|
Post by S on Mar 27, 2011 8:20:08 GMT -5
You know, its always puzzled me, when someone mentions wrestling to a someone who isnt a fan, you hear them respond with the same names, Hulk Hogan Ric Flair, HBK, Steve Austin, The Rock, even John Cena, but never The Undertaker... its the same for wrestling fans you ask who are the biggest names in the business, they say the same sort of names, but never The Undertaker... why do you think that is?
As far as wrestling skill goes, we all know that Taker is a pheonominal wrestler, i mean, people say he's getting worse over the last couple of years, but look at his matches with HBK at mania, arguably some of wrestlings best bouts period. Now we all know HBK could put over a mop and make it an interesting match, but for a match argued to be an all time great? not even HBK can carry someone that much, so Taker is obviously a great wrestler... especially when compared to the likes of Hogan on that list
As far as charisma and mic skills go, Taker is a natural on the microphone... yes some of what he says is a bit eccentric, but thats due to his gimmick. Look at his promo work from 96-03 and even his recent 'Last Outlaw' promos, the guy knows how to work a mic. Also, with his gimmick, words arent enough, you could get a shakesperian actor to say his lines and it wont be as effective, the man looks like he means what he says whenever he is on the mic.
As far as merchendise goes, i admit Taker has never met the heights of Austin or Hogan, but i know Taker has been a solid seller of merchendise, and its not just for a year or two, he's been salling stuff to fans for around 2 decades.
Now, has Taker ever been the face of the company? you could argue either way on this, i dont think theres been a time where Taker was the sole face of the company like those other names, but he has always been one of the top faces, and for a long time... hell, i'd argue since his debut, he as been on the the main players of the company
Could backstage politics have played a part? simple answer... no. If wrestlers backstage behaviour determined their fame, i believe Taker would be the biggest name in the company. from what you read, Taker is a locker-room leader and has never been a problem (ala HBK)... also, watch some shoots, when someone mentions Taker, its only ever in praise.
So what could it be? you know what, i think the only reason Taker isnt up there with the Hogans and the Flairs is the same this that made him stand out and get noticed... His gimmick. I believe takers gimmick was something creative were taking a punt at, but were never thinking it would be a long term thing, but Taker took it and ran with it like no-one else could have... if Vince decided to push another man in Hogans role, i feel they would be as big as he is... put another man in Takers role, they'd have likely flat-lined. The problem is the gimmick is so extreme and unrealistic that mabye it secularised audiences, mabye the deadman gimmick just couldnt appeal to the fill audience.
In the end, i still am unsure that is why he isnt up there, but its the best i got. Why do you think Taker never reached the same heights of recognition as those others?
|
|
|
Post by Lewscher on Mar 27, 2011 8:25:58 GMT -5
The 'undertaker' is a gimmick, the other "top names" are names and wrestlers, if you follow, all i could suggest to you
|
|
|
Post by S on Mar 27, 2011 8:29:18 GMT -5
The 'undertaker' is a gimmick, the other "top names" are names and wrestlers, if you follow, all i could suggest to you No wrestler has no gimmick, and if anything, such a big gimmick should have brought more star power surely?
|
|
|
Post by The Sexy Psychotic on Mar 27, 2011 8:35:47 GMT -5
The 'undertaker' is a gimmick, the other "top names" are names and wrestlers, if you follow, all i could suggest to you I agree with this, I think cause Taker has such a strong gimmick, he isn't seen as at the top, whereas Austin/Hogan sure they had gimmicks, but their's were more just manifistations of their true self. Plus, I don't see Taker as ever being the face of the company, sure he was around, but thats all, he was never the true face of the company, he never had that match that everyone will remember.
