Art Vandelay's Pro Wrestling Ground Any wrestlers critical of Undertaker?

Edited: 19 days ago
11/11/11
Posts: 25057
Juggernautt -

The Bear stare is a well documented undertaker hater. Always trying to belittle him in some passive aggressive way, like saying he is a great employee blah blah blah

 

Don't fool yourself because you don't like the character.  He is the top 10 all time for most people, even top 5/mount Rushmore for a lot of people. He is the greatest big man (near 7 footer) of all time. He could work with the best of them. 

 

In an era where we have tons of guys with convoluted titled reigns, 7, 8, 9, 10 plus titles.. he didn't have that many. I remember when Bret hart won the belt for the 5th time and that was a huge deal. Ric flairs reigns always seemed like such a huge deal.  Taker always was willing to put people over. Even in his prime. He earned his once a year wrestlemania appearance. 

 

Taker would often take guys that are new or hot and rising, or just different and let them appear strong and even go over him

 

Like the great Khali, Mr. Kennedy, Muhammed hassan, Kane, edge and Orton when they were barely entering the main event scene, brock lesnat when he was barely the next big thing. 

 

Taker has some bad matches. But he has some of the greatest matches in wrestlemania history  

I dont think thats a very fair statement about me. I will readily admit im not a huge taker fan. However i dont think im a hater in the slightest when it comes to taker. I like to think I'm pretty fair. I actually agree with most of the points you made.

However, I think alot of the statements you made sort of proved my point about him. In general and even in this thread the most common adjectives i hear people use about him are level headed, consistent, and solid. I'm not a baseball guy but perhaps a fair comparison would be to say is that taker is a cal ripkin of sorts of the wwf and North american wrestling scene. I dont know cal ripkins full credentials other than having the most game appearances streak and that he is well liked and respected.

In a business full of egos, selfishness, drama, and eccentric personality types, undertaker was a godsend. Thats a huge achievement to go 30 plus years and to be reliable and over.

However lets be fair. Undertaker was not a wrestler like everyone else. He was booked as an attraction for most of his career. You said it yourself he wasnt known for his title runs. That also means he wasnt "the guy" for almost his entire run. There have been plenty of mount Rushmore threads on this forum and also to be real with you barely anyone cited undertaker. If its wwf specific mount rushmore than yeah for sure he belongs but otherwise undertaker drops a tier or two.

Again 99.99 percent of wrestlers are never the guy or the ace. I dont mean that as a knock on taker. People treat undertaker like he was some Michael Jordan when all i am trying to say is no he wasn't. He is an all time great, but in a way thats different from other all time greats. When I make the "great employee" comment I'm not trying to make a back handed complement. I think it exemplifies more honestly what he was bringing to the table.

 

The longer ive been a fan of the business the more ive come to realize the business isnt all just about star power and drawing. In so many ways angles and card placement ultimately just comes down to how fucking reliable someone is.

 

Also I readily admit I didnt watch much wwf in the 2000s so ive missed quite a few wrestlemanias. However i do readily oppose this notion that taker got over a shitload of talent. Most of the jobbing he did over his career was purely to extend feuds and to extend his own relevancy. Since afterall he was a freaking attraction with a super natural gimmick that could could realistically be paired up with very few opponents. Foley was the first major guy off the top of my head i recall taker putting over. Once again I think thats one major area that taker gets too much credit as being someone who did the favors to get other guys over. Also to be clear (much like hogan) i dont think undertaker should have been jobbing alot either cause after all he was an attrattraction.i dont hold it against him but I'm not going to praise him as some elevation machine. Foley, Michaels, bret, etc. Etc. All elevated way more talent.

Edited: 19 days ago
11/11/11
Posts: 25058

Taker main evented wm13(1997) after being in the company since 1987. It was a throwaway main event that no one cared for(admittedly this was shawn's fault for losing his smile and initiating a clusterfuck.) Him main eventing seemed like more of a recognition of undertaker's contributions from the company rather than what the fans actually wanted. He didnt next main event wrestlemania until 20 something. Again he wasnt a Michael Jordan(like so many of the fans try to make him out to be or how the wwf tries to rewrite history and make it seem like he was.) Thats not a knock on taker. Not everyone can be a Jordan and quite frankly you dont want a locker full of jordans.

 

If taker was young and I owned a wrestling company id want taker. Hes not going to be the star of my company though.

 

Undertaker is essentially what benoit would have been if he had worked for the wwf for 30 years and not killed his family. Company value and reputation wise.

