Undertaker The Greatest WWE Superstar Of All Time?

[Arashi]

Funnyhowfactswork
I do believe only though a part time star now his win over Cena made him the greatest. He has no successfully beaten every top star of the last 3 eras of wrestling at WM in Hogan, Austin and Cena. His charisma and catch phrases are second to none. Add the fact that he is also the 4th highest paid actor in Hollywood (look it up) and he just has an aura about him that surpasses everyone. Imagine if he never did movies how many titles he'd have? As it is he can probably still go another 5 years at a high level in the shape he is in as a part timer.

Hogan was far past his prime, he face Austin 3 times at wrestlemania, so of course he's going to win one, and fact of the matter is that he had no reason to go over Cena except it was in his home town. His acting accomplishments have nothing to do with him as a wrestler. You want to say it does, you're just wrong. I don't care how good he was in the TOOTHFAIRY, it has little to nothing to do with his wrestling career. I don't care what he's paid by Hollywood it's still not relevant. Imagine if Ric Flair didn't break his back how many five star classics he could've had, If Austin didn't break his neck he could've wrestled for longer, If Brock Lesnar wasn't an asshole could you imagine how many titles he could hold? Fact is that none of those things happened so it doesn't matter. Magnum TA could've been one of the best ever, he just wasn't. Could've Would've, Should've is BS. Oh What might have he done? No I'm looking at what he did. And it wasn't as much as Austin, Hogan, or IMO Cena, and it's not close.

Personally, all that's left for him to do is end The Streak and if I was booking WM this year I'd have the Undertaker going in as champ. We can work out the details later how this happens. But I'd have him defend it against The Rock who is on a mission to become champion again. We all know whoever The Undertaker faces is gonna lose at Mania but now suddenly you've got The Rock back for one last title shot to try and become champion again. I think that'll put some doubt in people's heads that The Rock might win.

If they put Rock over taker in that situation it would be stupid. The rock is never going to come back full time and shouldn't be doing anything but putting over future stars. But clearly the way it looks he's content on taking those future and current stars and making them look like crap. Cena, D-bryan, and soon to be punk at the RR most likely. He's fine where he's at working two shows a year and never jobbing for anyone. He can ride Cena's coattails until he leaves again which is cool, just don't try and convince me that the nostalgia act is the greatest of all time when he wasn't the best in his prime, and isn't the best now.

 

[jasn88cubs]

I wouldn't say he is the greatest but he is up there for sure

 

[RJJ]

Hogan was far past his prime, he face Austin 3 times at wrestlemania, so of course he's going to win one, and fact of the matter is that he had no reason to go over Cena except it was in his home town. His acting accomplishments have nothing to do with him as a wrestler. You want to say it does, you're just wrong. I don't care how good he was in the TOOTHFAIRY, it has little to nothing to do with his wrestling career. I don't care what he's paid by Hollywood it's still not relevant. Imagine if Ric Flair didn't break his back how many five star classics he could've had, If Austin didn't break his neck he could've wrestled for longer, If Brock Lesnar wasn't an asshole could you imagine how many titles he could hold? Fact is that none of those things happened so it doesn't matter. Magnum TA could've been one of the best ever, he just wasn't. Could've Would've, Should've is BS. Oh What might have he done? No I'm looking at what he did. And it wasn't as much as Austin, Hogan, or IMO Cena, and it's not close.


If they put Rock over taker in that situation it would be stupid. The rock is never going to come back full time and shouldn't be doing anything but putting over future stars. But clearly the way it looks he's content on taking those future and current stars and making them look like crap. Cena, D-bryan, and soon to be punk at the RR most likely. He's fine where he's at working two shows a year and never jobbing for anyone. He can ride Cena's coattails until he leaves again which is cool, just don't try and convince me that the nostalgia act is the greatest of all time when he wasn't the best in his prime, and isn't the best now.

What he did is grabbing the WWE by the neck and leading it to its highest point(2000) to this day, and he did it (almost) single handedly, and I said almost because Austin was out, Foley retired earlier that year, HHH didn't become a household name up untill late 2000, Taker made his return in mid 2000 and let's be honest he wasn't really much of a factor at that point in his career, Jericho was a mid carder, Angle became a maineventer around sept, and Vince didn't play any big role during that period. So Rock was the main reason why the year 2000 is the most successful year in WWE history. You name it, PPV buyrates, TV ratings, merch sales, or whatever, you just name it....Austin's era my ass, the attitude era reached it's peak without him, that pretty much sums it all. As far as Cena goes....LOL ...If Cena was really that good, why would they bother bringing Rock back?

