Since when is this a shoot wrestling match?
It's not, but it's a match that certainly encourages it. Just like a Falls Count Anywhere or HIAC encourages hardcore.
I'm not sure whether or not 'Taker has a losing record against the top era guys or not. I know he's lost to them, however, he's also beaten them.....a lot.
Steve Austin - 36 wins. 75 losses.
Rock - 24 wins. 40 losses.
Hogan - 4 wins. 8 losses.
John Cena - 5 wins. 8 losses.
Ultimate Warrior - 0 wins. 58 losses.
Undertaker falls into the "one of the biggest stars but never the top star category" so his record against the HHH's, Jericho's, Kane's, Orton's is going to be better.
Sure Inoki was the man, in Japan. It's far easier to be the man in Japan as opposed to being the man in the WORLD'S largest wrestling organization.
It's the world's largest organization
now and no thanks to Taker. When he won his first championship WWE wasn't the largest. In fact Taker spent years in the WWE without it ever being the largest. And despite that he
still was never it's top star.
NJPW has always been a major promotion. In fact there were times when they easily surpassed the WWE.
IMO, it's more impressive that 'Taker has remained relevant, important, and at the top in WWE for as long as he has.
No it's not. Why? Because not only was Inoki relevant as a wrestler for just as long as Undy has been, but since retiring he's continued to remain dead center in the eye of the pubic. He's one of Japan's most recognizable figures. Even to non wrestling fans. Is Undertaker? Of course not. Only wrestling fans remember Taker.
Let me ask you something; if a top well known Japanese wrestler came to the WWE right now against one of the WWE's top talents, would the casual fans know who that person is? Now let's reverse it. If a top WWE talent went to Japan to wrestle against one of New Japan Pro Wrestling's top talents, would the Japanese audience know who they are?
That's not a good analogy for several reasons... 1.) Taker doesn't wrestle full time any more. He is not exposed to a world wide audience every week. 2.) Undertaker has multiple primes. If you were to say his prime was in the AE he would not have been exposed to a worldwide audience every week then either. 3.) I could make the argument that Miz is not only a bigger star than Inoki based on this logic, but Randy Savage, Sting, Warrior, Michaels, Goldberg, Austin, Rock, Hart, and even Hogan because he appears in front of 70 countries every week and they didn't. Would you accept that? If not then why make this argument. 4.) If you're talking about from a fans perspective and not a casual perspective, American wrestling fans knew who KENTA was before he came here. They knew who Great Muta was too.
If you were to make the same claim in the 1970's or 1980's I would have said yes, and then pointed to Antonio Inoki.
So now we're going to fault 'Taker for helping to put over younger talent? I think it goes to the credit of the Undertaker that he was the guy that WWE would use to allow newbies to make a statement and become popular. It shows how beloved and important he is to the audience. It actually means something to beat him. Hell, not just to beat him, to even be in a match with him means something.
It also shows that WWE never viewed him as a top era guy. How many times did Austin, Rock, or Hogan lose during their peaks? Putting over guys is admirable, but it's also the duty of those that aren't top stars. Cena is the lone exception to this rule. And now that Lesnar is back full time he won't be.
I'm not sure about that. 'Taker has been a top draw in WWE for the better part of a quarter of a century. Sure he spent years on Smackdown, however, when Raw and Smackdown would come together for the big four PPVs, 'Taker was often the most important match or in the main event. To try and sell 'Taker short as a draw is just ridiculous.
Taker was
A top draw, not
THE top draw. This match is not Taker vs Great Muta. Or Taker vs Toshiaki Kawada. This is Taker vs The Hulk Hogan of Japan. A man who was a crossover and international icon for longer than Taker has been.
If location doesn't mean anything then why in the world do we have different regions and venues for these matches.
Because placing wrestlers in regions A, B, C, and D would be boring. But notice how we did away with the ECW region because of the shit storms it kept creating. I've been pushing more more neutral locations for years and KB did a really good job with that this year. If you followed my WWZT I made sure that nobody had the location advantage. There was one match in the whole tournament where that happened [Trish vs Ivilesse in Mexico] and the bigger star won anyway. Just like it should be here.
