Duke Silver
Superstar
Joined on: Aug 15, 2011 20:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 685
|
Post by Duke Silver on Sept 9, 2012 23:47:00 GMT -5
With the steroid trial going on, Hogan and Savage leaving, and the whole company being in a downward spiral - why didn't Undertaker carry the load and hold on to the title for those years? I mean, Bret, Yoko and Diesel held the title, so I don't understand why not give it to Taker? Did he not want the title at the time or was it just because his gimmick was strong enough he didn't need the title? To this day, it makes me mad that Diesel held the title for a year and Taker didn't hold it for more than 3 months. If anyone has any insight as to what was going on at that time would help a lot because it always boggled my mind  |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 17, 2024 16:50:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2012 0:18:24 GMT -5
Great question.
Undertaker was always a main event superstar but didn't get a real shot until he beat Sid in 1997.
I remember he lost to Yokozuna at Royal Rumble and also didn't win the belt from Bret at Royal Rumble 1996.
Honestly, Undertaker was in some pretty terrible feuds until Mankind showed up.
Giant Gonzalez, Mabel, Kama, etc. All crap feuds.
|
|
gawd6sic6™
Main Eventer
" I cross the lines you love to hate "
Joined on: Jan 13, 2009 13:50:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,868
|
Post by gawd6sic6™ on Sept 10, 2012 0:52:24 GMT -5
i think its just what you said... his character was strong enough that he didnt need it... face/heel he has always good a good responce.. he just has it , and doesnt need the title to "define" him... and hasnt it been said , that Vince thinks he make for better stories when he is chasing the title??
|
|
Daniel F'n Bryan
Main Eventer
Joined on: Oct 24, 2011 0:33:48 GMT -5
Posts: 2,929
|
Post by Daniel F'n Bryan on Sept 10, 2012 4:01:18 GMT -5
While he didnt need it I certainly never understood why he wasnt used in the main event more. He was already a huge name and a series of matches with Hart, Diesel, etc. over the gold would have only helped him and the WWE.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 17, 2024 16:50:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2012 5:56:13 GMT -5
yeah UT was kinda "the guy" outside the title picture......I mena look at his return in 94.man that was hyped to beat all.......I genuinely think Vince and whoever thought UT didnt need the title or the title picture to be over.
the fans ate up everything he did.... even when his opponents were less than quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Sept 10, 2012 10:47:03 GMT -5
yep, i think they both knew that undertaker didn't need the title, and that he would damage the title picture rather by his own character eventually looking weak or dominating over top faces.
|
|
mrassbillygunn
Main Eventer
WF 10+ Year Member
Joined on: Jul 23, 2011 19:35:48 GMT -5
Posts: 4,267
|
Post by mrassbillygunn on Sept 10, 2012 10:52:28 GMT -5
With the steroid trial going on, Hogan and Savage leaving, and the whole company being in a downward spiral - why didn't Undertaker carry the load and hold on to the title for those years? I mean, Bret, Yoko and Diesel held the title, so I don't understand why not give it to Taker? Did he not want the title at the time or was it just because his gimmick was strong enough he didn't need the title? To this day, it makes me mad that Diesel held the title for a year and Taker didn't hold it for more than 3 months. If anyone has any insight as to what was going on at that time would help a lot because it always boggled my mind Undertaker didnt need the title, i remember Angle talking about in his shoot interview. Undertaker, Angle and one or two others were guys that could put people in seats without a belt around their waist. It was irrelevant for taker having the belt. Hes been there how long? 22 years? and had how many title runs? Point proven. Hes a marketing attraction like the elephant man at the circus...Big Show is another example. |
|
PVA
Main Eventer
Too hot to handle and too cold to hold
Joined on: Apr 12, 2004 15:33:20 GMT -5
Posts: 3,120
|
Post by PVA on Sept 10, 2012 11:43:41 GMT -5
Taker was more character then wrestler in that time.
1)By that I mean his character was such a popular draw he didnt need the title and
2) he wasnt having many good matches and I believe they wanted a shawn michaels or bret hart to validate having a good main event championship back n forth match. Rather then a limited wrestler with Undertaker
..and get away from the roided out larger then life/hulk hogan era. Not saying taker was roiding but he was a big/larger then life character
|
|
jacktunney
Superstar
Joined on: Jan 3, 2012 22:50:33 GMT -5
Posts: 729
|
Post by jacktunney on Sept 10, 2012 18:51:25 GMT -5
Yeah I think he was just more of an "attraction" wrestler during that period and they felt like they didn't need the belt on him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 17, 2024 16:50:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2012 5:59:17 GMT -5
exactly.fans ate up whatever UT did and Vince staggered onto a formula that worked-UT vs "monster of the month"
then came Foley as Mankind.....whoo boy.
|
|