|
|
|
Post by S on Mar 27, 2011 8:40:31 GMT -5
The 'undertaker' is a gimmick, the other "top names" are names and wrestlers, if you follow, all i could suggest to you I agree with this, I think cause Taker has such a strong gimmick, he isn't seen as at the top, whereas Austin/Hogan sure they had gimmicks, but their's were more just manifistations of their true self. Plus, I don't see Taker as ever being the face of the company, sure he was around, but thats all, he was never the true face of the company, he never had that match that everyone will remember. HIAC vs Foley? WM vs HBK his fued with Kane? i'm not arguing, but i do think that Taker has had one shining match that people will remember
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Mar 27, 2011 8:50:41 GMT -5
The 'undertaker' is a gimmick, the other "top names" are names and wrestlers, if you follow, all i could suggest to you No wrestler has no gimmick, and if anything, such a big gimmick should have brought more star power surely? Chris Benoit in his last few years had no gimmick. That was all him.
|
|
|
Post by The Sexy Psychotic on Mar 27, 2011 8:52:28 GMT -5
I agree with this, I think cause Taker has such a strong gimmick, he isn't seen as at the top, whereas Austin/Hogan sure they had gimmicks, but their's were more just manifistations of their true self. Plus, I don't see Taker as ever being the face of the company, sure he was around, but thats all, he was never the true face of the company, he never had that match that everyone will remember. HIAC vs Foley? WM vs HBK his fued with Kane? i'm not arguing, but i do think that Taker has had one shining match that people will remember I feel the HIAC will always be Foley's match, its the match that made him Mick Foley, not Mankind or Cactus or Dude, it made Mick Foley a wrestling legend. The WM matches against HBK were IMO, both more HBK matches more than anything. Taker was well past his prime, HBK was just coming down from his second 'peak'. And the second WM match between the two was again a pure HBK match, it could have been anyone that faced HBK that night, and it really wouldn't have changed anything. His fued with Kane will always be shadowed by two things (much like anything apart from the two that took place in 98/99); McMahon/Austin which ruled the Main Event scene, and NOD/DX which ruled the mid-card. This is all my opinion like, not trying to argue or anything, lol
|
|
|
Post by S on Mar 27, 2011 9:13:22 GMT -5
No wrestler has no gimmick, and if anything, such a big gimmick should have brought more star power surely? Chris Benoit in his last few years had no gimmick. That was all him. and that was his gimmick
|
|
|
Post by Kyle - legendkilla2k9 on Mar 27, 2011 9:26:13 GMT -5
When I ask people about wrestling they tell me (in order)
1. The Rock- He's the second biggest face of all time and was the WWE's poster boy for at least 4 years. His fame also stems from his movies obviously (Cena doesnn't count because The Rock's movies make 10 times as much)
2. Hulk Hogan- Most famous wrestler of all time.
3 Stone Cold- He maybe isn't the most famous but anyone who watches wrestling (even for a year or so) seems to LOVE Austin.
4. Triple H- Obviously because he's been main eventing ppv's in the WWE since 1999.
5. Rey Mysterio- It's a strange one but everyone seems to tell me about Rey, more than likely because of his high flying ring ability.
I have no idea why Undertaker is less known to the general public, but if you think about it they all have their own defining things, Rey has the 619, Austin has his drinking and middle fingers
|
|
|
Post by Lewscher on Mar 27, 2011 9:29:38 GMT -5
Let me clarify gimmick..... 8-'s retro wrestling had; clown, dead man, a mountie, a cop, an earthquake, a typhoon, follow me? Doink the clow, undertaker, mountie, boss man, etc..... The 90's was based around people gimmicks, not circus gimicks, like rock, austin, michales, hunter, road dogg, sean waltman, their names sure were gimicks but they were people wrestling, not needing a 'gimmick' Now with undertaker he's just withstood the test of time, 80's dead man, 90's ministry, 00's phenom, etc but he's still now a person to be named, hes just another performer but with an impressive streak at one anual show, Only thing to be noted against this is AmericanBasAss where he was a person, yet not mark calloway still the undertaker Thats what i meant by gimmick, the circus acts almost, not the superstars persona
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 12:16:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 9:49:18 GMT -5
I'd say he is the greatest WWE Legend of all time. He's definitely in the top 10 for me.
