Wrestling fans are hypocrites to not criticize The Undertaker

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

As Wrestlemania approaches, it's that time again when The Undertaker returns.

Did The Undertaker bother to show up at the Royal Rumble? No.

Did The Undertaker bother to show up before the elimination chamber? No.

However that doesn't matter, Taker made his yearly return the night after the elimination chamber, he came with his whole tired undertaker entrance with the undertaker costume, stabbed a guy with a pen on his hand and did some weird facial expressions that are only amusing to 8 year olds. But hey! HE GREW HIS BEARD BACK!! Isn't that awesome??


Alright, let's cut to the chase.

Source: PWInsider Elite

- The*Undertaker*was not at last night's RAW in Chicago as he was at home.*WWE*was still advertising Taker to appear as of the weekend so it must have been a*last minute*change. There was a version of the RAW script that had a staredown between Taker and*Brock Lesnar.



So let me get this straight, The Undertaker had pretty much all last year to rest, there's only what 6 RAWs for him to appear? And he couldn't be at all of them? Really?


There isn't any argument in the world that can be made to justify this without justifying it to other part timers.


What is it? The Undertaker has "paid his dues" since he spend a long time in the WWE?
Batista stayed in WWE for 8 years, that's not good enough? The Rock hasn't paid his dues?
He carried WWF on his back in 2000, a year that didn't have Austin/Taker/Foley for the most of it, and took it to unprecedented heights, he led WWF/E to it's most successful financial year in history in terms of ratings, ppv buyrates...
That isn't paying your dues?

Taker shouldn't be wrestling at all, he should've retired at WrestleMania 28 with 22-0 in the End of an Era match, if not this year should've been his last match at the historic WMXXX with 22-0.

Is The Undertaker going to end his career with Brock Lesnar? Of course not.

Is The Undertaker going to retire without facing Cena at wrestlemania? Don't think so.

Last year's match against punk was supposed to be a filler match, you know 21-0 isn't like 20-0 or 22-0 but this year it was supposed to be Cena vs Taker.

Taker should've retired this year.


Why doesn't The Undertaker just retire already? He's almost 50.

Last year, he got carried by Cm punk at wrestlemania. Taker told a great story no doubt but punk pretty much did all the work.

Taker got all year to prepare for one match, of course the match is going to be great.


Why didn't Shawn Michaels continued wrestling like The Undertaker?

Why did he choose to retire? It's because he's not an egomaniac.



Wrestling won't stop on one wrestler, not Hogan, not Austin, not Rock and certainly not The Undertaker.

WWE needs to "move on".


At least with Rock or Batista or Brock, there's a possibility that they lose at wrestlemania.


The Streak was once something historic, now it seems like the most boring storyline ever.

Should I care if the 21-0 becomes a 22-0 or that the 22-0 becomes a 23-0? Because I really don't.


What is the matter with wrestling fans?

Wrestling fans are like good kids who listen to their parents. Hating on The Undertaker is like sleeping after 8pm, it's Forbidden!



What Taker is doing is wrong? Him getting 10 minutes for his entrance while some guys who work 300+ days a year don't even get a match at wrestlemania.


Also, sure Taker wasn't WWE Champ like Rock was but was Rock really WWE Champion?

As grown ups, most of us wrestling fans know that WWE is scripted / planned and that The Rock was only WWE champ to lose to Cena.
Like it or not, Rock put Cena over. Cena has never faced a bigger superstar than The Rock, the only one that could rival Rock's star power in wrestling are Hogan and Austin and both retired.
Rock put Cena over in the biggest match of his career.

Lesnar also lost to Cena and Triple H.


The Undertaker didn't put anyone over since his "part time days" unless you call giving the shield their first loss "putting them over".









In conclusion, The Undertaker should've retired this year.

I have no interest in seeing The Undertaker anymore.

They did the same thing with HBK, HHH, Punk and now are doing it with Lesnar.

"Everybody said they'll end the streak but they didn't but I will"

It's the same story, same build up, same $#!t every year.

I have no interest seeing Lesnar or Paul Heyman trying to convince us for the next couple of Weeks that he'll end the streak. He won't. Nobody will.

Lesnar is nor an all time great (Rock, Cena...) or a guy who is the future of wwe (reigns, wyatt...) who can make you think the streak will end.

I just hope we can fast forward all those meaningless Heyman segments on the next couple of raws, and fast forward the match at wrestlemania where people will overreact and act like maniacs to every "false finish" although we all know Lesnar has zero chance in ending the streak.

I don't care about a "great match", I've been a wrestling fan for a very long time and watched many "great matches", one of my favorites is the TLC match at wrestlemania X7 mostly because it featured a lot of young talents, same with elimination chamber, the shield vs the wyatts, it was a "GREAT" match.

Many wrestlers in WWE right now can have a "GREAT" match if given enough time.