19 days ago
11/11/11
Posts: 25059

Actually a better comparison within the industry was right under my nose. Undertaker is essentially the wwf equivalent of njpw's jushin thunder liger. Except not as revolutionary, or selfless, or as impactful on the global landscape of wrestling(in regards to ring work.) In comparison to liger, Undertaker was on a far bigger stage, and excelled when it came to showing the importance of living the gimmick, and maintaining kayfabe, and producing spectacle. Undertaker(much like shawn michaels) was the ultimate presentation of the wwf >

19 days ago
9/10/13
Posts: 3006

I saw one video where paul london and brian Kendrick thought it was funny when undertaker got burned real bad that time and i was wanting them to elaborate on that more but they didnt. 

18 days ago
4/22/07
Posts: 70137

I think Tracy Smothers hates him

18 days ago
9/24/18
Posts: 3458
CANESHARP - 

I saw one video where paul london and brian Kendrick thought it was funny when undertaker got burned real bad that time and i was wanting them to elaborate on that more but they didnt. 


What a pair of fuckwits

17 days ago
9/24/18
Posts: 3461
TheBearStare - 

Taker main evented wm13(1997) after being in the company since 1987. It was a throwaway main event that no one cared for(admittedly this was shawn's fault for losing his smile and initiating a clusterfuck.) Him main eventing seemed like more of a recognition of undertaker's contributions from the company rather than what the fans actually wanted. He didnt next main event wrestlemania until 20 something. Again he wasnt a Michael Jordan(like so many of the fans try to make him out to be or how the wwf tries to rewrite history and make it seem like he was.) Thats not a knock on taker. Not everyone can be a Jordan and quite frankly you dont want a locker full of jordans.

 

If taker was young and I owned a wrestling company id want taker. Hes not going to be the star of my company though.

 

Undertaker is essentially what benoit would have been if he had worked for the wwf for 30 years and not killed his family. Company value and reputation wise.


That last line is seriously one of the dumbest things i've ever read. 

Benoit, besides a 5 month title reign, was rarely ever main eventing PPV's (infact even when he was champion he wasn't always main eventing). 

To compare his impact or contribution to the company or the wrestling business to what Taker has done for over 30 years is asinine. Im also not going to pretend to know the financials, but I'd confidently say Taker was always a significantly bigger TV and money draw than Benoit. 

 

17 days ago
11/11/11
Posts: 25093
Jones right nostril -
TheBearStare - 

Taker main evented wm13(1997) after being in the company since 1987. It was a throwaway main event that no one cared for(admittedly this was shawn's fault for losing his smile and initiating a clusterfuck.) Him main eventing seemed like more of a recognition of undertaker's contributions from the company rather than what the fans actually wanted. He didnt next main event wrestlemania until 20 something. Again he wasnt a Michael Jordan(like so many of the fans try to make him out to be or how the wwf tries to rewrite history and make it seem like he was.) Thats not a knock on taker. Not everyone can be a Jordan and quite frankly you dont want a locker full of jordans.

 

If taker was young and I owned a wrestling company id want taker. Hes not going to be the star of my company though.

 

Undertaker is essentially what benoit would have been if he had worked for the wwf for 30 years and not killed his family. Company value and reputation wise.


That last line is seriously one of the dumbest things i've ever read. 

Benoit, besides a 5 month title reign, was rarely ever main eventing PPV's (infact even when he was champion he wasn't always main eventing). 

To compare his impact or contribution to the company or the wrestling business to what Taker has done for over 30 years is asinine. Im also not going to pretend to know the financials, but I'd confidently say Taker was always a significantly bigger TV and money draw than Benoit. 

 

Yes it sounds like you completely ignored the theoretical situation I posted, " IF" benoit had worked n in wwf for 30 years like taker instead of being a world traveler. Plus I better explained myself directly below that post by saying jushin thunder liger was the better example.

17 days ago
10/3/16
Posts: 4874

Hahaha at Benoit being compared to The Dead Man.

Edited: 15 days ago
10/27/10
Posts: 9985

Again, I rest my case. The bearstare is a well documented undertaker hater with backhanded compliments and passive aggressive digs

 

Eat shit

15 days ago
11/11/11
Posts: 25109

Thanks for ignoring what i wrote and just focusing on the name benoit and what his name is associated with.  i had way more substance than that in my posts

14 days ago
4/25/11
Posts: 4025
evh -

he is too protected for anyone to be critical of him. he’s basically hogan without the baggage but also a much weaker worker

LOL Taker is a weaker worker than Hogan?

14 days ago
8/14/12
Posts: 2707

Cucumbers hate taker 

13 days ago
12/28/12
Posts: 7753
ReffsRammedMeInMyAnus -
evh -

he is too protected for anyone to be critical of him. he’s basically hogan without the baggage but also a much weaker worker

LOL Taker is a weaker worker than Hogan?

that’s right