Was The Undertaker Really That Important?

[relentless1]

The Undertaker has always been in the main/co-main event scene.
WWE survived the loss of bret hart coz he was old. Vince realized he'd be taking more money than he'd make for the company which is exactly what bret did in WCW.
Now imagine a young phenom leaving the WWF. Vince loses money WCW gets a new attraction.
Now imagine the WWE roster without taker feuding with all the top dogs. Would they be considered that great had they not beaten the Deadman.
He and kane added an extra tier to the roster.
Jerico in one of his interviews said vince only cared about what the top guys were doing. You can believe taker was always one of them.
At one point before, The Great One took over, more people knew The Undertaker than anyone in WWE. He was very important and he made tons of money. But whether WWE would have survived without him is anyone's guess.

lol you really believe that Bret hart was much older than the Undertaker? take off the WWE blindfold man, Taker isn't even in the same league as Bret and Shawn, much less Hogan and Austin.

 

[SCrooked1]

lol, even if that were true and I say Austin got the buys not Taker, thats one PPV from one year. Stop drinking the WWE koolaid, UT isn't that important to the overall success to WWE as you might think.

What's so "lol" about it? Undertaker was the only other established star at that point, to say he had nothing to do with that buyrate is beyond ludicrous.

Undertaker is the reason that Kane got over and still exists today, he was the first heel that didn't have the traditional heel characteristics (acting like a coward and insulting the fans) and was the first babyface that didn't have the traditional face characteristics (slapping hands with fans or acknowledging them). He clearly did have an impact on the wrestling world man.

 

[Mustang Sally]

First, and this is arguable, there wouldn’t have been a Mankind and by extension there wouldn’t have been Cactus Jack, Dude Love, or Mick Foley. Sure, Mankind may have still been introduced, however, would he have gotten over as well as he did when he debuted if there was no Undertaker?

There's no way to know. Mankind would have had to develop differently had Undertaker not been there as an ideal opponent to get him started, yet Mick Foley wasn't hired just to give 'Taker something else to do; Foley was brought in for his hardcore prowess.....and it's possible he could have become even bigger had 'Taker jumped.....or not.

But yes, Undertaker was important to WWE. He filled a special role through the years, one that the company felt they couldn't do without. The thing is, overexposing Mark Calaway and his gimmick in the way they used Bret Hart and Steve Austin would have worn out the mystery of Undertaker. Sure, he was used a lot more than he is today, but installing him as world champion for any length of time would have ruined his mystique for the fans, causing them to regard him as just another good wrestler.

Even today, that he performs less because of age and injury is logical and good. It gives a 'special added attraction' asset to PPVs when he shows up, as if he's a star from a different sports entertainment organization coming in to perform a single match for WWE. Things are just as they should be.

Through the years, we could always depend on guys like Hart, Austin, Michaels & Cena to do the heavy, constant work......while the appearance of Undertaker was a widely anticipated event to look forward to.

It's been 25 years well-spent, for him & us.

 

[relentless1]

What's so "lol" about it? Undertaker was the only other established star at that point, to say he had nothing to do with that buyrate is beyond ludicrous.

Undertaker is the reason that Kane got over and still exists today, he was the first heel that didn't have the traditional heel characteristics (acting like a coward and insulting the fans) and was the first babyface that didn't have the traditional face characteristics (slapping hands with fans or acknowledging them). He clearly did have an impact on the wrestling world man.

The WWF could have filled Summerslam with ANYBODY against Austin and it would have sold out, Stone Cold was white hot in the summer of '98.

And Taker wasn't the first aggressive heel; Jake the Snake and Roddy Piper were "cool" heels long before Undertaker came onto the scene and theres been many strong silent type monster heels before Undertaker as well.

I give Mark Calloway kudos for being one of the longest tenured wrestlers and being able to make that gimmick work for as long as he has but to say he's in the upper echelon of the all time greats isn't accurate. In my opinion and from what top carrying stars are he's not even in the second tier tbh, he was never the centrepiece of the WWF/E even though he was a great attraction nothing was ever truly built around him as far as the main event scene in the WWF is concerned. Keep believing the hype bro but deep down you can't deny the truth: Undertaker was a good wrestler and a great gimmick but he has never ever been "the" guy and that just doesnt make him all that important to the WWF/E overall.