If I watched a movie that I knew how it end, it could be the greatest movie ever but I won't enjoy it much.
I'd rather watch a mediocre movie that I don't know the ending of than to watch a great movie that I knew how it's going to end.



Now if you want to reply, stay on topic.
If you're going to "troll", you will be reported.

 

[Loganity]

I can't speak for any fan other then myself So I'm going to tell you why I haven't and will never criticize The Undertaker's current schedule. You referenced it above, he's paid his dues and in my opinion at anyway he's had the match of the year every year since WM25. Also except for Cm Punk, he's worked with people that have long ago had their day in the sun and might as well been part timers when he faced them. This year is no different, I have no problem with two part-timers being in a high profile match. In last years case CM punk had nothing better to do because The Rock was hogging the spotlight, and CM Punk had already been champion for 434 days.

My problem with part-timers like The Rock and Batista is that after being gone for years they come back and are thrown to the main-event of the biggest show of the year. You don't see The Undertaker doing that, when's the last time he was the main-event of WM? Been awhile hasn't it? As long has he's able to compete at a high-level he's earned the right to have a high profile match.

Another reason is his unquestionable loyalty. He didn't jump ship, he didn't leave. Last year if I remember correctly he was quoted as saying if he didn't compete at WM he feels like he'd be letting Vince McMahon and the fans down. For me it's amazing that even pushing 50 he feels like he owes us anything. I was bummed he wasn't at Raw last night, but I'm sure something important came up, if I'm not mistaken he has a child with McCool maybe something happened with one of them. Shawn Michaels has missed shows because of commitments to family before. I understand you're a big Rock fan, but it's different circumstances.

 

[born_of_fire]

If I watched a movie that I knew how it end, it could be the greatest movie ever but I won't enjoy it much.
I'd rather watch a mediocre movie that I don't know the ending of than to watch a great movie that I knew how it's going to end.

You are, of course, entitle to your opinion, but I think you do have to recognize that you're in the extreme minority here. A great movie can be watched over and over and over again, sometimes with increased enjoyment upon multiple viewings. If knowing how something is going to end completely ruins the enjoyment, no one would ever rewatch anything.

So while I would concede your point that The Undertaker's annual Streak match and the surrounding build-up have a certain level of predictability to them, it still more exciting and more enjoyable than just about anything else they could potentially do with that time. At least, that is, in the eyes of most fans. There is obviously a minority, yourself included, that thinks otherwise.

Also, your comparisons to the fan response to other "part-timers" are fair to an extent, but here's the difference: The Undertaker didn't suddenly leave the company in his prime to pursue other interests. He's dedicated his entire career to the WWE, and I think it's partly for this reason that the fans are perfectly okay with him riding out his final few years on his own terms.

Personally though, fans responses are different for each wrestler and I think a multitude of factors play into how they'll be received. On some levels, there's really no comparisons to be made. Each wrestler is different, as is the circumstances of their departures and returns, as is the attitudes and expectations of the fans at various points in time. One or two factors can't explain why guys like Lesnar, Taker, and Jericho can be successful coming and going as they please while a guy like Batista or even The Rock has to deal with negative or mixed reactions.

We can try to explain these things and argue night and day, but ultimately it's about the bottom line. Only one of two things can stop The Undertaker from doing what he's doing: the man himself calling it quits or the fans losing interest. The latter won't happen, and the former will only happen when he decides it's time. So until then, you're unfortunately out of luck. Your only consolation will be that which you get from ranting in WrestleZone forums.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

Surely we should blame the guy playing the undead character on television, and not the writers that are responsible for writing him into a story, or the guys in the head office who tell the writers to do so. All of that must be The Undertaker's fault for the way television advertises him. Undertaker is to blame for being told to show up only at 'Mania to keep The Streak alive. Nobody else could make that decision but The Undertaker.

Don't get me wrong; I'm sure The Undertaker can make choices with how long he has been an icon in the WWE. But to say that's all up to him is ignoring 90% of what really goes on behind the cameras. At the end of the day, he's just another employee being told what to do and what script to follow.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

There isn't any argument in the world that can be made to justify this without justifying it to other part timers.

Sure there is. I doubt you'll accept it; you may, but I doubt it. I might be wrong, but I get the impression that you'd stick with your POV no matter what. Your mind's made up and I doubt if there'd be any counterargument that could change it no matter how logical or reasonable it might be.

What is it? The Undertaker has "paid his dues" since he spend a long time in the WWE?
Batista stayed in WWE for 8 years, that's not good enough? The Rock hasn't paid his dues?

