|
Post by James Hetfield on Sept 24, 2007 15:31:23 GMT -5
Undertaker has put over many people in his career.
|
|
dgnr8
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 12, 2006 11:38:01 GMT -5
Posts: 3,914
|
Post by dgnr8 on Sept 24, 2007 15:48:44 GMT -5
I'll go ahead and say it... I'm an Undertaker mark, okay?
Now, I agree that sometimes Taker needs to do the job and put over some younger talent. It's my opinion that Taker has gotten a little lazy with the gimmick. I've always admired his ability to evolve his character and change with the times to keep the gimmick current and fresh. However, Taker really seems to have stopped trying as hard. Maybe he thinks that he's over no matter what he does, I don't know. What I do know is that, as a true Taker fan, I miss the days when he REALLY sold the gimmick... his movement fit his gimmick (when he didn't do the MMA boxing stance), his ring attire fit his gimmick (Instead of just wearing black tights, a black top, and black boots), and he would even come out and cut a promo! Some of the most memorable fueds in WWF/WWE history are Undertaker's from the "New Generation" and "Attitude" eras. Those were great! Taker/Diesel, Taker/Sid, Taker/Mankind, Taker/Austin, Taker/Shawn, Taker/Kane and so on. Undertaker always delivered the gimmick back then. Now he just makes a really elaborate entrance and wrestles like anyone else. He constantly uses moves that don't fit his gimmick, like at Unforgiven, he beat Mark Henry with a Last Ride... a move from his American Badass days. Why? When WWE scouts talent, I'm sure they look for guys who really sell their character. I bet they wouldn't bring in guys who perform out of character. Sorry for the long read.
|
|
|
Post by Iron Man on Sept 24, 2007 15:52:53 GMT -5
Who cares if he beat Kennedy. That is not the point. The point is to make someone a star and taker did that. Taker made Kennedy a main eventer after there matches, people could take Kennedy seriously after his feud with Taker. Taker also did the same with Orton and a few others. You can't say the same about HHH.
|
|
Fury
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 21, 2007 21:19:09 GMT -5
Posts: 4,257
|
Post by Fury on Sept 24, 2007 16:18:00 GMT -5
Taker has still put over stars and not completly dominated the feuds and made people look like jabroni's. Which Triple H has. People have benefited from the Taker feuds. Kennedy benefited fully from the Taker feud as he was made to look strong the whole way through. When can you say that someone last benefitted from a Triple H feud. Probably Batista and that has been all.
|
|
Sabufan1
Superstar
That's for fathering that piece of crap!!
Joined on: Aug 20, 2006 16:09:19 GMT -5
Posts: 805
|
Post by Sabufan1 on Sept 24, 2007 16:32:14 GMT -5
If it wasn't for UNDERTAKER, HHH, and HBK WWE would be nothing. They help build that company and deserve to go over some of the younger talent. That's just the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by ecwbeatwcw01 on Sept 24, 2007 17:07:13 GMT -5
why does it matter undertaker isnt gonna be around long anyway.His aba gimmick was better but its over now.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Sept 24, 2007 17:11:03 GMT -5
yeah so dont ever say taker has never put over anyone
|
|
|
Post by Hurricane on Sept 24, 2007 17:25:34 GMT -5
I wish they made the Undertaker look as 'Deadman' in the ring as they do on his videos and promos. As soon as he gets in the ring he looks like any other normal wrestler, and moves like one. Back in the day, all the way up to 1998, he would actually wear good looking attires, and move like a real deadman. Oh yeah, because we've all seen and know what a real deadman looks like.
|
|
|
Post by Ian from 616Entertainment. on Sept 24, 2007 18:52:01 GMT -5
Matt Hardy, from my shoot DVD-"'Taker was great to work with. When we did those couple matches on Smackdown! when he was fueding with Brock, 'Taker gave me so many moves I wasn't supposed to hit. He would let me get in alot more offense than originally planned, because he thought I was a good looking, hard working young kid. Yea, he was awesome to work with and just a really nice guy in there."