Just like I stated Hogan is the greatest superstar in wrestling history, not just the WWE. No one made a bigger impact that that man.

 

[FlairFan2003]

It depends on how you define "Greatest SuperStar" - If you are evaluating the combination of drawing ability, promos, in ring performance, and longevity, then you can make a strong case for Taker, especially when yot take into account how much time guys like Hogan, Savage, Flair spent in WCW and how short the main top end of the careers of guys like Austin (injuries) & Rock (movies) have been. Taker has been the most consistently good superstar for over 20 years and never left for another company or different career.

To me, that definition is more in lines with "Best Wrestler" and the best wrestler isnt always the biggest superstar, although over time they often top the individual "top guy" of the moment. Ultimate Warrior was huge at his height but his apex was short lived, no one would argue his career was better than say Savage or Flair, or even HHH. For me, "GREATEST SUPERSTAR" implies who was the best guy at being the most over guy, who could match say the apex of Warrior or Goldberg yet did it longer, maybe even better. For me, under that definition, it's Hogan.

Even before he left, Hogan was a cultural phenom for almost a decade (84-92). Undoubtedly the biggest draw and most recognized star for many years, the whole changing dynamic of the company, the national expansion, the entrance into and eventual dominance of the PPV industry, Hogan was the top star and on screen catalyst for all of this.

For me, there are a handful of guys who were transformative, the influenced change and direction within the industry. Flair influenced many of todays top stars (just ask Triple H & HBK), Sammartino was the guy WWE basically built their whole company around during his unprecedented 7 year title run, Austin was the biggest star, mainstream cultural icon in the post Hulka Mania era and spearheaded the companies 2nd big popularity explosion under Vince Jr, and Hogan. To me, Hogan strictly for WWE was the biggest.

 

[Arashi]

What he did is grabbing the WWE by the neck and leading it to its highest point(2000) to this day, and he did it (almost) single handedly, and I said almost because Austin was out, Foley retired earlier that year, HHH didn't become a household name up untill late 2000, Taker made his return in mid 2000 and let's be honest he wasn't really much of a factor at that point in his career, Jericho was a mid carder, Angle became a maineventer around sept, and Vince didn't play any big role during that period. So Rock was the main reason why the year 2000 is the most successful year in WWE history. You name it, PPV buyrates, TV ratings, merch sales, or whatever, you just name it....Austin's era my ass, the attitude era reached it's peak without him, that pretty much sums it all. As far as Cena goes....LOL ...If Cena was really that good, why would they bother bringing Rock back?

Meh, 2000 was a compilation of things. Number one was WCW was going under and sucked so hard that anyone that wanted to watch anything reasonable had to switch the channel. Which is what happened to me, and many others. Secondly wrestling was still acceptable. And I don't see how Vince didn't play a role when the main event of WM had a McMahon in each corner and the storyline for the biggest Pay per view of the year was about the McMahon's. So don't rewrite history here.

Secondly, Why wouldn't the WWE bring back Rock? Just because Cena's great doesn't mean you don't try to bring someone else in. So in 2002 the Rock wasn't good enough so they brought in Hogan and the NWO? Hogan wasn't good enough in 1984 so they had to bring back Bruno? Was that it? No that wasn't it, whenever you can bring in someone to help the product, you do it.

Rock can help the product, I didn't say he couldn't. But Cena has main evented or co-mainevented the five biggest Wrestlemania's (buyrates wise) in wrestlemania history. I know he has nothing to do with that in most people opinion but when something keeps happening you have to accept it.Rock vs Cena was no more a draw than HBK vs Cena was with Trump on the card. Cena is a money making machine and an all time great just because most people refuse to see as of right now doesn't make it any less true.

Just like I stated Hogan is the greatest superstar in wrestling history, not just the WWE. No one made a bigger impact that that man.

I won't disagree there because I evaluate it differently than you. But I can at least see your point with Hogan, but comparing Rock to Cena is funny to me, the attitude era was Austin's, you can debate it all day long but it was. Cena has been on top (with or without the title) for years and doing things NO OTHER wrestler has ever done.

