Undertaker: Past or Present?

[hbk&triple h]

I can remember back to when Undertaker first came. It was amazing nothing like that was seen before. In a time period where Cartoon Gimmicks were normal, his stood out. He was a dominant force. unstoppable. Unbeatable. No matter what you did he came back. The old Undertaker was just so different and cool.

Undertaker from 1999-2007 is just different. He became more weak. No matter what he was still the Undertaker and always got the last laugh but does anyone think he was just a lot more weak? He was getting defeated a lot more frequently than before. For years he was unstoppable and a force to be reckoned with but he started becoming a lot less menacing. Now he is doing what he is supposed to be doing to put younger talent over but after so many years of just kicking ass should he be jobbing as much as he is?

Your opinions. Do you like him better in the past or do you like him now?

 

[Mad Metal]

I always realized since his American Badass return The Undertaker would always put over newer talent. He had to get more title shots than anyone, and only won very very couple of those matches.

I feel as if The Undertaker is the dominant one yet again. 'Taker can't lose a match clean anymore because no one can match the unstoppable powers of The Undertaker. Some may say he "buries" others, however I do agree but it's not a bad thing to me. Personally it would piss me off to see The Undertaker for years as a jabroni (another term for a jobber) again like he was for majority of the time during the 00's. The only way The Undertaker would get knocked off his feet would be someone fighting dirty against The Undertaker with sneak attacks and weapons (use Edge's attack as a perfect example).

The only thing is The Undertaker deserves a good push. His title reigns didn't out stand enough due to lack of time to be given the chance to make his mark. Look at his entire career. He was always stuck battling the worst wrestlers on the roster by accomplishing absolutely nothing. The times when he would have solid matches he would lose to his opponents (Bret, Angle, Austin, Lesnar, etc). If he didn't get the treatment he earned back in the days, then I can honestly say he earned the right to currently look good.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

The Undertaker from 1990 to 1996 was the worst wrestler ever. He couldn't even entertain my childish ass. So slow and boring. That was part of the gimmick but it just seems like a waste to me. If he's capable of still having decent matches now, imagine what he might have been like in the early part of his career.

So I thank Mick Foley. I can honestly say I never enjoyed any of his matches until the arrival of Mankind. He then started wrestling HBK & Hart and he just got better. I don't think it was because of the people he was wrestling, he certainly changed his style. And making him more human was the best thing they could do. His frequent disappearances have always helped him out as well. They should do the same with Kane & Abyss.

But I prefer the Taker of now. For a number of reasons really. He wrestles less, his gimmick is so old now that it doesn't take much for him to become a total bore. And he's at the stage of his career where he's actually putting people over. A win over Taker means almost as much via DQ than it does pinfall. He's also far more consistent. And in the past few years they have only really bought in Khali as a monster to feud with. Unlike the slew of crap monsters they bought in for him like Kama, Bundy, Mabel, Executioner etc.

 

[Agrex]

I also prefer the Undertaker of now than the one of 17-10 years ago. I (like Jake said) think that mankind kind of shaped Undertaker up. He made his matches more contreversial, and interesting. I agree that now he is older and isn't that great in the ring, but either way I prefer him now. The good thing about him is that he unlike HHH is willing to lose a match to put someone over, even though his gimmick is to be undefeatable. His gimmick is stale, but I still enjoy his matches.

 

[Skullz Crack'Em]

I liked Taker the most when he was leading the Corporate Ministry because he was ACTUALLY evil and acted like a complete asshole lol. I didn't see many old school Taker matches from 1990-1995 so I can't judge Taker's past, but from what I have seen he does a lot more in the ring today because during the early 90's he was more of a squash machine than anything else from the matches I have seen. His Badass days don't get as much credit as they should because it was during that time in his career that he became more technical in the ring and added more moves to his arsenal, thus forming the Taker we see today. If I had to pick past or present, I would pick present, but I liked him most from 1997-2003, somewhere in the middle.

 

[The not-so Great Khali]

I feel as if The Undertaker is the dominant one yet again. 'Taker can't lose a match clean anymore because no one can match the unstoppable powers of The Undertaker.

Didn't Batista pin him clean at Cyber Sunday? I thought so!

I didn't watch wrestling back when Undertaker was a rookie and coming through so I can't really comment of that. However, I prefer his deadman gimmick better than the american badass gimmick - that just sucked and that gimmick made him beatable. He was a normal wrestler who just came to the ring on a bike. I did like the bike though but it kinda sucks to see Chuck Palumbo using it now.

 

[MattMoses]

In all honesty, I'm bored of The Undertaker now. The only thing I enjoy about him anymore is his entrance music. I think his character has gotten stale (Though he must be doing something right since he's still over with the fans), and he's stuck in feuds with people who aren't good in the ring. His look isn't too great anymore either, you can tell how much he's aged, and a 40 something year old man wearing make up isn't the most thrilling sight.