I don't think it has much of anything to do with paying dues. Nostalgia does play a part in it, there's no question as to that. I'm guessing, and that's all it is, that it has something to do with the fact that Taker's something of a dying breed. What I mean by that is he's an old school guy with an old school mentality in which you do your absolute best no matter what spot on the card you're in. You bust your ass to earn what success you get in pro wrestling. That's a mind set that's very much going by the way side. A lot of younger wrestlers in the business and getting into it cop an attitude of entitlement, like they're owed a big league spot for one reason or another. Allegedly, one reason why WWE didn't sign The Young Bucks a while back is they showed up acting like a couple of arrogant snots. Allegedly, again, they talked down to veterans like Booker T as if they were better than he was and essentially said as much on Twitter.

In the cases of Batista and The Rock, it's not that they haven't paid dues. Some fans are hating on them because they left and that's wrong, in my opinion. Both wanted to do other things, The Rock had already done everything there was to do in WWE and Batista was a 6 time World Champion. I had no problem with The Rock's return as a wrestler the first time around; I thought his first match with Cena was great. My problem with him did develop the second time around because he'd let himself go as far as conditioning. Yeah, he was even more muscular, but he'd sacrificed his cardio in order to pack on more mass and cut. The result was three matches that were very subpar compared to the one he had with Cena. I wasn't wild about The Rock winning the championship, not because he beat CM Punk for it, but because it already gave away the ending of his second match with Cena. You knew that The Rock was going away after WrestleMania 29, which means he had to drop the title to Cena. I give The Rock credit for hanging in the match while he was injured but, as I mentioned, his cardio was subpar with or without the injury.

As for Batista, I just think the guy pretty much sucks & blows at the same time. Whether it's inside the ring or on the mic, there's just nothing at all close to remarkable about him. He has a great look and he's in damn good shape, especially for a man 45 years old. He's not nearly as muscular as he once was, which is understandable given his age, the various training he did for his MMA fight to drop weight, etc. But take away his look, there's just nothing there in my opinion. And you wanna talk about being in lousy cardio shape, Batista's definitely got it. He was so gassed due to his match with Del Rio that he could hardly stand for a little bit, he had to kneel down and lean up against the ropes. If Batista drew money like The Rock and/or had his talent, I could at least understand the desire to bring him back and put him in the WM WWE WHC match even if I didn't agree with it, but he doesn't draw money like The Rock nor is he as talented; nowhere close.

Last year's match against punk was supposed to be a filler match, you know 21-0 isn't like 20-0 or 22-0 but this year it was supposed to be Cena vs Taker.

How do you know that it was supposed to be Cena vs. Taker this year? I certainly don't remember hearing or reading anything about that. From what I understand, at least based on what reports I've read, Taker vs. Lesnar at WM XXX is a match that WWE's been planning since post WrestleMania last year. Allegedly, it's the reason why Lesnar went over Punk at SummerSlam as WWE didn't want Lesnar going up against Taker with a 2-3 ppv record. Of course, who knows if that's entirely accurate? Other reports alleged that Taker had personally asked to work with Daniel Bryan at WrestleMania XXX

Why doesn't The Undertaker just retire already? He's almost 50.

He probably will before too long. He can't have too much left in the tank and they have to know that he's heading into an age range where it's gonna get a little ridiculous.

Last year, he got carried by Cm punk at wrestlemania. Taker told a great story no doubt but punk pretty much did all the work.

I call genuine, 100% bullshit on this. In order to have a great match, it takes more than one guy to pull it off. I'm sure you've heard phrases about some wrestlers being so talented that they could put on a compelling match against a broomstick, but it's pure hyperbole. Telling a good story can be every bit as important as the action that goes on during a match. It's a huge part of why Taker's past 5 matches in particular at WrestleMania have been so acclaimed. Taker isn't what he once was, and that's not surprising considering how much the wear & tear has caught up with him, but he's most certainly not dead weight in there.

Taker got all year to prepare for one match, of course the match is going to be great.

I have a feeling that Taker would be wrestling much more frequently if he was able to. He's been well known for putting off taking time off to rest up or pushing back having needed surgeries for the sake of the business. As I alluded to, it's caught up to him in a big way the past 5 or 6 years; everything comes at a price. Besides, Taker's already a huge star that did it all as well; he's long since reached a point in his career where he's bigger than any championship. As a result, couple that with his injuries, they figure the best use of Taker is as a special attraction to help jack up WrestleMania ppv buys.

Why didn't Shawn Michaels continued wrestling like The Undertaker?

Why did he choose to retire? It's because he's not an egomaniac.

Shawn Michaels isn't an egomaniac?!?!?!?! Shawn Michaels has one of the biggest egos in the history of professional wrestling. Ever hear of The Kliq? Ever hear of any of the shenanigans that HBK pulled back in the day before becoming religious? If it was possible for WWE to copyright the word "egomaniac", it would have belonged pasted across a Shawn Michaels t-shirt.

The Streak was once something historic, now it seems like the most boring storyline ever.

Should I care if the 21-0 becomes a 22-0 or that the 22-0 becomes a 23-0? Because I really don't.

Then it's a good thing for WWE you're not the only viewer that they have.

What is the matter with wrestling fans?