 

[geneinfla]

There are lot of people responsible for the evolution of pro wrestling, in different times in different ways. By the very nature of Undertaker's character he could never be as over as Cena, Rock or Austin. His character is more visual presense with limited mic opportunities. More character than real person. All top stars with longevity change their characters, and aside from his ABA character, ironically during the attitude era for the most part, the Undertaker character has remained consistant and popular throughout the years. He was part of one of the biggest moments in WWF/WWE history, throwing Foley off and through the cage, and rarely dissappoints. To me, he's in a league of his own and can't be fairly compared to guys who burned bright for 5-7 years then dissappeared.

 

[EastCoastFan]

The Undertaker has a great career and I would definitely put him in the all-time top 10, maybe even top 5, but not number one. Steve Austin and Hulk Hogan are definitely above him, and there are many other stars (Bret, HBK, Rock, ...) who are either at the same level or higher.

 

[whoopin' ass]

can't agree with this. you mentioned longevity - how many matches has he wrestled in the last 5 years? people complained about Hogan in WCW but at least he was wrestling more than once a year. Vince has always treated him different than any other wrestler there. i think Taker has had a good career but can't say he would be the top guy, or even in the top 5.

 

[DERO1979]

Funnyhowfactswork:

<<No I'm looking at what he did. And it wasn't as much as Austin, Hogan, or IMO Cena, and it's not close. >>

You kinda just ruined it for yourself with that statement and lost some credibility. I was in agreement with lots of things until this point. Didn't do nearly as much as Hogan, Austin or Cena and it's not even close???? REALLY? First guy to ever win 7 WWE Titles? Has his own show? Catch phrases in the dictionary. He became the Hollywood star that he is today because he simply had "it" in a way that none of those three guys you mentioned did. The Rock has done it all 10 fold. What are you smoking?
The fact of the matter is the most successful financial year in the history of the WWE was 2000 when The Rock was on top. Austin wasnt even in the federation at this point. Tells you something doesnt it? You claim in another post that 2000 was a meh year with bad WCW programming and nothing else to watch. OK? So what is 2012 then? Give me a break, wrestling suffers tremendously these days from what it used to be. In 1998 no one was clamoring for a Jake the Snake Roberts versus The Rock match. It's because Rock had Austin and Triple H and The Undertaker and Mick Foley and all the attitude era stars. Nowadays all we want is the nostalgia act because Cena's era is the most diluted wrestling period in the last 30 years. People wanna see CM Punk vs The Rock. Or Rock vs Cena. Or Jericho vs Punk. Or Austin vs Punk. Or Austin vs Cena. Or Lesnar vs Cena. Nobody salivates over a CM Punk Randy Orton match. It happens, it's good. We forget about it. They brought The Rock back cause there's no one for Cena to work with cause it's a diluted talent pool in terms of star power. And don't give me Daniel Bryan or CM Punk. These guys are good for what they are but they are not ICONIC figures. And The Rock didn't go over cause WM was in his hometown. He went over because it keeps momentum for when he comes back in January. You can't bring him back to lose if he's going to be around awhile. Look how badly it's hurt Lesnar. You say he won't job? How do you know? Are you in the meetings with Vince McMahon and Triple H and the wrestling agents when they are deciding the victors? If anyone won't do the "job" it's Austin. He pouldnt do it to Hogan and X-8 and wouldnt do it to Lesnar a few weeks later. So he walked out of the company.The guys today just dont have the star power. The Rock smokes Cena on every level IMO and THAT'S not even close.....

And everyone wants to talk about Austin being the face of The Attitude Era. But how long was he on top? 2 years? 3 years? Same as The Rock. In 2012 the biggest star of the Attitude Era is The Rock. He just is. And I never said his movie career made him a better wrestler I said it added an aura to him that nobody else in the history of this business has ever had with the exception of Hogan. And IMO it has far exceeded that as well. NO ONE has the star power of The Rock.

And to be more of an Austin detractor, if we're talking longevity, Hogan was a main eventer from 1984 til like 1998. That's 14 years of being on top and even in Austin's hayday, Hogan still gave him a run for his money as the top guy in the industry. IMO The Rock has had more longevity than Austin as main eventer. Austin had a great year in 1998 but 1999 is when The Rock started to catch up to him and then eclipse him by 2000. And he remained on top until 2003 while Austin had fizzled shortly after X-7.

