|
Post by juicewinslow on Mar 27, 2011 22:28:24 GMT -5
I think he is just sometimes taken for granted because of how long he has been around. It will be really strange when he retires.
Plus, you can;t be the face of the company when you rarely speak.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 27, 2011 22:55:56 GMT -5
To be fair, HBK didn't put many guys over either towards the end of his career either. In 2007, Orton was champ, but since he didn't defeat Cena, he looked weak. HBK could have made Orton look strong, yet Orton never got a clean win over him and looked ever weaker after the feud(Taker put over Orton a few times during 2005). In 2008/2009, Kozlov was on an undefeated streak, and Taker put him over cleanly, only for HBK to defeat Kozlov a few days later. I can count more young guys that Taker put over than most other veterans over the last 10 years.I disagree. Because of the streak Taker has never been able to put over anyone at Mania. HBK doesn't have that problem. Additionally, HBK put over Jericho a ton in 2008 and then Legacy more recently in that feud between them and DX. Of all the people, I am just not sure why you picked HBK? Especially, when he made Taker look insanely good in back-to-back Manias. How many World Title reigns did HBK have once he turned 40? I honestly can't remember the last time Taker lost a match cleanly to a young guy. Didn't HBK lose his tag titles to Miz? I think about HBK's moment with Cena at Mania23 and wonder why Taker never had that moment. I get that Taker's gimmick was super human and all that but he squashed a ton of guys in the process imo.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Mar 27, 2011 23:01:40 GMT -5
taker may not have jobbed every time, but one of his obvious roles in his career has been to help out establishing talent, hence why vince has always felt comfortable putting taker up against huge garbage wrestlers or green wrestlers. this without question taker has done far beyond michaels. hence why one of biker taker's main lines was i'll make ya famous.
|
|
STJ
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 16, 2009 0:14:50 GMT -5
Posts: 368
|
Post by STJ on Mar 28, 2011 1:12:46 GMT -5
The Undertaker was not around in the 80s. He came in to the WWE in 1990 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
|
|
madness1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 31, 2007 10:26:16 GMT -5
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by madness1 on Mar 28, 2011 8:13:01 GMT -5
Taker is a top ten of all time. But when you are so "industructable" and for the most part only have one gimmick for the last 20 yrs it's tough to be the top name consistaly. It gets old. His draw is his power against the weaker oppontent. They shine by attempting to chop him down. He has NEVER lost at WM sure that's great and all and a great selling point. But when never put opponents over it's tough to be a rounded charictor who's never weak. Undertaker should put someone over at the next for the year after that. As long as it's someone (Orton, Morrison, maybe Barrett) that will be worthy of it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 10:26:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2011 8:13:39 GMT -5
As far as non wrestling fans go, the only ones they have heard of are:
Hulk Hogan Andre the Giant The Rock Chris Benoit (for obvious reasons)
And on some level: Austin Randy Savage Bret Hart Cena
Honestly, wrestling fans aside, no one knows who Shawn Michaels or Ric Flair are, sorry it's the truth.
Kane is more well known.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 28, 2011 8:18:18 GMT -5
As far as non wrestling fans go, the only ones they have heard of are: Hulk Hogan Andre the Giant The Rock Chris Benoit (for obvious reasons) And on some level: Austin Randy Savage Bret Hart Cena Honestly, wrestling fans aside, no one knows who Shawn Michaels or Ric Flair are, sorry it's the truth. Kane is more well known. No...