Don't know that anything's the matter with wrestling fans. You're the troll that's always griping about one thing or another. If you're so dissatisfied with what's going on, you'd be better off spending your time watching something else. It's impossible to feel anything but sadness towards someone who'd rather watch something they don't like just to complain about it.

Wrestling fans are like good kids who listen to their parents. Hating on The Undertaker is like sleeping after 8pm, it's Forbidden!

Not at all. You wanna hate on the guy, hate away. Just be prepared to have people disagree with you and have reasons for doing so that are every bit as legitimate, to them, as yours are for hating on him.

What Taker is doing is wrong? Him getting 10 minutes for his entrance while some guys who work 300+ days a year don't even get a match at wrestlemania.

The nature of business. Something tells me that most fans would prefer to see The Undertaker vs. Brock Lesnar rather than Zack Ryder vs. Yoshi Tatsu. It ain't exactly fair, but since when did fair have anything to do with life?

Also, sure Taker wasn't WWE Champ like Rock was but was Rock really WWE Champion?

Yeah, this comment is truly asinine. You really should've thought about it before keeping it. The Rock pinned Punk when Punk was champ, hence The Rock became champ. The fact that he was a transitional champion is irrelevant, the fact that his run was mediocre due to foreknowledge that left no doubt he would drop the title at WrestleMania 29 is irrelevant. Save whatever philosophical interpretations you may have for what constitutes as "really" being champion in pro wrestling. The Rock was champ, his run was mediocre and the notion that's somehow negated because pro wrestling is scripted simply won't fly.

 

[Arsenal]

Undertaker's annual WrestleMania match is a symbol of a larger problem in WWE. The fact is they absolutely suck at creating new stars, therefore they need to rely on the old ones (Undertaker, Cena, Orton, Batista, Rock, HHH, Hogan) to sell WrestleMania.

If the WWE properly built new stars they wouldn't need to drag these guys back for every WrestleMania.

That said, I enjoy watching the Undertaker because as a 25+ year fan, he is the last remaining link to times (Golden era, Attitude era) when the WWE was MUCH better than it is now. Plus he's only around for a few weeks a year, so he doesn't get overexposed like the guys they shove down our throat every week (Cena, Orton).

 

[Mustang Sally]

In conclusion, The Undertaker should've retired this year.

I have no interest in seeing The Undertaker anymore.

You have every right to that opinion. The thing is, WWE also has the right to theirs and they apparently figure there are still plenty of people who are interested in seeing Undertaker.

My feeling is that, given his own devices, he would already have retired several years ago. His body isn't in good shape and he probably has enough money in the bank to insure financial comfort for the rest of his life.

But WWE still wanted him as an attraction, so the agreement that was made included provision for him to work once a year, with a few promotional appearances before the event. They must figure he's earned this privilege and is worth it, and while younger workers might not like it, this is the reality of the situation. In recent years, the company has adjusted their flexibility in structuring contracts for some of the top performers.....and this is an example of it. I'm neither defending nor condemning: this is simply the way it is.

WWE's logic is this: either the company lets Mark Calaway do it this way .....or they don't get him at all. They've made their choice.

 

[Torgo]

Franklyif you dont like the program, DONT FREAKING WATCH IT!

Like Jack Hammer said you are in the epic minority here champ. You are hating on a true legend, just for the reason of hating. You have no facts, but that of your own opinion. I dont know why the mods dont just ban you becasue it seems like every post youu make here is degrading a legend. You did it with the rock, you did it with stone cold, now you are doing it with 'Taker.

Why should Taker get a longer entrance thanothers?

Because when you have been with a business since 1990, you get perks.

Taker hasn't put anyone over? how bout letting the Shield powerbomb him through a table? Ya know, the thing that wrote him of TV???

I do agree with the bits about the sfresh talent putting on great matches and making names. You dont do that fighting JTG, you do it fighting Someone like Trips or the Undertaker. Even if you lose, if you put on a good enough match, you will be a name.

In conclusion, The Undertaker draws. Big time. You cannot say that people arent happy when the lights go out and the gong chimes. You are in the minority here, jack. You are gonna have to live with it.

OH, make some positive posts for once, will ya?

 

[Messiah]

This is dumb.

Undertaker coming around 1 PPV a year is what's best for WWE.. He's made a career of beating guys at WrestleMania, that's where he draws most.. No part-timer ever has a legacy like The Undertaker. Why would we criticize him? He's better than Brock, he's better than The Rock. His character is one of the greatest ever.


If you don't want to see Undertaker anymore.. CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!

That' what i do if someone like AJ Lee or Zack Ryder comes on. I change the channel, then go back when the segment/match is over.
Lucky for me, they're not on TV that much.
Taker isn't on TV much either, so quit whining.

 

[Radical Canadian Goose]

Well I will congratulate you for not posting a poll on this like you tend to do with all of your posts.

