|
|
Post by The Best on May 8, 2023 8:41:38 GMT -5
Before anybody flips out, I feel like it has to be at least discussed. The undertaker, for whatever reason, is the most “protected” guy in wrestling. Listening to podcasts like Jim Ross and Bruce Prichard, it seems that whenever they cover a specific PPV, the undertaker is almost always involved in an awful match, but according to them it’s NEVER his fault.
When discussing trying to get Undertaker to the WWF, Bruce mentions a wcw match with he and Luger. He said something like “the match was awful, but what the hell can you do with Luger?” Completely ignoring that Luger had plenty of good matches.
In reference to his horrible wrestlemania HIAC match against boss man, Bruce said “those guys didn’t know what to do with that stupid cage.” So two veteran wrestlers didn’t know what to do in a wrestling ring surrounded by a cage at wrestlemania?
During the WCW invasion he had terrible matches against guys like booker T who was always good in the ring. Kronik has the worst match of their careers against Kane and taker and of course they get fired because of it. Kurt angle was tearing it up with everyone until he has a PPV match against undertaker and it goes terribly and of course loses clean in the middle for no reason.
Then the DDP feud. It’s been said that the house show matches weren’t going well and everyone in WWE was blaming page for that. So DDP the previous year was having great matches against guys like Goldberg and Randy Savage but it’s his fault the matches aren’t good against a guy who was having bad matches with everyone?
He had other feuds with guys like Heidenrich and Kennedy that weren’t good, and Jim Ross says things like “if you can’t have a good match with Taker, then what are you doing?” Or maybe undertaker can’t make guys that aren’t the best have decent matches? Which brings me to my next point:
Ross and Prichard have no problem crapping on wcw guys or guys they just don’t like. But what about other guys they don’t want to say anything bad about? Taker never had good matches with Austin and Kane, but according to them it’s because “well they just didn’t have good chemistry”. That’s such a convenient excuse because they’ll never say anything bad about those guys.
And yes, undertaker had great matches against HBK, Bret hart and Kurt angle later on. I’m not saying he never had great matches, I just think he was often not able to get a good match out of guys that were “lower” than him like other great workers were able to. And his best matches just happened to be against some of the best in ring workers of all time.
I feel like I had to just throw the topic out there because it seems that Prichard and Ross are afraid to say anything bad about the guy. According to them he’s the best and can do no wrong, and if they don’t like his opponent it’s their fault, but if it’s another one of their favorites it’s just “bad chemistry”
|
|
|
|
Post by PJ on May 8, 2023 9:05:25 GMT -5
Well, he’s no Bret Hart, but he wasn’t bad either. And I don’t know if he was overrated, but I think a lot of the bad chemistry so to speak comes from the Dead man style. Where everything was so slow and meticulously preformed. It probably threw off the timing of many of his opponents thus them not having good matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by TKO Propagandist on May 8, 2023 10:07:52 GMT -5
Around 2007 he started to become the greatest in-ring performer alongside HBK. The wheels may have fell off in 2014. But Taker's 2007-2013 features some of the greatest wrestling matches of all time. There would be some ahead of him in the ring but not many. Before 2014, the only time I think he was bad was during the Invasion, most other times it was pretty much always the opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by ASR (therockisback) on May 8, 2023 10:27:04 GMT -5
Around 2007 he started to become the greatest in-ring performer alongside HBK. The wheels may have fell off in 2014. But Taker's 2007-2013 features some of the greatest wrestling matches of all time. There would be some ahead of him in the ring but not many. Before 2014, the only time I think he was bad was during the Invasion, most other times it was pretty much always the opponent. Taker was the man that time |
|
|
|
Post by tmnt316 on May 8, 2023 11:18:38 GMT -5
Pretty much the style he wrestled for years is a big part but there was some matches during that time that was good.
