done before or since.

In all of his career Undertaker has never really been positioned as the man. We went from Hogan to Warrior to Bret and Shawn to Austin etc. Was 'Taker positioned as the man outside 1996-2000. You wanna know when he did draw? At every single fucking Wrestlemania for the last 10 years. You don't always have to draw to be considered great but put over those that do. Also you could headline a PPV at Wembley with Heath Slater Vs Alex Riley and it would sell out becausewedon't get PPVS.

I consider his poor work to last until around 2002 or so. That's a lot longer than 5 years, although Cactus Jack certainly helped him improve in the late 90s. From 2002 on he went from terrible to about average, but that's when he was able to shed the ridiculous gimmick and do some better stuff in the ring. I am acknowledging that the gimmick had a lot to do with his limited ring work, but that doesn't mean he isn't overrated. Calling his work world class when there were guys like Chris Benoit that made people like Sid Vicious look good is really pushing it.

The good out weighs the bad. Benoit was a world class technical wrestler but in terms of been a WWE wrestler don't be stupid.

Dude, we're in an old school forum and you don't know about Ted Dibiase's work? Just when does old school wrestling start then? Go back and watch old tapes of Dibiase before WM 4. He was far and beyond the hottest heel in wrestling at that point. There's a promo he delivered at I think it was either MSG or Boston Garden before a match w/Bam Bam where I could barely hear him over the crowd that was booing the shit out of him on the mic. It happened sometime after he was stripped of the belt after buying it off of Andre the Giant. It was on my old Wrestlemania the VCR board game tape, which I don't have at the moment, but I remember the clip. He sort of sizzled down after that until the angle where Virgil turned on him, but that match had the crowd going nuts too because Dibiase was that good at generating heat. He doesn't get enough credit in my opinion, but that's mostly because of his push getting killed thanks to Honky Tonk. I say it's second best of Vince's creations, but it's not like Vince has created that many good gimmicks. If he has, he's certainly not given much credit for them because all I ever hear about are the failed ones and these two that worked.

Oh i'm sorry if I don't know about Bruno Sammartino and Lou Thez I can't post in an old school forum? The gimmicks that did work were phenomenal.

Losing clean to Lesnar last year doesn't count. Undertaker was WAAAAY over the hill at that point to matter. Did he lose clean prior to 2000? How about between the American Badass and the second run as the zombie?

It doesn't count to suit your argument? Okay numerous times against Austin in 98. Stop talking shit.

I actually have stopped watching. If it weren't for Brock Lesnar coming back, I would never watch at all. I don't like CM Punk (saw him in ROH and didn't get him then), but I think he should have been pushed considering how much mainstream publicity he was getting after the worked-shoot promo. How you don't push a guy that gets on Jim Rome after doing a worked-shoot is beyond me. Yeah, I know they gave him the title, but they were treating him like Bret Hart in his final days in '97. He had the belt, but he wasn't in the main angle or main event on the show. Once he lost the belt, he got a Hugh Jackman makeover and his heat dropped off quick. I feel the same way about Daniel Bryan. Personally, I don't see why he's so popular, but when the guy gets so much mainstream publicity, how the hell do you handle them the way the WWE has?

What does this have to do with anything? I put it to you that you are a fucking hipster

 

[Seosa]

Based off the OP's posts it would seem that he's just incredibly awkward and likes to be the opposite to every consensus for the sake of it.

 

[Bernkastel]

If you think Taker is a Top 5 of all time name then, yeah, he's vastly overrated. He's not even Top 5 if you were to narrow that list down to just the WWE. Is he a Top 10 name? Yeah, you could very much make that argument as he certainly falls around there. For sure I would rank him below: Hogan, Bruno, Austin, Rock, Cena, and Triple H. He's closer to Michaels, Hart, Graham, and Savage. So It's certainly feasible that he's a Top 10 WWE only name. Depends on how you rank him of course.

 

[The Brain]

-Did he even job to anyone clean? I can't think of anyone that he jobbed to clean, but I admit that I usually changed the channel if the Undertaker was on the TV. Especially before his Big Evil stuff where I noticed that his work improved.

I don't care how you feel about Undertaker but this part makes no sense. I've seen this argument before. So and so isn't that good because he never lost clean to anybody. I never understood how this is bad. How can someone that never loses be considered overrated? If you didn't like his gimmick or his style that's fine, but you sound foolish saying someone is overrated because he never lost. Since when is winning a bad thing?

By the way, did you really change the channel when Undertaker came on? I tend to think most people who say this are just being obnoxiously condescending because they see the phrase 'change the channel' as the ultimate insult. I doubt most people that say that actually did change the channel. And if you really did change the channel when Undertaker came on then I'm going to have to disregard your argument because you have nothing to base it on.

 

[klunderbunker]

Before we get anywhere else, blaming Undertaker vs. Sid for Wrestlemania XIII doing horrible business is like blaming a couple of random German sergeants for starting World War II. There were a few other big pieces in play.