As for Taker, the streak means something to me, the Dead Man means something to me , and Taker can go on wrestling once a year for as long as he wants, because I will pay to see it.

As a kid growing up Taker wasn't really my cup of tea. I was always a Michaels/Austin/Foley fan when it came to the Main Eventers of that era.

My dad brought me up on wrestling. His stories about The "original" Shiek, Abdulla the Butcher, The Vachons, Bruno Sammartino, etc, made me crave wrestling. WM 3 was the first PPV we ever got and I was hooked. He took me to WM 6 to see Warrior/Hogan. Anyways I'm off topic. Back to my point. During the Monday Night Wars, we were glued to the TV watching Raw every Monday night (sometimes it was tape delayed here in Canada , so he would leave me in detail notes to take to school and let my friends know what happened.) I realized then that my dad and Taker had an eerie resemblance. I teased him about this regularly, and it didn't faze him one bit as he admired Taker and thought that he was amazing. Undertaker was by far my dads favorite wrestler. We watched every PPV together and would bet him every time that Taker would lose (not sure what my won-loss record was). The last PPV that we watched together was Armageddon 2006 when Undertaker defeated Ken Kennedy in a last Ride match. I don't remember the match much, but I remember being slapped because I kept saying "Kennedy" lol. My dad passed away a month later. I started watching old Undertaker matches and started to grow a liking to his matches. If and when Undertaker finally hangs them up then I have to lay to rest the last of my dads heroes.

To answer the question. Undertaker is a legend in the ring much more than Batista and , yes, even the Rock will ever be inside the squared circle. Taker can come and go as he pleases in my books

 

[ocekit]

I just hope we can fast forward all those meaningless Heyman segments on the next couple of raws, and fast forward the match at wrestlemania where people will overreact and act like maniacs to every "false finish" although we all know Lesnar has zero chance in ending the streak.

You can always find something else to watch or do while those segments are airing, or fast forward as you suggested. That's what I do when I don't feel like watching someone.

The fans who "overreact and act like maniacs" at false finishes do so because they're willing to suspend disbelief, even for those short moments. They are having fun watching, yelling, cheering, etc. They're getting caught up in the match because they are enjoying themselves. They're not just going to sit there like miserable sods.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I like what we get from The UT each year. His ring entrance can be tiresome but its a small part of what he brings. If I didn't like it that much, I wouldn't watch. I also like what The Rock brings. Batista is hit and miss. I certainly don't want to see him competing for the title at Mania but there is enough going on that makes me want to watch.

If you want to point out hypocrisy this forum has a search function that you can use to quote those members. Otherwise you're just being a giant cunt at no one in general. Congrats, you are a giant cunt.

BTW, did you really just say of all people on Earth you could choose from, HBK is not an egomaniac?

 

[King_of_Swing1520]

for me the main difference between the undertaker and people like rock, lesnar, and batista is that taker never left. he never quit the wwe to go off and do other things. he didnt leave to go do movies or be in the ufc. he has stayed in the wwe. the only reason the undertaker doesn't go year round is because of age and injury. rock left for like 8 yrs BY CHOICE. batista and lesnar left BY CHOICE. if taker had a choice he'd wrestle every night but he simply cant. for the 3 yrs rock was "back" he wrestled 4 total matches. lesnar wrestles 2 or 3 times a year at most. those two are paid the most out of anyone but they work the fewest number of matches? thats not right. its not fair to the talent that are there everyday.

 

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

Taker was a mainstay on WWE programming for about 20 YEARS and became a once a year attraction just over the past 4 or 5 years.

I don't see how you can put him in the same category as the other guys you mentioned.

And as for those other guys, I don't have a problem with part timers like the Rock and Lesnar. They are huge stars who can dictate their terms of employment. Good for them.

By the way, calling Batista a "part-timer" doesn't make sense. He left for 4 years, came back, and he's basically been on every episode of RAW and SD since he's been back. He went from full-time, to not being there at all, and is now full-time again.

 

[whoopin' ass]

Truth is I have always had an issue with how wwe/fans treat Taker as he has always been treated better than your average wrestler. You can say he paid his dues but look at his wwe career - got thrown into the main event picture and won the title right away, pretty much always in bigger name feuds, always a big deal when he returns. It's fine to say that he has had a long career and earned his spot but how is someone else going to do the same when Taker keeps taking that main event spot and only working with top talent one night a year? This is the same sort of thing Hogan did and people said he was horrible for it. Only difference is Taker doesn't demand to be champ but when you know you are going to close WresteMania, who needs the title? Besides he made sure his wife got that push when people could careless about her. I think he is a good wrestler but fans need to face the fact that he had always been treated differently than others and not always for the good of the business.

 

[RedRegan1005]

The reason the Deadman receives no criticism, and rightfully so may i add, is for a few reasons.

One, being the most stated answer, that he has paid his dues and given his life to the buisness.

