Why has The Undertaker never won the PWI best singles wrestler?

[michael.foulds]

The title explains it all basically. The Undertaker is one of the best wrestlers in my lifetime imo. He is proably the best big man wrestler of all time, does his gimmick to perfection and is an all round outstading worker.

But why has he never been wrestler of the year? Is it because he's never actually been the fans favourite, always taking second seat to guys like Hogan, Rock etc? Is it because he's never been as big as a draw of them? Or is it actually wrestling ability?

Your thoughts?

 

[Calderownz]

It has a lot to do with the fact that when he has a stellar year, it's because he has a couple of great feuds. When those feuds take place, the other guy usually helps carry the load. That guy then usually gets ranked above The Undertaker because they generally do more of the wrestling.

The highest he's ever been rated is 2002, when he was ranked #2. Rob Van Dam came in at #1.

He had a classic feud with Eddie Guerrero over the Intercontinental championship. Before that, had a brief feud with The Undertaker and lost the Hardcore title. After that, he ended up beating The Undertaker for the Undisputed Championship on Raw. However, the decision was reversed. Then, to keep things rolling he ended up beating Guerrero for the Intercontinental title in a classic Ladder Match on Raw.

Then, he lost to Brock Lesnar in the finals of the King Of The Ring title, but defended his title twice by DQ with Brock, still holding the gold.

After that, he beat Jeff Hardy in a unification bout for the IC and European titles. Then, finally lost the title to Chris Benoit. Then, he won the title back and unified that title with the Hardcore title in a match with Tommy Dreamer. Essentially, he held three unified title at once at this point.

Then, he lost the IC title to Jericho, when he and Triple H were feuding. Triple H cost him the title. He was about to beat Triple H a few times, but Ric Flair stopped that. So, he ends up beating Ric Flair.

That's a pretty monster year. Consider The Undertaker had the Undisputed title, he'd have a good chance at beating this, so to say. However, would you put it over the year RVD had? I wouldn't. That was a great year for RVD.

Classic matches, a few good feuds and a good hand all over the card. Unified titles and played well in the main event. All on wrestling, as well, as he's not a great talker.

And this is just an example. Every time The Undertaker has a good year, it's just hard to put The Undertaker's year above the guy at #1. Same thing that happened the time The Undertaker came in 5th or 6th or what have you.

 

[red ass skull muhfukkah]

I think the main reason is Undertaker has never been the #1 guy in the company. There has always been wrestlers who are above him in terms of popularity and drawing. He puts on great matches and has has more memorable feuds than you can count, but there is always one or two feuds or one or two wrestlers who had better matches and better feuds than he did that year.

The whole Attitude Era he had Stone Cold, The Rock, and Triple H all above him in every way. There's no doubting he is one of the most popular superstars of all time and during that era but Austin, The Rock and HHH were always one or two steps above him. The years after the brand split had guys like Triple H, Angle, Cena coming in, Eddie, and Lesnar all above him.

Even now he is probably the #4 or #5 guy in WWE. Behind Cena, Orton, Cm Punk/Nexus/Barrett, and even the Miz at the moment. He is the biggest draw on SmackDown! (when he's healthy) but Raw is always the #1 show, the top wrestlers on RAW outweigh the top guys on SD!.

So simply put he has never been the best wrestler on the roster he has always been in the top 10 to top 5 but there has and probably always will be a few wrestlers who are above him in terms of memorable feuds, memorable matches, popularity and drawing power.

 

[Post]

Great points by Calderownz and Red Skull.

I think you also have to take into account quality of matches. By no means am I saying that Undertaker isn't a good in ring worker, but for a long time many of his opponents were terrible. WWF/E often fed the Undertaker "monster" opponents like Giant Gonzalez, Sid, Kama, Fake Undertaker, Vader, and the Great Khali. With bad opponents, anyone would be limited with what they could do in the ring. I think this definitely hurt some of the quality of Taker's matches.

Undertaker did have some great feuds and unbelievable matches, but the timing was not ideal. When he was having epic battles with Mankind, Michaels, Hart, Austin were really on top. Other wrestlers like the Rock and Triple H also really came into the limelight when he was in his prime as well. He was a victim of a successful period in wrestling.

In discussing this issue, you have to consider injuries as well. In the mid 1990's he missed several months with a broken orbital bone and wrestled with many injuries, including a broken foot when he faced Mankind in the infamous HIAC match. In the last 10 years he has missed several extended periods of time for injuries.


I'm not saying that he never deserved the top ranking, but I think these reasons along with the reasons listed by others provide some explanation.

 

[Mustang Sally]

By no means am I saying that Undertaker isn't a good in ring worker, but for a long time many of his opponents were terrible.

Good point. Actually, Undertaker is a terrific ring worker; he works smoothly and complements what his opponent is doing and can coax a decent match out of almost any decent wrestler. The problem is that so many of his opponents have been less than decent. How is anyone going to work a good match with Giant Gonzalez or The Great Khali? Also, when 'Taker works with someone who's too small for him (Rey Mysterio, Jeff Hardy) it comes off looking less than believable. But when he goes up against a superior worker like Triple H, we've see the man's best matches.

But the main reason he's never been #1 is because his work rate has never measured up to the guy who becomes PWI #1. Even before the injuries that kept him out for long periods of time, he was never the workhorse that other #1's have been. 'Taker's feuds were epic; but they few and far between. His TV matches were usually against over-matched opposition and not very exciting. Due to the nature of the character he was playing, you didn't see him mainstreaming, either. Can you imagine him throwing out the first ball at a Red Sox game, or visiting a children's hospital? The guy who takes the PWI #1 is often found doing things like that.