He can still move in the ring, no doubt, but his matches have become so predictable it just isn't fun anymore.

My personal favourite era of The Undertaker would have been around early 1997 - early 1999, when he stopped having terrible matches and feuds with guys like Executioner and Vader. During this two year period were for me the time The Undertaker was at his best in the ring, his feuds were entertaining and his persona was more interesting than ever. He had some classic matches with the likes of Mankind, Austin and Michaels during this time.

I was also a fan of the 'American Badass' gimmick, and thought it lived it's course, and once again changed his persona once it started to become stale. Heel Undertaker or 'Big Evil' was awesome to watch, especially during 2002 (forgetting that dreadful match with Hogan at Judgement Day 2002).

I haven't seen enough of the Undertaker from his WWF debut up until around 1994, though what I have seen hasn't been so great. He played out his character a little too much, and rarely sold anything. I think it was sometime during then he had that god awful dreadful feud with Giant Gonzales.

 

[Ogerz]

Personally myself, I liked the Undertaker almost his entire career. The only time I was irrated by him was that whole American Badass thing. WTF was he thinking? He could have done the thing he is doing now back then and it would have worked. He needs to hang up the boots before his career looks like Flairs. Flair is jobbing to everyone. Hopefully, when flair comes back tonight, they give him a memorable run. I would actually like to see Flair wear the title one last time. Then retire as the champ. To me, that would save face for his career. Just my thoughts.

 

[MattMoses]

undertaker wasd definately better then,...
now is like wtf? riding bikes, with his gf, it totally destroyed his gimmick
plus he is not mysterious and scary any more. Though he puts ona good show...a lot of people beat the undertaker which is against his gimmick to be un-natural power..

It didn't destroy his gimmick at all. If anything, the Corporate Ministry angle weakened his gimmick a hell of alot. His change in attitude and gimmick is what he needed at that time, and it proved to be successful.

Yet you have to give to him it might be the longest gimick ever...since lik 89-07 thats almost 20 years as undertaker....surely people got bored.

Except his American Badass gimmick wasn't the same as his Deadman gimmick. And it was late 1990 when he debuted in the WWF.

I think the undertaker can do 1 of three things:
*retire and turn into one heck of scary manager(maybe have a dead group, stable like nWo)

What would this accomplish?

he could retire and give a push to one of the young wrestlers to burry him. Then he can have some wierd angle that he turns like into a ghost that appears in the wrestling ring and haunt bad people. Kind like the migit under the ring....

I thank the lord you aren't a wrestling writer.

He could go TNA and have completely differen gimmick, serve wrestling in different way. Of course the gimick should be one hell of a good one. But after 20 years of the undertaker can he be anything else?

Again, what would this accomplish? He's done all he aspired to do in the wrestling business, and going to a much smaller company is going to hurt his gimmick and character a whole lot.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Nice thread. I have a bit to say here.

Let me begin by making it quite clear that I am not an Undertaker mark by any stretch of the imagination. I like the guy, but I don't mark out for him.

I can't really say one way or another that I prefered the Undertaker in the old school or the new school. I look at it the same way I look at Metallica - another entity so many love that I am 100% ambivalent to. Anybody who damns Metallica for later albums because of their desire to change things up or experiment, than have the audacity to call themselves "real fans" should be taken out and beaten. Same goes for people who term themselves "True Undertaker fans" and say he should have stayed the deadman and the move to American Bad Ass was stupid.

You have to allow a creative entity like The Undertaker to branch out and try new things. I realize he may not have loved the idea, but he ran with it and did so well. The biker gimmick allowed him to show his microphone skills and have matches that had a totally different psychology. Do you think a ladder match between Undertaker and Jeff Hardy, or a Hardcore match between Undertaker and Rob Van Dam would have worked at all in the early 90's?

WWE also backed themselves into a corner with The Undertaker, making his seem virtually unbeatable in the early 90's. He was like the Jason Voorhees of wrestling - escape and subdue perhaps...but impossible to kill. As a result, to keep him out of the WWF / E Title picture, they had to come up with these odd feuds for him such as Kamala, Giant Gonzales, and of course - Undertaker vs Undertaker! LOAD OF MONKEY CRAP!

Mark Callaway has made this character work at every turn, and I respect him for it. He's always been interesting. Jake, while I agree he was slow and could be boring, he was perfect for his character, and created a new dimension in the WWE for a long while.

So there is no better or worse - he's the Undertaker.

 

[sc2004]

i like him more now. He i though he was great in the early 90's, but his matches were so, so bad. The gimmic didnt allow for a great match with anyone. That changed when foley arrived. I loved their brawls during 1996 and of course their Hell in a cell match at the 1998 King of the ring. I think Taker is having the best matches of his career, Survivor series last month was proof of that.