Two, physically its not like he could come back and wrestle a lot, hell i was shocked he did those matches with the shield and Dean Ambrose after last years mania. It's better of WWE to keep him off TV and resting up for most of the year till a month or so before WrestleMania, because that guarantees the freshest Undertaker possible for Mania. Also Taker is, and has been for the last four years, a special attraction that only makes rare appearances in order to help increase the magnitude of when he does appear.

Three, comparing Batista and Takers situations are like comparing two different things. Batista came back and was immediately put into the Main Event of WrestleMania. While I never criticized The Rock, people who did, made a valid point by feeling that it was wrong that he can just show up and end the title reign of a man who had been busting his ass all year. You see, When the Deadman comes back, he comes back for just the purpose of his Mania match. He doesn't take away someone else rightful sport on the card. And before you say he does by just continuing to have a match every year, Its a simple matter of what the majority of the Audience likes and are willing to pay to see, and whether or not people want to see it, The UnderTakers match at Mania is still one of the biggest matches on the card every year. If he popped up and won the Rumble out of no where and then went on to face orton at Mania then I to would be pissed. But he doesn't comeback and take spots that other people deserve. He comes back for his spot that will always be on the card till the day he retires. If you can find someone else on the roster that will bring in as much money as the Undertaker for just being scheduled for WrestleMania then let me know.

I had actually a lot more to say to defend the Undertaker in this thread but i feel like I've already said enough.

But one more thing i will comment on, is you referring to him as an egomaniac. HA! Yea the Deadman is an egomaniac. Despite the selective memory he has put over plenty of people in his career. At WrestleMania? No. But through out his career he has. Out of all the people to call an egomaniac, one of the last people i would call that is The Undertaker. This is not directed at the OP, cause I don't know if this relates to him, but I find it hilarious that whenever someone is successful there all of a sudden an egomaniac.

 

[JoeMallard]

Truth is I have always had an issue with how wwe/fans treat Taker as he has always been treated better than your average wrestler. You can say he paid his dues but look at his wwe career - got thrown into the main event picture and won the title right away, pretty much always in bigger name feuds, always a big deal when he returns. It's fine to say that he has had a long career and earned his spot but how is someone else going to do the same when Taker keeps taking that main event spot and only working with top talent one night a year? This is the same sort of thing Hogan did and people said he was horrible for it. Only difference is Taker doesn't demand to be champ but when you know you are going to close WresteMania, who needs the title? Besides he made sure his wife got that push when people could careless about her. I think he is a good wrestler but fans need to face the fact that he had always been treated differently than others and not always for the good of the business.

Oh please, When in the hell was the last time Taker took up a main event spot, other than Shawn Michael's retirement match, for Christ sake!? When was the last time Taker asked to be in a title match? Wrestlemania 24 against Edge, after that he went part time! You are an IDIOT!

 

[The Brain]

I agree with you but you're overreacting. This is a common mistake people make when sharing a minority opinion. Because most people are likely to argue the opposing viewpoint the one in the minority takes his argument too far. You could have simply said Taker has been a legendary performer over the years but his age is catching up with him and seeing as he now only wrestles once a year it might be best for him to call it quits. Instead you blast a guy for no reason. I'd be willing to bet Taker would be more than happy to be done but Vince knows he is still a draw at mania so he keeps bringing Taker back. If someone offered you a huge payday to work once a year would you turn it down? And he keeps getting that offer because people still want to see him. I don't mind seeing him come back but I also wouldn't mind seeing him go. The end is near. I just want the Cena match before he retires for good. Cena should end the streak putting an end to The Undertaker. I'm actually a little concerned that as time goes by more people will start to turn on Taker and that would take away from the match with Cena.

Rock put Cena over in the biggest match of his career.

That's just flat out wrong. Rock should have put Cena over in the biggest match of his career at WM28 but he did not.

If I watched a movie that I knew how it end, it could be the greatest movie ever but I won't enjoy it much.
I'd rather watch a mediocre movie that I don't know the ending of than to watch a great movie that I knew how it's going to end.

Really? You don't expect a happy ending and for things to work out for the star in most movies?

If you're going to "troll", you will be reported.

And if you continue to report posts that don't break any rules you will be infracted for doing so.

 

[TheVolFan52]

He's defiantly earned his stripes. Like it's already been pointed out, Taker was on television, week in and week out for 20 fucking years!!! He is the most respected man inside and outside the ring. His streak at mania is always the biggest and best match on the card and he has earned the right to call his own shots. He's the greatest character in wrestling history and you could easily make the case that he is the greatest of all time.

 

[Rasslin_fan]

Because he paid his dues and it's obvious they have something HUGE in store for his GRAND FINALE!

Until then, you'll just sit back and enjoy the ride or learn to ignore it!

 

[H33LTurn]

As Wrestlemania approaches, it's that time again when The Undertaker returns.