And why would putting Rock over Taker be stupid? Cause you think so? All you keep saying is The Rock is a part timer. Well, in the last 16 months The Rock has wrestled in twice as many matches as The Undertaker. 2. It'll be 3 come The Rumble and if they were to face at Mania it'd be his 4th to Takers 2nd. Seems like The Undertaker is more of a part timer. And I never said who I thought should go over. I said it would create more intrigue. Having said that, I do think The Rock should go overif that match were to take place.

You're a Rock hater. That's all there is to it.

 

[RJJ]

Meh, 2000 was a compilation of things. Number one was WCW was going under and sucked so hard that anyone that wanted to watch anything reasonable had to switch the channel. Which is what happened to me, and many others. Secondly wrestling was still acceptable. And I don't see how Vince didn't play a role when the main event of WM had a McMahon in each corner and the storyline for the biggest Pay per view of the year was about the McMahon's. So don't rewrite history here.

Secondly, Why wouldn't the WWE bring back Rock? Just because Cena's great doesn't mean you don't try to bring someone else in. So in 2002 the Rock wasn't good enough so they brought in Hogan and the NWO? Hogan wasn't good enough in 1984 so they had to bring back Bruno? Was that it? No that wasn't it, whenever you can bring in someone to help the product, you do it.

Rock can help the product, I didn't say he couldn't. But Cena has main evented or co-mainevented the five biggest Wrestlemania's (buyrates wise) in wrestlemania history. I know he has nothing to do with that in most people opinion but when something keeps happening you have to accept it.Rock vs Cena was no more a draw than HBK vs Cena was with Trump on the card. Cena is a money making machine and an all time great just because most people refuse to see as of right now doesn't make it any less true.



I won't disagree there because I evaluate it differently than you. But I can at least see your point with Hogan, but comparing Rock to Cena is funny to me, the attitude era was Austin's, you can debate it all day long but it was. Cena has been on top (with or without the title) for years and doing things NO OTHER wrestler has ever done.

Hogan was far past his prime, he face Austin 3 times at wrestlemania, so of course he's going to win one, and fact of the matter is that he had no reason to go over Cena except it was in his home town. His acting accomplishments have nothing to do with him as a wrestler. You want to say it does, you're just wrong. I don't care how good he was in the TOOTHFAIRY, it has little to nothing to do with his wrestling career. I don't care what he's paid by Hollywood it's still not relevant. Imagine if Ric Flair didn't break his back how many five star classics he could've had, If Austin didn't break his neck he could've wrestled for longer, If Brock Lesnar wasn't an asshole could you imagine how many titles he could hold? Fact is that none of those things happened so it doesn't matter. Magnum TA could've been one of the best ever, he just wasn't. Could've Would've, Should've is BS. Oh What might have he done? No I'm looking at what he did. And it wasn't as much as Austin, Hogan, or IMO Cena, and it's not close.


If they put Rock over taker in that situation it would be stupid. The rock is never going to come back full time and shouldn't be doing anything but putting over future stars. But clearly the way it looks he's content on taking those future and current stars and making them look like crap. Cena, D-bryan, and soon to be punk at the RR most likely. He's fine where he's at working two shows a year and never jobbing for anyone. He can ride Cena's coattails until he leaves again which is cool, just don't try and convince me that the nostalgia act is the greatest of all time when he wasn't the best in his prime, and isn't the best now.

So what you're saying is that wcw going under is the main reason why the wwe was avg'ing 7's and 6's, then can you explain to me why they went back to 5's after the wcw went out of business(2001), and why they couldn't achieve the same success they achieved in 2000 in terms of PPV buyrates?

As for Vince, didn't he screw up that main event with this whole mcmahon in each corner idea, just to feed his ego. that storyline was supposed to be Rock vs McMahon-Helmsley Regime(HHH, Steph, and DX), Vince simply got no business being involved. The weired thing is, that match ended up with vince screwing Rock for the hell of it, WTF?! Why would he join the man who literally destroyed his family(Storyline wise), that didn't make any sense. Anyway, he joined HHH, completly out of place, and 3 months later, he went back home to be linda's "Genetic jackhammer". That's why I said vince didn't play any big role during that period. They would've succeeded with or without him.


"Why wouldn't the WWE bring back Rock?"

Because back in 2004, they let his contract expire believeing he's no longer needed. They thought Cena, orton, and batista were all gonna be the next big stars that will take the company to the next level. That didn't happen, and 4yrs later Vince finded himself crawling back to Rock.