Anyway, yeah Undertaker is overrated to a degree, but there are some remarkable things about his career. Let's take a quick look at the eras of his run:

1990-1995: Mostly sucked due to having no idea what to do with him. No one is going to become great by beating up veterans and people like Giant Gonzales or Kamala.

1996-1998: This is where it gets good because Undertaker was more humanized. He had someone he couldn't just beat into submission and actually had character motivations and emotions. It was a totally different direction for him and it made things FAR more interesting. He also started getting more violent, which made for some great moments. As I said in one of my books: the best Undertaker moments are when he gets ticked off and starts breaking stuff. Mainly people.

1998-1999: Then he gets silly with the Corporate Ministry and is basically Satan. This made no sense and it was clear that his heart wasn't in it.

2000-2003: The Biker Taker years, which had their moments but were mostly him stumbling around and being lazy as the character really didn't have any staying power but he used it for three years anyway.

2004-2007: He returns as the Dead Man and starts incorporating MMA. This works well enough but there's still something missing. It's also around this time that the Streak becomes the core of his career and really all that matters for him.

2007-Present: Being put on fourth vs. Batista at Wrestlemania XXIII lights a fire under him and Undertaker turns into one of the best workers on the roster, tearing the house down every year at Wrestlemania with great match after great match. It's also where the hyperbole starts to come in as he only wrestles a handful of times each year and people start praising some matches far more than they deserve (WM XXVIII and XXIX more than any others). He's also basically just the Undertaker as a human at this point with most of the supernatural stuff gone.

As is the case with most of the people who have been around as long as he has, yeah he gets overrated for his early stuff which is treated with a ton of nostalgia despite being pretty lame, but the longevity he has is unmatched by anyone. The string of great matches he's had and being able to take a really ridiculous character and make it something that has lasted this long is remarkable and the Streak is something that is never going to be approached for longevity. He's had some bad moments and his earlier days are completely overrated, but the latter part of his career is great.

So yeah, he's kind of overrated but still great for the most part.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Mark Callaway is not overrated, the Undertaker's legacy/run however is and it's been artificially inflated for several years.

The reality is that his early Taker run was very poor... while over, he was not used effectively, was turned face far too soon and then badly booked with "Monster of the Quarter" for YEARS.

As a worker he couldn't improve as he was constantly being paired with less agile big men. His matches with true ring generals were limited, even the Jake match was a short squash to punish Jake rather than what was truely needed, a match to help Taker improve.

He then had time off for injury, taking him out of WM10, but the reality is that there was nowhere they could have used him on that card anyway... a year or so later and the most lucky accident of WWE history changed the future, and Mark Callaway's life...

Mabel broke Taker's orbital bone with a botched legdrop, nearly killing him. It was this that made Vince reassess what he was doing with Taker and he decided to allow him to go a different direction and his true talent to shine.

Taker was finally being put in matches with guys who could truly work, starting with Foley and then going through Bret, Austin, Shawn and he LEARNED exponentially from those chances and improved in leaps and bounds. That is Mark Callaway's talent, not how he portrayed the character but that when given the chance he went from a below average big man worker to a ring general in the space of less than 2 years. Once that had been achieved, he could then help others come along in the way he couldn't with his initial skillset. He became that guy we now rave about as one of the best of his generation almost overnight, but he wasn't before that point and wouldn't have been if not for that injury.

In more recent years however, once the "streak" became the focal point of the character, then the downside of this process began. He was allowed less and less time active and to handpick opponents. He stopped helping guys get over altogether and having 3 opponents in 4 years was the nadir of this.

Had he lost again this year, I'd be eulogising him far more, but going over Bray simply proves that this record is now manufactured along with his rep. He had the perfect chance to put over his replacement, a young talent who would have made strides like he did off the back of it... but he had to have the win... or even if it was Vince's call, Callaway could have done the job in the moment and told him "I made the call cos the kid deserves it."

Cos he doesn't do that stuff, cos he shows up out of shape etc, and much of his career was so poor... he IS overrated. But in that peak window, there were few better in the history of the business... that's not a legacy though.

 

[Stone Cold Tea]

I'm very surprised at the amount of people here that have actually bought this guys bullshit.

Explain to me how The Undertaker is overrated.

Greatest big man in history? Check
Greatest gimmick ever? Check?
Some of the greatest matches ever? Check
Some of the greatest feuds ever? Check
Pioneer of matches? Check

I say alot of you people are souring on him because of his part time status. He earnt that. He has spanned 6 different eras. In the Shawn Michaels thread you were all saying he was probably more derserving of the moniker Mr Wrestlemania.

The thing is I have never seen people on these forums over rate him. Some people have called him one of the cornerstones of WWE and he deserves that. I put him underneath your Hogan/Austin/Rock/Cena. He's right there alongside your Michaels/Hart/HHH/Savage of the business. I have never seen anyone say 'Taker was in top 5 of all time. I have seen them say top 10 and that is right where he belongs.