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 10:26:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2011 8:44:27 GMT -5
As far as non wrestling fans go, the only ones they have heard of are: Hulk Hogan Andre the Giant The Rock Chris Benoit (for obvious reasons) And on some level: Austin Randy Savage Bret Hart Cena Honestly, wrestling fans aside, no one knows who Shawn Michaels or Ric Flair are, sorry it's the truth. Kane is more well known. No... Kane is more well known than Shawn/Flair not Undertaker.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 28, 2011 8:54:32 GMT -5
Kane is more well known than Shawn/Flair not Undertaker. Yeah I would disagree with that. Maybe it is a European vs US thing but Ric Flair is pretty commonly known, and he is a pretty big celebrity on the East Coast, specifically in the South East. Shawn Michaels, and really Flair too, are insanely popular in the wrestling world but I agree don't really transcend the industry anywhere near the way Hogan, Rock or Austin do, but I don't think Kane transcends wrestling at all. A lot of people know Shawn because of DX and the whole "suck it" thing became sort of main stream in the late 90s. Additionally, HBK in the mid 90s was like Cena now, meaning you could go to Kmart and find him on a lunchbox. I just don't see how Kane compares to either one of those guys in mainstream popularity. I agree in general that Michaels and Flair are less known in pop culture but just not less-known than Kane imo, who I don't think any non-wrestling fan would even know.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 10:26:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2011 9:03:31 GMT -5
Kane is more well known than Shawn/Flair not Undertaker. Yeah I would disagree with that. Maybe it is a European vs US thing but Ric Flair is pretty commonly known, and he is a pretty big celebrity on the East Coast, specifically in the South East. Shawn Michaels, and really Flair too, are insanely popular in the wrestling world but I agree don't really transcend the industry anywhere near the way Hogan, Rock or Austin do, but I don't think Kane transcends wrestling at all. A lot of people know Shawn because of DX and the whole "suck it" thing became sort of main stream in the late 90s. Additionally, HBK in the mid 90s was like Cena now, meaning you could go to Kmart and find him on a lunchbox. I just don't see how Kane compares to either one of those guys in mainstream popularity. I agree in general that Michaels and Flair are less known in pop culture but just not less-known than Kane imo, who I don't think any non-wrestling fan would even know. I based kane purely on the movie he did which was pretty popular. There are only a handful of truly well known wrestlers outside of wrestling fans, Flair, Michaels nor Kane are any of them. However if you could class him as such, Vinne Mac is obviously very well known.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 28, 2011 9:23:11 GMT -5
Yeah I would disagree with that. Maybe it is a European vs US thing but Ric Flair is pretty commonly known, and he is a pretty big celebrity on the East Coast, specifically in the South East. Shawn Michaels, and really Flair too, are insanely popular in the wrestling world but I agree don't really transcend the industry anywhere near the way Hogan, Rock or Austin do, but I don't think Kane transcends wrestling at all. A lot of people know Shawn because of DX and the whole "suck it" thing became sort of main stream in the late 90s. Additionally, HBK in the mid 90s was like Cena now, meaning you could go to Kmart and find him on a lunchbox. I just don't see how Kane compares to either one of those guys in mainstream popularity. I agree in general that Michaels and Flair are less known in pop culture but just not less-known than Kane imo, who I don't think any non-wrestling fan would even know. I based kane purely on the movie he did which was pretty popular.
There are only a handful of truly well known wrestlers outside of wrestling fans, Flair, Michaels nor Kane are any of them. However if you could class him as such, Vinne Mac is obviously very well known. I honestly completely forgot about See No Evil. That would increase his pop culture standing higher than I was originally thinking.
|
|
|
Post by The Undertaker on Mar 28, 2011 10:40:57 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. This.
|
|
|
Post by steveoskillz on Mar 28, 2011 11:13:35 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. Agreed. I know many people that consider [shadow=red,left,300] The Undertaker[/shadow] the best of all time. And in my opinion I agree.
|
|
1amgr8ness
Superstar
But you already know that
Joined on: Nov 12, 2003 12:33:59 GMT -5
Posts: 781
|
Post by 1amgr8ness on Mar 28, 2011 12:44:58 GMT -5
see my sig.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Mar 28, 2011 12:56:37 GMT -5
As far as non wrestling fans go, the only ones they have heard of are: Hulk Hogan Andre the Giant The Rock Chris Benoit (for obvious reasons) And on some level: Austin Randy Savage Bret Hart Cena Honestly, wrestling fans aside, no one knows who Shawn Michaels or Ric Flair are, sorry it's the truth. Kane is more well known. no one knows who flair is? gtfo
|
|
1amgr8ness
Superstar
But you already know that
Joined on: Nov 12, 2003 12:33:59 GMT -5
Posts: 781
|
Post by 1amgr8ness on Mar 28, 2011 12:57:29 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. This. period.