As far as the Rock-Hogan Comparison, HOgan wasn't expected to play a big role when he made his comeback. First he fought Rock, and based on the reaction he recieved from the crowd that night, he was given a very short title run, and that's about it. Rock on the other hand, is being pushed to the moon. He went over Cena clean at WM 28, they centered the whole WM 27 show around him P.S closing the show, they threw a birthday party for him, and soon he will be the wwe champion. Not to mention the 20 segmets he's been given at the end of every show.


"but comparing Rock to Cena is funny to me, the attitude era was Austin's, you can debate it all day long but it was. Cena has been on top (with or without the title) for years and doing things NO OTHER wrestler has ever done."

What things? and you're saying Cena is greater than Rock just because Cena is the top guy of his era and Rock wasn't?! by that logic, Booker T and SCSA are about equal since both of em ruled their Eras, right?

Again, you can say whatever you wanna say, at the end of the day numbers don't lie, overall, 2000 was the highest point in not only the attitude era(supposedly Austin's era), but in wwe history, mainly because of The Rock. That's something something you can't take away from him.

 

[Arashi]

You kinda just ruined it for yourself with that statement and lost some credibility. I was in agreement with lots of things until this point. Didn't do nearly as much as Hogan, Austin or Cena and it's not even close???? REALLY? First guy to ever win 7 WWE Titles? Has his own show? Catch phrases in the dictionary. He became the Hollywood star that he is today because he simply had "it" in a way that none of those three guys you mentioned did. The Rock has done it all 10 fold. What are you smoking?

Umm I never said he didn't have it, what I said is he hasn't done what Austin, Hogan, and Cena have done and he hasn't. The Attitude era was Austin's you pretty much said it wasn't then went back and changed your tune. The rock was the face of the company for two years, Cena has been for like seven. Yes he was a star, yes he has it, but being a hollywood star has absolutely nothing to do with his success in the WWE. By that logic Hogan's movie career sucks, so I guess he sucks.

The fact of the matter is the most successful financial year in the history of the WWE was 2000 when The Rock was on top. Austin wasnt even in the federation at this point. Tells you something doesnt it? You claim in another post that 2000 was a meh year with bad WCW programming and nothing else to watch. OK? So what is 2012 then? Give me a break, wrestling suffers tremendously these days from what it used to be.

Not really, if wrestling does suffer it's because WCW fans are still looking for an alternative. I'm not saying the rock wasn't good or even great but truth be told calling him the greatest is a joke to me. And wrestling still suffers even when the rocks there.

In 1998 no one was clamoring for a Jake the Snake Roberts versus The Rock match. It's because Rock had Austin and Triple H and The Undertaker and Mick Foley and all the attitude era stars. Nowadays all we want is the nostalgia act because Cena's era is the most diluted wrestling period in the last 30 years.

Or it could be because Jake the Snake Roberts was a midcarder and all the wrestlers from the eighties were still wrestling in WCW. So they weren't calling for dream matches for different eras just different companies. Austin vs Hogan was talked about, Goldberg vs Austin, Sting vs HBK, DDP vs The ROCK, Savage vs HBK, Sting vs Taker, Flair vs Rock, or HBK, Kevin Nash vs Kane or any of those guys. We had other dream matches to keep our minds on. What do we think of now? WWE vs TNA dream match ups? NO. We talk about different generations facing off because it's the cool thing to think about. Young vs old and generations colliding matches were call WCW vs WWF

People wanna see CM Punk vs The Rock. Or Rock vs Cena. Or Jericho vs Punk. Or Austin vs Punk. Or Austin vs Cena. Or Lesnar vs Cena. Nobody salivates over a CM Punk Randy Orton match. It happens, it's good. We forget about it. They brought The Rock back cause there's no one for Cena to work with cause it's a diluted talent pool in terms of star power.

Kind of but it's more of the thing where we see it all the time. After seeing something so many times it fails to have a big feel to it. CM Punk vs Randy has happened, and it will again. Just like Bryan vs CM Punk, or Cena vs Punk. We've seen it all and will see it again. That's why things are different. Dream matches have to be generation to generation. It's not because of the WWE guys either, it's because you don't have to dream about most match ups. DDP vs the Rock never happened. Austin vs Hogan didn't happen. That's why we talked about them. That's why they were Iconic because it never happened. We long for what we won't see or what we didn't think we'd get to see. And since no one cares about anyone in TNA for the most part, they can't provide those dream matches, and since the WWE is the only big wrestling company it kills that. Meaning we think about AUSTIN vs CM PUNK because it's never happened and most people thought it never would. Just like people used to think about Austin vs Hogan or Goldberg. It's the same thing, just different time period. And by the way People wanted to see Hogan vs Rock in 2002, and they also wanted Austin vs Goldberg when he reffed the Lesnar match, not to mention people wanted Bruno vs Hogan in 84'. People always want things they don't think they'll get. It's why they're called DREAM matches.