Did The Undertaker bother to show up at the Royal Rumble? No.

Did The Undertaker bother to show up before the elimination chamber? No.

- The*Undertaker*was not at last night's RAW in Chicago as he was at home.*WWE*was still advertising Taker to appear as of the weekend so it must have been a*last minute*change. There was a version of the RAW script that had a staredown between Taker and*Brock Lesnar.

So let me get this straight, The Undertaker had pretty much all last year to rest, there's only what 6 RAWs for him to appear? And he couldn't be at all of them? Really?

Theres no reason to believe that this was solely The Undertaker's decision. Who knows why the change was made and regardless of how much time Undertaker has spent outside of the ring he could have had a perfectly legitimate reason for being home Monday night.

Taker shouldn't be wrestling at all, he should've retired at WrestleMania 28 with 22-0 in the End of an Era match, if not this year should've been his last match at the historic WMXXX with 22-0.

Why shouldn't he be wrestling? The majority of the fans want him wrestling, he wants to wrestle, Vince wants him to wrestle. So why shouldn't he be wrestling because you specifically dont want to see him wrestle anymore. You're going to have to put forward a more convincing argument than that. There are plenty of matches I don't want to see that are a part of the Mania match card. Its something you have to deal with as a wrestling fan, Understanding that sometimes people have different tastes than you.

Is The Undertaker going to end his career with Brock Lesnar? Of course not.

You know this for a fact? How do you know.

Is The Undertaker going to retire without facing Cena at wrestlemania? Don't think so.

Theres been no serious talk of a Cena/Taker match. Compare that to Lesnar vs Taker which we've know about for months now.

Why doesn't The Undertaker just retire already? He's almost 50.

What does age have to do with it? Ric Flair put on great matches well into his 50s and 60s. Not to mention that Taker moves better in the ring than any other 50 year olds I've seen wrestle.

Last year, he got carried by Cm punk at wrestlemania. Taker told a great story no doubt but punk pretty much did all the work.

Maybe the match was written like that. Undertaker has never had a match that was exactly the same as his last.

Why didn't Shawn Michaels continued wrestling like The Undertaker?

Why did he choose to retire? It's because he's not an egomaniac.

Shawn Michaels is a huge egomaniac, and anyone who's followed his career knows it. Shawn doesn't wrestle because

a)he physically can't take the risk anymore due to his knees
b)he had his retirement match withe The Undertaker and being that he is a legit badass and a ring general you don't cross the Undertaker.

Wrestling won't stop on one wrestler, not Hogan, not Austin, not Rock and certainly not The Undertaker.

WWE needs to "move on".

Do you know the reason why WWE brings back these old timers for Wrestlemania? WM is a huge event in terms of WWE's stock. In order to raise the value of their stock they have to milk WM for all its worth, that means having matches both hardcore WWE fans and people who have never watched or stopped watching can enjoy. WWE's current roster can not measure up to any past Wrestlemania. Too many people retired too quickly. To much green talent that isn't over enough with the fans. Of course thats quickly changing with CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, and The Shield, but notice one person in that group is already contemplating leaving the company.

At least with Rock or Batista or Brock, there's a possibility that they lose at wrestlemania.

The Rock lost because he won the prior match. Batista will only lose if he's not working with the WWE after Mania. Other than that, he has a movie coming out so I doubt WWE would book him losing to Orton. Brock only cares about the money. He is a legitimate fighter and has no emotional investment in the company or his WWE "career".

Should I care if the 21-0 becomes a 22-0 or that the 22-0 becomes a 23-0? Because I really don't.

No one asked you to care.

What is the matter with wrestling fans?

Wrestling fans are like good kids who listen to their parents. Hating on The Undertaker is like sleeping after 8pm, it's Forbidden!

So having a subjective view about a legendary athlete is exactly like obeying illogical parental rules?

What Taker is doing is wrong? Him getting 10 minutes for his entrance while some guys who work 300+ days a year don't even get a match at wrestlemania.

Some guys don't get a match at Mania because they don't deserve it.

The Undertaker didn't put anyone over since his "part time days" unless you call giving the shield their first loss "putting them over".

And of course The Shield has never recovered from that loss. Look at how irrelevant they are. Its not like by working with a seasoned veteran gave them the opportunity to prove that they can hang in there with the best of them.

I have no interest in seeing The Undertaker anymore.

And of course, you are the standarbearer of interest for the WWE. Everything Vince does centers around pleasing you. Forget the millions of fans that lost their minds in Chicago when Taker returned.

If I watched a movie that I knew how it end, it could be the greatest movie ever but I won't enjoy it much.
I'd rather watch a mediocre movie that I don't know the ending of than to watch a great movie that I knew how it's going to end.

That makes zero sense. Your reasoning is limited to what I suspect is a very small number of people. Look at all the movies in the theaters right now: Son of God, Noah's Ark, Robocop coming out now that people are excited for even though we all know the ending. We watch wrestling knowing that we will be able to predict some of the endings. But its more than that, its the story, the match, the fan interest that makes the show exciting.

