Undertaker should have won the King of the Ring

[LikeABoss13]

You know what I have been thinking for a while now. When the Undertaker was younger, why didn't he ever win the King of the Ring? I mean thats one thing that could be added to his accomplishments besides winning the Intercontinental title and becoming a Grand Slam holder like Shawn Michaels and Jeff Hardy. I don't know, but I think he should have won both the Intercontinental and King of the Ring when he was younger, but now it's too late. What does everyone else think?

 

[CobraVenom]

Why didn't he win King of the Ring? It's simple. Remember when Taker beat Hogan for the title? He never needed King of the Ring. King of the Ring was always an attempt to shoot someone up to the top tier, with the possible exception of Bret. Taker never needed it. Simple.

 

[CH David]

Taker never needed King of the Ring. He came in as a monstrous wrecking ball at Survivor Series in 1990, hell he feuded with some top stars in his first year. But the biggest thing, he beat Hulk Hogan for the WWF/E Title in one year. A heel went over Hogan, during Hulkamania. That cemented his spot in the upper card for his career. He has never needed a mid-card belt, let alone a mid-card push. He debuted and then steamrolled whoever he faced.

King of the Ring was used to groom the future World Champions. Look at Bret Hart, Steve Austin, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Edge. They needed a little bit of a boost to make that transition from mid-card talent, to the Main Event. Again, he did not need any boost from mid-card to Main Event. He basically debuted in the Main Event, and with his Deadman "powers" there was no reason to not believe it.

He doesn't need any other accomplishments. He is a legend in the WWE, and has worked his ass off for the past 20 years. I don't think the fact he didn't win a King of the Ring tournament is going to diminish his great list of accomplishments.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

Within a year, he was wwf champion, he was bigger than king of the ring, even when he debuted, you look at hisimage back then, you think, why would they put him in a tournament..

I don''t think it would have made a difference to his career...i mean look, 19 years on from his debut in the "E" and he's remembered for a lot more than kingof the ring...no one even talks about that achievement any more...simply, becaue it's gone...

Speaking off KOTR, i hear they may bring it in in June!! Who Knows? Rumours!

 

[Via Armbar]

The same reason that Undertaker isn't known for his title runs is the same reason that he never needed to be King of the Ring. His whole character, everything about it is above titles and accolades like that. Even keeping it kayfabe, why would a deadman who has supernatural powers care about a competition where the winner gets to wear a phony crown? I suppose it would be ridiculous for him to care about world titles as well. Which is why he has never been known as a chaser of the title. It doesn't fit his character at all. King of the Ring was ultimately used as a stepping stone for midcarders to move up. Of course there were some misteps...looking at you Billy Gunn. Still, Taker was always above this. Nothing about the man screamed 'King of the Ring' and it would have been a waste.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

He never needed King of the Ring.

Taker never needed King of the Ring.

This says it all. Undertaker has always been above things like King Of The Ring, Royal Rumble, and World Titles. His mystique is what makes him interesting, not how many titles and special events that he's won. He's a larger than life character, and people buy into his character so he's never needed the KOTR.