And don't give me Daniel Bryan or CM Punk. These guys are good for what they are but they are not ICONIC figures.

That wasn't what I was going to say. But thanks to jumping to such a bold and ridiculous assumption.

And The Rock didn't go over cause WM was in his hometown. He went over because it keeps momentum for when he comes back in January. You can't bring him back to lose if he's going to be around awhile.

Yep would've ruined him, everyone would've hated the rock and suddenly not bought into him at all. No he went over because it gave people a good go home feeling at WM. In Miami at the biggest show of the year they weren't going to send everyone home unhappy imo but neither of us are in the meetings so neither of us can prove that..

Look how badly it's hurt Lesnar.

Yep, it hurt him so badly that he's going to headline the second biggest pay per view of the year against one of the great wrestlers in the history of the business and destroyed another one just last week. Yeah, he's hurting.

You say he won't job? How do you know? Are you in the meetings with Vince McMahon and Triple H and the wrestling agents when they are deciding the victors? If anyone won't do the "job" it's Austin. He pouldnt do it to Hogan and X-8 and wouldnt do it to Lesnar a few weeks later.

No but I do know at some point it's got to stop being about you. I know at some point, you have to put over the current star.

So he walked out of the company.The guys today just dont have the star power. The Rock smokes Cena on every level IMO and THAT'S not even close.....

I could care less that he walked out. That's his thing, and Rock doesn't smoke Cena in every way. Like I said Cena has the top five buyrates in WM history as a main eventer. So that's somewhere he smokes the rock.

And everyone wants to talk about Austin being the face of The Attitude Era. But how long was he on top? 2 years? 3 years? Same as The Rock. In 2012 the biggest star of the Attitude Era is The Rock. He just is. And I never said his movie career made him a better wrestler I said it added an aura to him that nobody else in the history of this business has ever had with the exception of Hogan. And IMO it has far exceeded that as well. NO ONE has the star power of The Rock

Well yeah because Austin can't go. Star power, hey the rocks a very good actor. he's a wonderfully talented guy in that way the problem is that as a WRESTLER he's not close to Austin, Hogan, or Cena. As a movie star sure. More power to you but if we're talking about wrestling. No he's just not.

And to be more of an Austin detractor, if we're talking longevity, Hogan was a main eventer from 1984 til like 1998. That's 14 years of being on top and even in Austin's hayday, Hogan still gave him a run for his money as the top guy in the industry. IMO The Rock has had more longevity than Austin as main eventer. Austin had a great year in 1998 but 1999 is when The Rock started to catch up to him and then eclipse him by 2000. And he remained on top until 2003 while Austin had fizzled shortly after X-7.

K I'm not going to disagree with you on the Hogan thing. Don't think I ever did but Austin made them more money IN WRESTLING than Rock ever did and Rock was number two.

And why would putting Rock over Taker be stupid? Cause you think so? All you keep saying is The Rock is a part timer. Well, in the last 16 months The Rock has wrestled in twice as many matches as The Undertaker. 2. It'll be 3 come The Rumble and if they were to face at Mania it'd be his 4th to Takers 2nd. Seems like The Undertaker is more of a part timer. And I never said who I thought should go over. I said it would create more intrigue. Having said that, I do think The Rock should go overif that match were to take place.

Well you're saying it would make it intriguing because some people might wonder who was going to win. I disagreed because it would be stupid to put over the Rock (a part time worker) over Taker (a once a year worker) because it does nothing for the product. It would be better to put over someone young and give them the torch as opposed to giving it to a guy as just another accomplishment. And the reason you said it would be intriguing is because people would wonder, well I don't think they would. That's an opinion just like you saying it would be more intriguing would be an opinion

You're a Rock hater. That's all there is to it.

Yeah that's it, or it could be he's just not the best ever and that's the point I'm making. I don't believe Triple H is the best ever and I'd go off on the same run about him. (and before you go off on the whole "I didn't say Rock was the best" I know but you were responding to me responding to someone who said that.)

