|
Post by The Yes Man on Jan 12, 2014 17:08:23 GMT -5
The Undertaker may have never been the "face of WWE", but he has been for a long time the heart of WWE. He's always there as a go to guy. He was the face of SmackDown from 2004-2009 though.
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jan 12, 2014 17:32:07 GMT -5
The Undertaker may have never been the "face of WWE", but he has been for a long time the heart of WWE. He's always there as a go to guy. He was the face of SmackDown from 2004-2009 though. As I've said taker has been a consistent main eventer but never pushed as the face of the company. 2004 sd Eddie, cena, and jbl were at the forefront of every sd. From 2005-2007 Batista was the man. 2008 was hhh dominating every sd broadcast. 2009 was mainly hardy, edge, and punk before taker was the focus at the end of the year. Like I said taker has always been a consistent main eventer. But during the time you listed the only time he could be argued as the top guy on sd was early 2008 and late 2009. That doesn't take away from his career. Just how the wwe presented him. I also don't see how people say Bret wasn't the face of the company when he is arguably the greatest draw outside of the states and carried the company though it's worst down period. Luger, diesel, and Shawn all failed as the top guys and Vince continually went back to Bret.
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Jan 12, 2014 17:34:32 GMT -5
I don't think you can put Bret in the same category as Austin or Hogan.... Bret may not have achieved the level of fame that Hogan and Austin did, but he's on the list of wrestlers who carried the company and was seen as the face of the company by fans. He's also one of very few wrestlers who have ever transcended the business and became a household name (clearly supported by the fact he is still to this day the ONLY wrestler to ever do voicework on the Simpsons, and during the height of its popularity). just one question. If Taker never was the man then why did Brett say in his book that he had agreed with Vince that "only person that could make more than him was the Undertaker" I don't recall him saying that. But even if he did, that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Undertaker has never been pushed as the face of the company, nor has he ever been seen as such by fans. Brett talks about it when he talks about signing the deal Vince bailed on. I have always seen taker as one of the many faces of the company he has been there for 25 years he definitely one of many faces of wwe
|
|