Towards the end is when he started showing he's more than that unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
Post by MKSavage on May 8, 2023 11:44:00 GMT -5
Hard to say. I think when they give Taker a pass on his early work (1990-1995), I think a lot of that has to do with the style he was being asked to perform. The very slow pace sometimes made things seem horrible, but then again, he wasn't really working with the best performers during that time either: Berzerker, Giant Gonzalez, Mr. Hughes, Underfaker, King Kong Bundy, Mabel, IRS at the end of his run, etc. Most of those guys aren't going to have great matches at a normal pace. But in his later years (1996 to mid/late 2000s), I felt his work definitely improved. Granted, he started to work with a much better class of in-ring talent (Bret, HBK, Mick, Austin, Angle, Edge, HHH, Orton, etc.), but he definitely held his own against them. I do think there is something to chemistry, some guys just don't mesh well together. I always felt that he was much better against smaller guys than guys his height or bigger, it made him look stronger. Plus, he could keep up with them in terms of speed - which made for a more enjoyable match to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Best on May 8, 2023 12:43:28 GMT -5
Hard to say. I think when they give Taker a pass on his early work (1990-1995), I think a lot of that has to do with the style he was being asked to perform. The very slow pace sometimes made things seem horrible, but then again, he wasn't really working with the best performers during that time either: Berzerker, Giant Gonzalez, Mr. Hughes, Underfaker, King Kong Bundy, Mabel, IRS at the end of his run, etc. Most of those guys aren't going to have great matches at a normal pace. But in his later years (1996 to mid/late 2000s), I felt his work definitely improved. Granted, he started to work with a much better class of in-ring talent (Bret, HBK, Mick, Austin, Angle, Edge, HHH, Orton, etc.), but he definitely held his own against them. I do think there is something to chemistry, some guys just don't mesh well together. I always felt that he was much better against smaller guys than guys his height or bigger, it made him look stronger. Plus, he could keep up with them in terms of speed - which made for a more enjoyable match to watch. Definitely. For the record I agree he had much better matches later on in his career. My main point I guess was the WWE guys like Ross and Prichard who are quick to criticize certain people but they have “their” guys who can do no wrong. It was always “well it wasn’t his fault” instead of “yea taker should have been able to have a better match with this guy” |
|
Old Zeke
Main Eventer
'Fraid old Zeke, he rides up here with me. Can't trust a pig with watermelons, you know.
Joined on: Jun 24, 2019 13:46:50 GMT -5
Posts: 3,361
|
Post by Old Zeke on May 8, 2023 12:51:56 GMT -5
I enjoyed his in-ring work in 2002, and then from 2007 until 2013. That's about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ASR (therockisback) on May 8, 2023 13:01:44 GMT -5
I enjoyed his in-ring work in 2002, and then from 2007 until 2013. That's about it. His matches with Lesnar in 2015 were great & worth watching but the one in 2014 was a letdown (he got injured during the match) His match with Shane in 2016 is worth watching too. |
|
|
|
Post by hbkbigdaddycool on May 8, 2023 13:05:44 GMT -5
As a Kevin Nash fan, I probably have no say in this topic because of what I am going to say...
But to me, just like Nash, Undertaker was only good when he had a smaller guy to work off of. Rey Mysterio, HBK, Bret Hart, Kurt Angle, and even Randy Orton gave him great matches.
He had hidden gems like the HIAC match with Triple H at WM 28 and the Batista match at WM 23 that were good too.
But his matches with Kane were horrible. His matches with Austin were horrible.
Edge was his last good feud for a steady program, and Edge was on fire during that time so it's no shocker that they had good matches.
"Mean" Mark was lucky that the Undertaker gimmick was a character that could last for years and with the slow matches he had at the beginning of that character, it helped his longevity. But if "Mean" Mark Callous came in to do some work in 1990, he would have been fed to Hogan at house shows and then eventually jobbed out.
|
|
|
|
Post by MKSavage on May 8, 2023 14:07:52 GMT -5
As a Kevin Nash fan, I probably have no say in this topic because of what I am going to say... But to me, just like Nash, Undertaker was only good when he had a smaller guy to work off of. Rey Mysterio, HBK, Bret Hart, Kurt Angle, and even Randy Orton gave him great matches. He had hidden gems like the HIAC match with Triple H at WM 28 and the Batista match at WM 23 that were good too. But his matches with Kane were horrible. His matches with Austin were horrible. Edge was his last good feud for a steady program, and Edge was on fire during that time so it's no shocker that they had good matches. "Mean" Mark was lucky that the Undertaker gimmick was a character that could last for years and with the slow matches he had at the beginning of that character, it helped his longevity. But if "Mean" Mark Callous came in to do some work in 1990, he would have been fed to Hogan at house shows and then eventually jobbed out. I actually liked his matches with Hogan, the slow paced helped both of them. For me, his best matches as the deadman during the 90s were: Mankind - 1996 Yokozuna - 1993-1994 Diesel - WM12 Hogan - 1991 Bret Hart - 1996 |
|
|
|
Post by The Brain on May 8, 2023 15:00:00 GMT -5
Awesome character work in those early years(My fav time period of his career) but yeah not the best cast of talent to work with.Yoko was his best for sure during this era
Wasnt till Bret in 96 then Foley where he showed what he really could do
|
|
|
|
Post by theoutlaw1999 on May 8, 2023 19:50:34 GMT -5
In the early 90's Taker's work was mediocre. He was slow, boring and acted like a zombie during all of his matches.