I like Rock always have; but he's not Cena, Austin, or Hogan. He's not even Sammartino IMHO but that's debatable since i hate debating the whole (it was a different time) bullshit. You're blanketing me as a rock hater. NONO, I said the rock was good in the spot he is in. Wrestling twice a year and never jobbing. Okay last year how many times did rock wrestle? Twice! How many times did he job? Never. So what I said was the Rock is good doing what he did last year...... Exactly. I also said he beat cena, buried d-bryan and will probably beat CM PUNK at the Rumble. I don't think that's a stretch, do you? Prior to the Rocks segment with D-bryan he was in ME's and in the biggest SL after it he's in a throw away match against Kane.

You keep accusing me of things, I'm just looking from an unbiased place and stating the obvious. Dislike me for all you want, it won't make the Rock a better wrestler.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

And to be more of an Austin detractor, if we're talking longevity, Hogan was a main eventer from 1984 til like 1998. That's 14 years of being on top and even in Austin's hayday, Hogan still gave him a run for his money as the top guy in the industry. IMO The Rock has had more longevity than Austin as main eventer. Austin had a great year in 1998 but 1999 is when The Rock started to catch up to him and then eclipse him by 2000. And he remained on top until 2003 while Austin had fizzled shortly after X-7.

Yeah, I don't know about that. Rock didn't really hit his stride until after WM 16 and when Austin came back, he reclaimed his #1 spot and continued to do so while the Rock was making movies. Rock was gone half the year in 2002 and was around for three months in 2003 so I'll still say Austin had a run on top longer than Rocky.

 

[#heel420]

To be clear in the OP I'm not saying he's the greatest wrestler and I'm not saying he's the biggest draw. I'm talking in terms of being a big time player for so many years. He's ALWAYS been near the top if not on it. And another thing I forgot to mention he is apart of probably the most famous match of all time. His Hell In A Cell match with Mick Foley. The moment where he throws Mankind off the top of the cell is more epic than Hogan Slamming Andre and bigger then Rock and Austin starring each other down. Sure Hogan, Rock, and Austin are the biggest draws everybody knows that. Hogan was shit in the ring . Austin & Rock were both only on top for so long. Austin from 98-01 and Rock from 00-02. Undertakers been in the main event or in one of the top story lines since 1990. Shawn Michaels is the only other guy i could see that could be considered the greatest superstar of all time, but he was gone for 4 years. And during the time he spent on time he was a dick to work with. Sure he had great matches his whole career but i think the stigma that followed him 96-98 is a big detractor.

 

[SydTinDad]

Undertaker = Cal Ripken. Hall of Famer, but a compiler. Never would be the main draw, but the backbone of the team.

Austin, Rock, Michaels = Were the draws

 

[The Phantom Rebel]

The fact the Shawn michales is called mr. wrestlemania is a crock he lost more then 50% of his wrestlemania matches and only 4 of those were classics 1. wm10 vs scott hall wm12 against bret heart and his matches against the undertaker , the fact the the undertaker is the most respected man in the business makes him the Greatest of all time

 

[SickJames]

The fact the Shawn michales is called mr. wrestlemania is a crock he lost more then 50% of his wrestlemania matches and only 4 of those were classics 1. wm10 vs scott hall wm12 against bret heart and his matches against the undertaker , the fact the the undertaker is the most respected man in the business makes him the Greatest of all time

the comment automatically loses all credibility when you said he only had four 5 star matches and didnt include Kurt Angle vs Shawn Michaels and
Y2J vs HBK. two of the greatest matches in history. And even matches that werent in ring clinics were 5 star, Vince vs HBK was epic, HBK vs Cena was good


Anyway he's called Mr. WrestleMania for doing what he does best, (being who he is, The Show Stopper) stealing the show! You dont have to win, to have the best match on the card. Then there's HBK vs HHH vs Benoit. You always remembered a Shawn Michaels match, against ANYONE not just a great tech guy or a guy who could have a decent match and wasnt tech. He couldve made Khali and Hornswoggle work at Mania

 

[Arashi]

The fact the Shawn michales is called mr. wrestlemania is a crock he lost more then 50% of his wrestlemania matches and only 4 of those were classics 1. wm10 vs scott hall wm12 against bret heart and his matches against the undertaker , the fact the the undertaker is the most respected man in the business makes him the Greatest of all time