Who cares if this is in the WWE and in the States? Antonio Inoki is a former WWE champion and a WWE HOFamer. If Undertaker wins solely on location then that's utterly pathetic.
Why would it matter? Just because people wouldn't put Hogan over Yoko in Japan and your feelings were hurt doesn't mean that location doesn't mean anything.
No, because it's fucking hypocritical. Hogan was the bigger star in Japan and should have won hands down. Instead people went LMAO kayfabe! And used that as an excuse to mask the novelty of bumping a #1 seed in the first round. If you want to be a hypocrite and vote Undertaker, even though Inoki was the bigger star and has a match type that suits him better, be my guest.
That was a totally different match and history had shown that when Hogan and Yoko actually had a real match, Yoko came out on top. Maybe that's why Yoko went over.
That shouldn't matter. This is not a kayfabe tournament. You can use kayfabe to vote, but the point is to vote the better star forward. If this were a kayfabe based tournament then we would have all fucking failed miserably because most of the heavy hitters [Strangler Lewis, Goldberg, Frank Gotch, Hackenschmidt, Jim Londos, Hogan etc] are already gone. The kayfabe argument standing alone is bullshit.
Also, I never said that 'Taker would just roll over him. I guarantee, though, that Inoki would not just run over 'Taker.
And Inoki wouldn't. It would be a great match that fans would love. But ultimately Inoki would win because he's the bigger star, with a match that favors him more.
We've seen 'Taker put on wrestling clinics and employ several impressive submissions during his career. He once broke Mcmahon's ankle using a submission hold. He and Angle had a classic match at No Way Out 2006 and the majority of that match was wrestled with a technical style. This doesn't have to be a casket match. You're selling 'Taker short on his grappling ability.
No I'm not. He's not in Inoki's league when it comes to grappling. That should be obvious. You tried to make an argument last year that Taker could have hung with Thesz and it was stupid. Based on that logic I guess Inoki could throw closed fist strikes just as well as Taker.
"But all 'Taker does is strike with a closed fist!" I call bullshit. For the first 6 years of 'Taker's career, I recall very rarely seeing him strike with a closed fist. He employed neck thrusts and chops, which is something he could easily do in this match.
A neck thrust is great way for Undertaker to get himself caught in a submission. And since we're being fickle and pedantic Inoki could use a variety of kicks to take out Undy's vertical base and wear him down.
If you wanna talk about someone reaching god like status with their fans, look no further then 'Taker. He is easily the most revered and respected performer in WWE's history. Not just with the fans but with his own peers.
Keyword "with fans," particularly old fans. New fans that started watching recently don't know who Taker is. Wrestlemania was the first time they ever saw him. Inoki is known by the general pubic, people that aren't even fans of wrestling.
Every year, Ech, we do this song and dance. One of your Japanese darlings come up against one of the WWE's best and you severely sell the WWE performer short to try and make your point.
Inoki is not a "darling" he was a major international star and a cornerstone of Japanese wrestling. I could say the exact same thing about you and your love for Taker. You overrated him to the point where you see him as a top 5 name. He's not. And never was. He isn't even Andre's class as a novelty. So why should he beat someone that could easily be compared to Hogan, or Thesz, or Santo?
If Inoki was so good, you shouldn't have to do that to make your point and Inoki was that good. Idk if you just don't like 'Taker or what, but to say things like the location doesn't matter, 'Taker sucks at grappling, and 'Taker wasn't a draw is just ridiculous.
Well obviously I have to because people don't know history. If they did then I wouldn't have to remind them why putting Taker [who was for all terms and purposes a B player for his whole career and a novelty to boot] over Inoki [who was one of wrestling's biggest stars ever] would be idiotic. The contributions that Taker [while tremendous] gave to this business do. not. come. close to Inoki's. Only a fanboy would think that they do. And I take absolutely
nothing away from Taker when he's my second favorite wrestler of all time.
Inoki wins.