|
|
|
Post by rkolegendkilla on Sept 24, 2007 19:00:27 GMT -5
yeah so dont ever say taker has never put over anyone When did I say he's never put anyone over? I said it's been FIVE YEARS since he put someone over and it meant something. And the only time he jobbed to Orton he made him look like a bitch with his dad interfering.
|
|
|
Post by chumped on Sept 24, 2007 19:02:54 GMT -5
yeah so dont ever say taker has never put over anyone When did I say he's never put anyone over? I said it's been FIVE YEARS since he put someone over and it meant something. And the only time he jobbed to Orton he made him look like a bitch with his dad interfering. Orton also put him in a casket and burned him alive....not to mention Taker made Orton look damn good in all 4 matches. And putting Khali over meant something. It made him look like the Monster of all Monsters. Now he is champ. And, he put on a 5 star match with Angle, making Angle seem like a damn good champ after that.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Sept 24, 2007 19:06:58 GMT -5
if all these guys just always did 'what is right' and put these guys over, they'd have the least credible roles and wouldn't be looked at as uppercarders. hell, i'd say taker's gimmick is old only because he's been putting guys over so consistently for so long...just because he beat orton doesn't mean he buried him, the feud itself helped orton get more over.
|
|
|
Post by Controversial Maverick PUNK on Sept 24, 2007 19:14:45 GMT -5
If Orton or Kennedy deserved to be put over, I'd agree with you. There, fixed - because if Orton didn't deserve to be put over... then Kennedy, sure as hell, didn't deserve to go over 'Taker...
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Sept 24, 2007 19:48:40 GMT -5
Isn't burying people what undertakers are SUPPOSED to do? No, they are suppose to embalm them, and prepare them for a funeral. Not the actual burial part. So then in actuality...Undertaker is a gravedigger...and Paul Bearer is an undertaker...which means...who's the pallbearer? *aneurysm*
|
|
|
Post by supersmash on Sept 24, 2007 21:04:08 GMT -5
Isn't burying people what undertakers are SUPPOSED to do? No, they are suppose to embalm them, and prepare them for a funeral. Not the actual burial part. Hillarious. Undertaker is just one of those guys that doesn't need a world title...Look at Jake the Snake in his prime, he was over as hell, but he never wore WWE gold.
|
|
|
Post by (=wwefan617=) on Sept 24, 2007 21:28:31 GMT -5
im not really sure about your comments. undertaker puts people over in almost every match he is in. even if he wins all the time. they give him a run for his money and taker plays as if hes been through a war even if its with a mediocre superstar (cough cough) batista. =)
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Sept 24, 2007 22:27:05 GMT -5
yeah so dont ever say taker has never put over anyone When did I say he's never put anyone over? I said it's been FIVE YEARS since he put someone over and it meant something. And the only time he jobbed to Orton he made him look like a bitch with his dad interfering. even then thats still wrong. Look the way I see it Wins dont mean ALL of that when it comes to taker. Taker has a special way of making it seem like someone got a huge win over him. The evidence is there you just have to see it
|
|
|
Post by BulletV1 on Sept 24, 2007 22:29:52 GMT -5
No, they are suppose to embalm them, and prepare them for a funeral. Not the actual burial part. So then in actuality...Undertaker is a gravedigger...and Paul Bearer is an undertaker...which means...who's the pallbearer? *aneurysm* No Paul Bearer is one of the people how carry the casket. The Undertaker is a mortician.
|
|
|
Post by trivium666 on Sept 24, 2007 23:43:04 GMT -5
all i have to say is bring back the ABA. Have him get "killed" again, let him sit out for 4-5 months, come back at Wrestlemania with the biker gimmick. Its all common sense people!
|
|
|
Post by Ultimate Figure Collector on Sept 24, 2007 23:51:31 GMT -5
If Orton deserved to be put over, I'd agree with you. In 2005, Orton was hot off the youngest World Title run and Taker was just... there. What does he gain from not putting the younger Orton over? To keep his WrestleMania streak going? That's what he's gonna be most known for. Plus Taker put Orton over at SummerSlam that year anyway and Kennedy just being in a long feud with Taker gave him a rub. Why should the older guys have to job to every young guy? People make it like it should always happen. If it always happens then it loses it's meaning.
|
|