|
|
|
Post by Barrett on Mar 27, 2011 9:58:07 GMT -5
I feel the HIAC will always be Foley's match, its the match that made him Mick Foley, not Mankind or Cactus or Dude, it made Mick Foley a wrestling legend. The WM matches against HBK were IMO, both more HBK matches more than anything. Taker was well past his prime, HBK was just coming down from his second 'peak'. And the second WM match between the two was again a pure HBK match, it could have been anyone that faced HBK that night, and it really wouldn't have changed anything.Those matches are just as much 'Taker's as they are his opponents. And I absolutely disagree wholeheartedly on the bolded part. So, because other feuds were taking place at that time, the Undertaker/Kane one isn't as memorable? Again, I disagree. That feud was definitely a big deal, especially compared to NOD/DX.
|
|
|
Post by chaz on Mar 27, 2011 10:16:08 GMT -5
I rank him above both Austin and Hogan. Sure, they were the face of WWE during their tenures, but Undertaker has been one of the rare and only constants in the company. So, when I think WWE, I think Undertaker. Nobody comes close.
|
|
|
Post by johnnypoopypants on Mar 27, 2011 10:54:28 GMT -5
I have NEVER heard someone who isn't a fan mention Shawn Michaels. And I'd say Andre the Giant is up there with wrestlers everyone knows.
|
|
|
Post by brainbusters on Mar 27, 2011 10:57:15 GMT -5
Taker honestly isnt "THE" draw. He's been in the WWE since 1991 and since that time if you go back and look at who "the main guy" was it was Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin, The Rock, John Cena......I dont think it takes anything away from Taker though. For football fans put it in perspective like best Quarterback....
When you make your list of best QBs you're going to put out guys like Montana, Elway, Manning and Brady.....why? Cause all of these guys have won SuperBowls, they were "the big names". However a name that surprisingly a lot of people forget about....Dan Marino...Has better stats then most of every QB but he didnt win the big one or become that big draw in wrestling terms. While he performed better the others he wasnt seen as the best guy. Same goes with Taker
|
|
Sonnen
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 16, 2010 8:42:36 GMT -5
Posts: 3,261
|
Post by Sonnen on Mar 27, 2011 11:03:27 GMT -5
No wrestler has no gimmick, and if anything, such a big gimmick should have brought more star power surely? Chris Benoit in his last few years had no gimmick. That was all him. EWR - No Gimmick Needed ;D
|
|
noir
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 20, 2007 6:53:47 GMT -5
Posts: 4,278
|
Post by noir on Mar 27, 2011 12:04:53 GMT -5
I'm actually really surprised at these responses. Whenever I mention wrestling to people who don't watch it themselves, Undertaker is always one of the first names to pop up. Like seriously, I'd honestly say people I've met can identify him over Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, John Cena etc. etc.
I think of Rock, Austin, Triple H and Undertaker as the 'Big 4', even today. Maybe it's just my generation?
|
|
hbkrules
Main Eventer
WF 10 Year Member
Joined on: Jun 18, 2002 11:49:32 GMT -5
Posts: 2,115
|
Post by hbkrules on Mar 27, 2011 12:08:36 GMT -5
Taker has never been THE GUY in the company like hogan, austin, cena. He was never the top draw for years like those guys. He is phenomenal and a legend but not in the very top class all time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 12:16:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 12:13:04 GMT -5
Because Hogan and Austin led the company to great heights. Undertaker never really got the chance to be the face of the company. Yes he's been there the longest and yes he's held the title numerous times. But he has never been the top dog or had the chance to carry the company.
|
|
|
Post by DMO™ on Mar 27, 2011 12:14:31 GMT -5
Honestly everyone I now who don't even watch wrestling know who The Undertaker is and can't identify anyone else besides Hogan, Austin, and Rock... so I'm not sure what to say
|
|