 

[Cats Pajamas]

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.

I haven't changed my mind much in the last two months. I still think he was a pretty good worker, who, as an actor stunk the place up. He'd have a much more difficult time with the Undertaker gimmick if he started his career today. All in all, if you've overrated the Undertaker at all in the last quarter century, don't beat yourself up too much, that's just the nature of the show. But he ain't that bad either.

 

[Goldie]

Undertakers key is his longevity.

However he has always been one of the top 4 or 5 stars on the roster at any given time, without ever actually being THE bonna fida major star of the company.
When Taker first entered the WWE Hogan was the top guy, followed by Savage and Warrior.

In the post Hogan era.... Bret Hart and later Shawn Michaels were the biggest stars of the company. The New Generation era was showcased around Bret 1993-94.

Then post 1997.... as the Attitude era was in full swing.... Austin and Rock were of course the top stars by a mile!! and at his peak I would say Foley was more popular than Taker in 1999.
Post Attitude era.... Triple H, Brock Lesnar have at points, been the flagship bearers of the company.... and Cena has been the biggest star since 2005 to present.

I can't think at any point has Taker ever been the #1 star of the company.... he has always been there in the background as the one of the top 4 or 5 stars without being the guy at the top of the totem pole. And thats not talking world championships... say in 1999 when Taker was champ, Rock and Austin were obviously still the bigger stars.

I feel that Taker is slightly overated.... but his legacy is secure.
He is showcased as the killer WWE legend... but then the WWE do that for every guy who is still linked to the company.

Hogan, Bruno, Austin, Rock, Cena are the biggest stars in WWE history... and Taker belongs on that 2nd layer with Bret, Shawn, Triple H, Andre, Savage, Backlund.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

They stuck him with shit and he made steak and potatoes out of it. If Undertaker is overrated so is every other big man who ever stepped foot in the ring. I rank the Undertaker up with a young Andre. BBBigelow also deserves mention. In his prime he was so friggin agile for such a big dude.

But UT was more of an attraction, just like Andre. UT put asses in seats.

but going over Bray simply proves that this record is now manufactured

Ya think? I hate to tell you but wrestling is not a legit sport. Vince decides who wins and loses. It was manufactured and everything in wrestling is manufactured.

Losing to Bray kills any Sting vs UT match next WM. Not to mention that Bray is hurt again and was before WM. The WWE's mistake was feeding Bray to the UT.

 

[lowandmighty]

Personally I don't think he's overrated. His character is exactly what it was meant to be. He was given a brief and he delivered.

Bret Hart on the other hand, now HE is overrated. Somebody here described him as a "technical wizard" which is ridiculous. He never did anything mind blowing in the ring.

 

[Goldie]

Bret Hart on the other hand, now HE is overrated. Somebody here described him as a "technical wizard" which is ridiculous. He never did anything mind blowing in the ring.

Bret Hart was not a Dynamite or Benoit... and he even admits that Dynamite was the real 'best there is, best there was' of all time... but Bret Hart was a fantastic wrestler.

I don't see modern wrestlers today structuring their matches like Hart did in his 90s heyday. I'll never forget how Bret carried an exhausted, roided up Davey Boy to a superb ***** match at Summerslam '92.
You don't see matches like that anymore.

Shawn may have been a bumping machine, Benoit may have been the real technical wizard... but Bret was an expert at working up crowd heat to boiling point with the in ring action, timing his comebacks and storytelling.

It wasn't all about flashy high spots, it was all about structure with Bret. His matches flowed.

 

[lowandmighty]

Bret Hart was not a Dynamite or Benoit... and he even admits that Dynamite was the real 'best there is, best there was' of all time... but Bret Hart was a fantastic wrestler.

I don't see modern wrestlers today structuring their matches like Hart did in his 90s heyday. I'll never forget how Bret carried an exhausted, roided up Davey Boy to a superb ***** match at Summerslam '92.
You don't see matches like that anymore.

Shawn may have been a bumping machine, Benoit may have been the real technical wizard... but Bret was an expert at working up crowd heat to boiling point with the in ring action, timing his comebacks and storytelling.

It wasn't all about flashy high spots, it was all about structure with Bret. His matches flowed.

I don't agree with this view. "Benoit may have been the real technical wizard". So 10 German suplexes a match makes you a technical wizard does it?
Benoit was just as guilty as having an every match routine as anyone.
Bret Hart's matches were structured, I'll give you that - structured on a foundation of cow shit that is. His matches were so slow that it looked like they were wrestling on cow shit and he always looked clumsy because there was always something going wrong with most of his moves. He couldn't dictate in the ring either, he was always getting pushed around whenever he had to wrestle anyone bigger than him.

Pretty much every match wrestled these days is better than a Bret Hart match.