Now if you want to reply, stay on topic.
If you're going to "troll", you will be reported.

I sure hope disagreeing with you doesn't count as trolling.

 

[oldschool123]

He is a guy who people actually want to see and he isn't trying to use wrestling to promote his other ventures. It's as simple as that.

 

[enviousdominous]

Here's the thing that irritates me about you. You're going on a rant worthy of a Mark Madden article, that supposedly refers to an explanation for the title of this thread.

I don't criticize the Undertaker, therefore I am a hypocrite. Making that assertion assumes that I've already posted my personal likes and dislikes regarding the state of pro-wrestling and how I feel about the creative direction of the Undertaker.

In all of your rambling bullshit you're making a very basic point, The Undertaker doesn't entertain you and this proves logically that he should retire. As far as my being a hypocrite, simply not criticizing the Undertaker is an example of that.

Oh, I get your logic. The other day I posted a thread that had nothing to do with criticisms levied against the Undertaker, and in that thread I also chose not to make any mention of a criticism regarding the Undertaker. HOLY SHIT!! I've proven that I am a full blown hypocrite according to some jack-off on an obscure pro-wrestling forum.

I wouldn't want all of the time he pissed away on his rant to be in vain, I better do some damage control.

The Undertaker looked at me in a creepy way through the tv and it made me spill my spaghetti on the cat! There we go, I've cleansed my soul of hypocrisy.

 

[RicSpade]

Seriously your ranting on a guy who has given so much to this business its rediculous, sure The Rock was the star power but when Rock decided he wanted to be an actor who was there to help carry the new stars? Undertaker. Who was there to feud with guys like Batista and and Edge and Kane and Cena and Angle when there was no Rock, Undertaker. When Batista decided he was done to be an actor who was still there? Undertaker!

People want to shit on Taker for what? He is one of the biggest stars ever, he shows when he is rested he can go with the best of them he proved it with HBK, CM Punk, Triple H for 5 years straight. Yeah he may make only a few off appearances a year, but it gives that Andre the Giant feel. I think JR said it best, when you have a guy the size of Andre the Giant and you only seen him every once in a while it was an attraction within itself. Well when Undertaker only makes a handful of appearances a year he's an attraction among itself.

Now as far as the streak goes you complain because he beat the best in the business in great matches for the streak, what if they had been some of the crap matches because Undertaker has been stuck with them. Giant Gonzalez, King Kong Bundy, Kane II, Mark Henry it does happen, but seriously when he actually gets a main eventer your pissed? I like he actually gets real competition, I don't care if he doesn't lose to Brock or not, but at least I won't be bored with the match. I could see a handful of guys I would like to see in Brocks spot, but people would just complain they are being fed to Undertaker.

The good and bad of this match is this, we won't see any high flying moves from Taker this year because he isn't fight a Punk or HBK or Triple H, this will be a fight, a brawl, this match may even end up No DQ just to keep it interesting, but only the next few weeks will tell.

I can't crap on a legend Taker does what he can with everything he has had surgeries on in the last year. If I did that i would have to do the same to the Reys, the Jerichos, the Triple H's, the CM Punks, the Cenas. You get banged up you try to heal, this man has been doing this for 3 decades, I will Take Taker as a special attraction any day of the week.

 

[JJ15776]

Now if you want to reply, stay on topic.
If you're going to "troll", you will be reported.

Are you going to report yourself? Almost none of your post is on topic, which is incredible considering it's the first post and you wrote the topic, and almost the entire thing is one big troll fest. You're a trolling hypocritical troll hypocrite(you're both a troll and a hypocrite two times over).

Since the topic was wrestling fans' supposed hypocrisy regarding The Undertaker, I'll address that. It won't take long, since you barely mentioned it in passing in your long winded hypocritical trolling diatribe of trolling hypocrisy.

Show me the wrestling fans who criticized Rock(for doing things Taker does) but don't criticize The Undertaker. Show me the wrestling fans who criticized Batista(for doing things Taker does in the exact same situations) but not The Undertaker. Show me the fans who criticize Lesnar(for behaving exactly like The Undertaker does) but not The Undertaker.

All wrestlers have critics, for various reasons. All wrestlers have people who praise them or defend them, for various reasons. "Wrestling fans" is not one all encompassing group that behaves the exact same way across the board like you're trying to portray them. So you've yet to provide any evidence whatsoever of fans being hypocrites, since you barely mentioned the topic in your raving hypocritical trollfest, but I'll go ahead and save you the time by telling there is none.

Again, I'm trying to stick to the topic, unlike you did in the trolltastic hypocritical rant to begin this thread, so I'll also point out that...oh, screw it. I think the point's been made. I'm baffled that this thread is still open, to be honest.