Actually I think that's what makes him the greatest wrestlemania performer of all time. Shawn makes everyone look great, and btw you are insane if you think those are the only four classic he's had at mania. The angle match is one of the best ever, as was Jericho vs HBK, not to mention Cena vs HBK which I think is one of the most underrated matches in wrestlemania history. Then you have McMahon vs Shawn which had NO BUSINESS stealing the show and it still did. Shawn vs Tatanka was also a really good match up until the end. I'd also like to point out that Bret Hart points to WM 11 as one of HBK's great matches and break out moments saying shawn stole the show. So truth be told HBK was, is, and always will be Mr. Wrestlemania and can make his opponent look great, and never lose ANY credibility himself while lose more than anyone on the biggest stage of them all. THAT'S WHAT MAKES HIM MR.WRESTLEMANIA.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Drawing power is a bit subjective. Fact is, even if a guy is really popular with fans getting them to spend $$ to see them, especially on PPV, really depends on both their popularity and the popularity of their opponent, plus the strength of the undercard.

No doubt Cena vs Rock was a major factor in the success of this past WM but so was HHH-Taker. It certainly wasnt just the idea of putting Cena & Rock in the ring and nothing else as the low numbers for Survivor Series showed.

Some people argue about wether Brett Hart was a good draw or not. However, no one can argue that fans really didnt care too much abou his matches with Papa Shango and Isaac Yankem. I remember how great his match on Nitro was vs the guy once known as Glacier I believe, problem was people tuned out in droves during the contest. Was it becuase Hart was not popular or because no one knew or cared who the Glacier guy was, and there was no back story between them to make anyone care about the outcome.

No doubt that one guy who is over can get the audience to take notice of another guy when they share a program, but for the other guy to get over he has to be good too. Vince McManhon Jr noticed how crowds were reacting to Hogan in the AWA and liked his look, he saw possibilities with him. It helped that Hogan was working with Nick Bockwinkle, a legendary heel and very good in ring performer in his day who at the time was very over with AWA fans as hated heel champ. If Hogan was working with unknowns on the bottom of the card he might not have gotten noticed as easily outside the confines of the AWA.

Definately the success of an event usually depends on having two or three matches that are "must see" to average fans, with the hopes if you book things right that those matches will bring fans in who will be entertained by what else is on the card. WrestleMania is a great example of this, even looking at their biggest ones, there has always been multiple under card matches that had major build up and significant appeal supporting the main event. Steamboat-Savage at WM 3, Piper-Hart at WM 8, Flair's last stand at WM 24, Taker-HHH each of the last two years, they may not have been the main event in that particular year but they were heavily promoted, significant, main event quality matches that would make fans want to buy the show.

Just putting someone who is popular out there and having a lackluster card behind them will only get you so far. Drawing power, at least in the PPV age, really is subjective. Even in the house show era, I can tell you attending WWE & NWA shows regularly in the 80s/early 90s that although attendance was higher whenever Hogan or Flair appeared repsectively, the biggest shows were the ones where not only those guys were spotlighted but also their were other strong matches, at least one or two, that interested fans. I remember a WWE card in 92 main evented by Savage-Jake Roberts that drew around 6,000-7,000 range. That didnt mean those guys were not popular but honestly the card wasnt very good, I cant remember one match other than the main event that night. Later that year, a show headlined by HBK also drew in that range. In between there was a show that drew well over 13,000 but it was headlined by Hogan vs Flair (by this time they were both in WWE) and also featured Piper, DiBiase, & Brett Hart in competition, all advertised in advance. Was it just because Hogan and/or Flair was there or was a combination of those guys plus other really big names in competition, vs the other cards where little promotion was given ahead of time to any matches except the main event ?

I think we can all agree that Hogan & Austin are tops at the repsective heights as "draws" and certain other guys definately were very big, including Cena currently. However, the success of a show does not rest solely on the appearance of one guy. The biggest shows and best runs often have a pretty strong undercard. I also think we can all agree regardless of how you want to define "Best Wrester" vs "Best SuperStar" that Taker has proven very popular and able to sell tickets for a long time, better than most.

 

[HBsam31]

He is very close as far as I am concerned. Hogan/Austin/Rock would probaly be the top 3, but if you are going by loyalty and longevity then he is probably WWE's greatest asset ever. I mean he was the guy they leaned on when everyone jumped ship. Taker and HBK stuck it out. When I think of WWE guys I think of HBK and Taker. So yeah he is definitely near the top.