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Mar 28, 2011 13:21:38 GMT -5
To be fair, HBK didn't put many guys over either towards the end of his career either. In 2007, Orton was champ, but since he didn't defeat Cena, he looked weak. HBK could have made Orton look strong, yet Orton never got a clean win over him and looked ever weaker after the feud(Taker put over Orton a few times during 2005). In 2008/2009, Kozlov was on an undefeated streak, and Taker put him over cleanly, only for HBK to defeat Kozlov a few days later. I can count more young guys that Taker put over than most other veterans over the last 10 years.I disagree. Because of the streak Taker has never been able to put over anyone at Mania. HBK doesn't have that problem. Additionally, HBK put over Jericho a ton in 2008 and then Legacy more recently in that feud between them and DX. Of all the people, I am just not sure why you picked HBK? Especially, when he made Taker look insanely good in back-to-back Manias. How many World Title reigns did HBK have once he turned 40? I honestly can't remember the last time Taker lost a match cleanly to a young guy. Didn't HBK lose his tag titles to Miz? I think about HBK's moment with Cena at Mania23 and wonder why Taker never had that moment. I get that Taker's gimmick was super human and all that but he squashed a ton of guys in the process imo. I disagree w/ your disagree... The WWE was giving Swagger a shitty title reign to begin w/, and CM Punk did that to himself when he pissed off Taker and writters by making comments he shouldn't have.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 28, 2011 13:55:47 GMT -5
I disagree. Because of the streak Taker has never been able to put over anyone at Mania. HBK doesn't have that problem. Additionally, HBK put over Jericho a ton in 2008 and then Legacy more recently in that feud between them and DX. Of all the people, I am just not sure why you picked HBK? Especially, when he made Taker look insanely good in back-to-back Manias. How many World Title reigns did HBK have once he turned 40? I honestly can't remember the last time Taker lost a match cleanly to a young guy. Didn't HBK lose his tag titles to Miz? I think about HBK's moment with Cena at Mania23 and wonder why Taker never had that moment. I get that Taker's gimmick was super human and all that but he squashed a ton of guys in the process imo. I disagree w/ your disagree... The WWE was giving Swagger a poopty title reign to begin w/, and CM Punk did that to himself when he pissed off Taker and writters by making comments he shouldn't have. Kennedy lost that feud and then disappeared from tv... I like that you completely disregarded two blatant examples of Taker not putting young talent over with a ridiculous excuse and then an internet rumor. Had Swagger gone over Taker it could have instantly established his title reign. Are you still trying to figure out the last young guy that got a clean win over Taker? I'm not surprised to be honest...
|
|
June
Main Eventer
High Fives All Around!!!
Joined on: May 31, 2009 10:54:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by June on Mar 28, 2011 14:04:35 GMT -5
The Undertaker has tremendous staying power and a great gimmick, but he has never been the man.
During Takers time with the WWF/E he has been a sideshow attraction.
- When Hogan left the WWF, Bret stepped in as the guy, then Yoko was given the keys to the palace to give it back to Hogan, while Taker was having a sideshow feud with Giant Gonzalez.
- Instead of having Taker as the top dog in the WWF after Yoko took the title off the Hulkster, it was given back to Bret. Then at Summer Slam 94, Taker was again involved in a sideshow feud with himself.
- When it was time to take the title off of Bret, instead of putting it on Taker it was given to an old man that was no-longer relevant (Backlund) as a transitional champ, then given to Big Daddy Cool for a whole year, while Taker battled DiBiase's clan of mid-carders.
- When it was time for Bid Daddy Cool to drop the title, it was given to The Hitman again, whom kept it warm for the new man in the WWF (HBK) on the night of WM12 Taker finally was able to beat a former top dog of the WWF (Nash) on his way out of the WWF.
- Sid, HBK and Bret had 2 title runs before Taker was finally given a WM main event match, which many feel was the worst WM main event up to that point and would still have that distinction if not for the recent Triple H / Orton suckfest.
- Taker's run was memorable only because he was overshadowed by Bret Hart and HBK.
- Then Austin emerged and firmly held on to the WWF Torch, while Taker got another fellow transitional champ over (Mankind) who in turn helped get the Rock over as a maineventer.
- Taker then was given the brass ring again, but as a henchmen for the WWF's top heel Mr. McMahon. Austin reclaimed his title and then dropped it to Mankind so he can transition Triple H into stardom.
- Taker would not hold the WWF title for 3 more years, as the Rock had established himself as the new standard bearer followed by Triple H, and eventually Kurt Angle.
- Austin was still on top, but a shell of himself due to the neck, and Jericho could not cut it as top dog as evidenced by him being overshadowed by Stephanie McMahon Helmsley during his title run, so Triple H was given the title to drop it to Hogan, and then Taker got another chance to be the man, and once again did not do anything to impress, so Rock was chosen to make a star out of the next standard bearer (Lesnar)
- Taker has not held the WWE's top title since 2002 and has been a mainstay on the B-Show having the same feud with various wrestlers, highlighted by a 2 WM run with HBK, and now 1 more headlining match with Triple H.
This may look like a Taker bashing post, but it's just my proof that Taker has never been the man in the WWE, and is simply a money making sideshow that should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Hogan and Austin, unless that sentence is "The Undertaker is not on the level of Hulk Hogan & Steve Austin."
|
|
peacenfunk
Mid-Carder
Joined on: May 20, 2006 14:48:37 GMT -5
Posts: 181
|
Post by peacenfunk on Mar 28, 2011 17:42:30 GMT -5
|
|