Then from 96 he came out of his shell and started putting on entertaining matches, Foley gave him the jumpstart he needed.
The Biker era however, especially in 2001 was a huge disappointment, most of his matched were poor during that period.
Now, Takers best ring work IMO was from 2004/2012. He put on some of his greatest matches during those years.
|
|
|
|
Post by ASR (therockisback) on May 8, 2023 20:30:20 GMT -5
In the early 90's Taker's work was mediocre. He was slow, boring and acted like a zombie during all of his matches. Then from 96 he came out of his shell and started putting on entertaining matches, Foley gave him the jumpstart he needed. The Biker era however, especially in 2001 was a huge disappointment, most of his matched were poor during that period. Now, Takers best ring work IMO was from 2004/2012. He put on some of his greatest matches during those years. U summed it up perfectly.... 2001 Taker was rough His match with Punk in 2013 was his final classic for me |
|
|
|
Post by Path 2 Glory on May 9, 2023 10:11:08 GMT -5
Cap. Kurt Angle and Undertaker have never had a bad match together.
I will say he's more about character work and feud work than 5 star classics in the ring. People can complain about his Big Evil/ABA gimmick til they're blue in the face but I loved it. It showed me Undertaker could talk beyond his dark storylines. Showed me he could work a different style and completely reinvent himself to stay relevant. Doom and gloom Undertaker doesn't survive the end of the attitude era into the beginning of the RA era without losing a ton of steam in my honest opinion. Yes that was his bread and butter but he needed something fresh so when he came back to the Deadman roots, it was that much more bitter sweet. His feuds with Angle, Lesnar and my all time favorite Jeff Hardy match (ladder match on raw) all came from this time period of Undertaker's career. His one liners were great and the amount of brutal Last Ride clips we got in a 3 year period is insane. Oh and the 2 Man Power Trip vs Bros of Destruction feud, that was fun as a kid. Gotta bring up the Armageddon HIAC too. While I understand that gimmick is not what OG taker fans grew up loving, at the same time it WAS a part of a lot of others childhoods. Too many good moments to call that time period bad imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on May 9, 2023 13:11:43 GMT -5
Not all his matches with Austin were bad...but they were mostly bad & snakebit with stuff going wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by Kill Em' All on May 9, 2023 14:22:20 GMT -5
He hit his stride around 2006. His work rate was on new levels when he returned to WWE in 2004, and only increased by 2006. From that point to like many said 2013; he is one of the best if not they best. Which is crazy to think Taker was peaking in his 40's. The best performances and best stories came from 2004-2013 Undertaker by far.
Taker had some low points. I think Taker was fantastic performer prior to this. 1996-1998 matches he had were very good usually. However Taker was a lot bigger and a lot slower in style. I think injuries started to mount on Taker around 1999. I think the promo and story was much more the focus on a Ministry Taker. By the time we got early ABA Taker, Taker was in worse off shape and still nursing injuries. And I think Taker was somewhat protected in this period; only popping into the main event to kind out of pop out and dance around it.
Taker was already considered legendary by 2000, by outlasting so many even just from 1990. And Taker I know was talking about retirement in this period due to the stacked injuries.
Taker started to slim down come around 2001, and I think his performances got a lot better come around 2002/2003. And we could see a lot of the style we would come to see from Taker in 04-2013 be born in 2002/2003.
After that SmackDown match with Dean Ambrose in April 2013; I don't think he ever was the same. To me he looked a lot less healthy and slowed down some by WM XXX. However, I think his performances in 2014-2016 were acceptable/serviceable. I actually really liked Taker/Brock feud from 2015 where Taker was somewhat a heel.
I think those terrible Taker matches kicked off with WM 33. The only redeeming performances of that point was the Extreme Rules 2019 match, Boneyard match, and maybe the fact of Taker squashing Cena for shock value.
He gave us a lot over his career and I think there just is to much respect and the good does out weight the bad and well a lot of fanboy stuff too.
|
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on May 9, 2023 15:32:10 GMT -5
Good point made above about Taker nursing a pile up of injuries from 98 onwards too. Even after he had the time off & returned as ABA he struggled a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by ASR (therockisback) on May 9, 2023 15:45:54 GMT -5
Not all his matches with Austin were bad...but they were mostly bad & snakebit with stuff going wrong Take out the injuries then we’d probably see em both put on classics |
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on May 9, 2023 15:49:39 GMT -5
Not all his matches with Austin were bad...but they were mostly bad & snakebit with stuff going wrong Take out the injuries then we’d probably see em both put on classics They would have been better for sure!! I always rated Fully Loaded 99...their 1st blood match was well worked. |
|