Undertaker is (was) great, but becoming the #1 wrestler in the world takes more than what you do in the ring during PPVs.

 

[Strong Style X]

You've all made great points but the answer to me is always fairly obvious. PWI isn't exactly the most reliable source in the world. They've gotten championship histories messed up, BOGUS championship reigns added to lineages, and are very biased towards American wrestling in particular. Not to mention that the people who run it are some of the biggest Flair and HBK marks ever. When I see how many five star matches (rated by PWI mind you, not me) guys like Misawa pull off and how well they draw for one year and some underperforming (aka zero top performing five star battles) and underdrawing American wrestler wins "Wrestle of the Year", you know it's a load of crap.

 

[The_Gizzame]

He's a great talent, has amazing matches and feuds but usually misses long periods of T.V. at time. ( which I have no problem w/ by the way because it keeps him healthy), therefore other people who are consistently good throughout the year get a higher rating because although Taker was great for parts of the year, and possibly even better in some areas then someone ranked higher thatn him, the said talent who is ranked higher did well over all for the entire year.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I'd say there's several reasons:-

-If he's not in an actual fued, Taker does nothing but squash/elevate mid-carders. If he gets hurt during a year, then Taker's year usually consists of two fueds and two fueds only. Look at 2010 for example. He started off as champion, lost it, wrestled HBK again at Mania, was on hiatus for ages after that, came back, had some #1 contender matches, got injured again, came back, fueded with Kane and is now injured again.

So in 2010, Taker had 2 fueds, the end of a title reign and nothing else all year.

- Most of his career is based on gimmick matches with spot monkeys and super heavyweights.

As someone stated earlier, when he's in the ring with a tachtician like HHH or Angle, he puts on some amazing quality matches.

When he's wrestling Austin or Hogan, where the guy does very little outside of his own signature moves, then the matches struggle.

And when he's in the ring with sloppy messes like Kahli and Henry then the matches bomb, and his matches with Foley only really stand out because of the brutality of the match overall.

So instead of having a wide variety of matches across the space of a year with a wide variety of opponents, Taker spent most of the '90s facing the same people or people who all fit the same mold, and from 2000 to 2010, faced more varied opponents but got injured more and more so he's rarely even there.

If he faced the calibur of opponents that he faces now, but 10 years ago, he very well may have been PWI #1 at least once.

and finally....

- His gimmick restricts him, especially when it comes to promos. He can't give a promo without referecing death and the grave and is seemingly cemented as a face until the day he retires. Now, just describing that seems contradictory. A good guy that talks about soul collecting and burying people?

So those are the three main reasons why i think Taker hasn't managed to be recognised as the #1 wrestler by PWI.

 

[The Ace of Knaves]

You've all made great points but the answer to me is always fairly obvious. PWI isn't exactly the most reliable source in the world. They've gotten championship histories messed up, BOGUS championship reigns added to lineages, and are very biased towards American wrestling in particular. Not to mention that the people who run it are some of the biggest Flair and HBK marks ever. When I see how many five star matches (rated by PWI mind you, not me) guys like Misawa pull off and how well they draw for one year and some underperforming (aka zero top performing five star battles) and underdrawing American wrestler wins "Wrestle of the Year", you know it's a load of crap.

I haven't heard truer words about PWI. Kudos to your statement. I think PWI really isn't a reliable source for things like this. Come on, they chose HBK vs Flair (WM 24) over Rock vs Hogan (WM 18) Taker vs HBK (WM 25) as the match of the decade 2000-2009 SIMPLY because it was Flair's retirement match? What a good decision, considering Flair returned to wrestle in TNA not long after PWI announced it.

And they picked John Cena as WWE's Greatest Legend of All Time with Stone Cold as number 2?! Wow, at least when WWE had a poll it was Undertaker who won it. I'm no Cena hater, but putting him above Austin is ridiculous.

 

[scottyshowman82]

Undertaker kind of reminds me of Superman in comics. They made the character so strong that at times he needs to be taken away from story in order for other characters to shine. For years Taker was a side attraction taking on every behemoth the WWE threw at him while guys like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels enjoyed long title reigns.
Honestly based on his gimmick Taker should be able to wipe the floor with those respective legends because he gimmick makes him so dominant. But they couldn't hold guys like Hart and Michaels down because they were good for the company.


Only when WWE's roster got depleted in the mid 90's did he finally get in the world title picture again and later in his career. But for most of Taker's career he has been a side attraction to the world title.

 

[Himura84]

I think the reason The Undertaker has never been #1 simply comes down to the matches he had. I have never really enjoyed any of his matches. There have been maybe 2 or 3 matches with him I enjoyed. #1 Wrestlemania 25 against HBK was the best match I have seen if not ever at least in a long time. HBK vs Taker at WM 26 was nowhere near as good and the end could have been much better. #2 The HIAC match against Mankind. Let's face it everyone had that OMG moment when we saw Mankind thrown off the cell. #3...well honestly I can't really think of when it was but I liked the ladder match he had against Jeff Hardy on an episode of Smackdown. Maybe it's just a bias I have against the "big" guys like Taker, Show and Batista and other wrestlers of that type. I don't know but I like matches that are fast paced and exciting, not slow and boring like the majority of Takers were. In the his gimmick had something to do with it too. I mean seriously Undertaker vs Giant Gonzales WWE WTF?

Also in response to an earlier comment in this discussion, I do agree the Flair vs HBK match at WM 24 was not Match Of The Decade worthy, but then again that's just my opinion. My vote has to be WM 25 HBK vs Undertaker because no match had all of my household in so much suspense like that in a long time.