Grimmas Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 He's an interesting case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeg Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Yep. He's currently in the 70s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 I very much doubt it, but I'd be more inclined to rate him than I would someone like Jericho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Big yes. I'll probably be his high voter, in fact, since he's looking at my Top 30 or so at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El McKell Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Yes. I think that The Undertaker is better than Vader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Just absolutely not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Yep. Dunno exactly where, somewhere in the middle, but more likely in the top half than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Haven't made a list but would be very surprised to see him there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Top 30?! Is it because people think he's had a lot of great matches? I don't get this. He was a total stiff until about 1996-7, then spent a good 5-6 years then known as the "Lazy Taker" across the internet, before settling into having a string of overwrought WWE-main event style matches of endless endless endless endless false finishes. When did the notion that Undertaker is actually a good worker come from? From this idea that he's a locker room captain? Hell in a Cell stuff? However, all that said, I'm scared to actually put him through Biglav cos he might actually make it and beat people like Butch Reed in the process ¬__________¬ I do also rate the Brock match from 10/20/02 and see that as a near-classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blak Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Undertaker's hovering around the bottom of my list. He's a fascinating mixture of character-focused performance, spectacle, legitimate work, and multi-faceted special attraction (as gimmick for the first part of his career, then as "legendary dragon to slay" in the later part). There's a longevity argument to be made too, though I'm loathe to make it because it's longevity bolstered by unprecedented protection. The most damaging era for his candidacy isn't his early WWE stuff (which I actually find to be a bit underrated); it's the "American Badass" run in the early 00s, where he actually was the slow, unnuanced and overprotected lug that many smart fans perceive(d) him to be. He ended up doing an admirable job of folding in the better aspects of that persona back into the Undertaker character, but the period of time taken to get there churned out an alarming amount of awful, Nash-level stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMick Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Undertaker's hovering around the bottom of my list. He's a fascinating mixture of character-focused performance, spectacle, legitimate work, and multi-faceted special attraction (as gimmick for the first part of his career, then as "legendary dragon to slay" in the later part). There's a longevity argument to be made too, though I'm loathe to make it because it's longevity bolstered by unprecedented protection. The most damaging era for his candidacy isn't his early WWE stuff (which I actually find to be a bit underrated); it's the "American Badass" run in the early 00s, where he actually was the slow, unnuanced and overprotected lug that many smart fans perceive(d) him to be. He ended up doing an admirable job of folding in the better aspects of that persona back into the Undertaker character, but the period of time taken to get there churned out an alarming amount of awful, Nash-level stuff. when would you say that was? I'd peg him as below par from early '99 to start of '02. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yo-Yo's Roomie Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 At his peak he wasn't good enough to make the list, and I don't see him hitting that peak for a terribly long period. It's confused a little by the fact that his best spells came in pockets over several years, which gives him the illusion of having longevity as a great worker, which I don't think he has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blak Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 I think that, to this point, I've subconsiously disqualified most of 1999 for the WWE roster by default due to how screwed up priorities were around that time, but yeah, it's a fair point to include it in Undertaker's down period as well. Some of the early corporate ministry tags aren't bad and Undertaker/Shamrock at Backlash '99 was a surprise to dig up through this process (and I tip my hat to Loss for that one), but there's a lot of uneven work for him from that period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 The Undertaker represents everything that is both awesome and lame about pro wrestling. You give almost any other wrestler a dead guy undertaker gimmick and it fails immediately. Calaway still draws with the gimmick 25 years later, so I think he'll make the bottom of my list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR Ackermann Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Took him 20 years to reach really good status. No way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Big yes. I'll probably be his high voter, in fact, since he's looking at my Top 30 or so at this point. He's my #30 exactly. I don't know if there's another wrestler in the world that has made me mark out as many times as The Undertaker. Not even Hulk Hogan when I was a child. Like... his entrance still gives me goosebumps and I'm in my thirties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Nope. Didn't even consider him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeg Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Multiple good to great matches with Hogan, Jim Duggan, Edge, Lesnar, HHH, Shawn Michaels, Foley, Bret, Batista, Kane, Orton and Angle. And a really good match with Punk. For the better part of a decade the biggest draw in wrestling has been Undertaker's yearly appearance at Mania. More times than not is a pretty good match. Even the recent Mania matches with all their excess have been fun. So yeah, he's on my list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Top 30?! Is it because people think he's had a lot of great matches? I don't get this. He was a total stiff until about 1996-7, then spent a good 5-6 years then known as the "Lazy Taker" across the internet, before settling into having a string of overwrought WWE-main event style matches of endless endless endless endless false finishes. When did the notion that Undertaker is actually a good worker come from? From this idea that he's a locker room captain? Hell in a Cell stuff? However, all that said, I'm scared to actually put him through Biglav cos he might actually make it and beat people like Butch Reed in the process ¬__________¬ I do also rate the Brock match from 10/20/02 and see that as a near-classic. In short, yes, partly it's because I think he's had great matches. The Mania matches with Shawn and Hunter go a long way with me, I think they are amazing and some of the highest levels that storytelling in wrestling can reach. I know mileage may vary with those matches, particularly around here, so just know right off the bat that we're probably coming at this from two very different places. For me it's a great match and a talent thing. The best matches include: vs Shawn (HIAC) vs Mankind (HIAC) vs Jeff Hardy (Ladder) - Raw 2002 vs Angle vs Rock - Vengeance 2002 vs Brock (HIAC) - No Mercy 2002, Summerslam 2015 vs Orton - WM21 vs Angle - NWO 2006 vs Batista - WM23, Backlash, SD May, Cyber Sunday & Survivor Series 2007 vs Edge - WM24, Summerslam 2008 vs Show - No Mercy 2008 vs Shawn - WM25, WM26 vs Hunter - WM27, WM28 vs Punk - WM29 There are also scores of great TV matches with Angle, Brock, Cena, Orton, Henry, Show, Finlay, Jeff, Hunter, Festus, Rey, Shelton, DX, Jericho, Punk, The Shield...Jesus, you know I didn't realise just how many there were until I started typing. You don't really think of Undertaker as a TV worker, but he worked a decent schedule up until about 2010 and was around more than you'd think. He's got some heft there. And I mean I can only speak to about 2002 onwards. There's a lot that I remember liking from the late 90s but it's been years since I've seen them - vs Austin, Kane, Mankind, etc. I should really look into that period. Taker has an aura about him that few can match. He's been given opportunities, but the flipside to that is that you have to wrestle up to that level to justify it. Taker does that. He carries himself with such...presence, and that in itself is special when you consider how hokey and ridiculous he is on paper - an undead zombie undertaker who is also a biker and knows MMA. It's not something that should come off as legit as it does, which is a credit to how he plays it, how he's always played it. He projects the air of a badass, someone who will just beat your ass if you piss him off, and his "Oh damn son you just pissed off the wrong motherfucker!" look is golden. And yet at the same time, he's willing to give to his opponent when needed, to create that drama. He will beat the shit out of a Jeff Hardy, but also eat Jeff's shots and give him enough to where an upset looks credible. When he's in there with another hoss he has to get over he will bump and sell his ass off for them. He can do overwrought WWE epic, brawl with anyone, work big vs little guys, go hoss vs hoss, play his role in a big match, work a TV semi-main. He's one of those guys who is so great at just standing on the apron in a tag match - that sounds like a such a minor thing, but I always notice it when I see it because it's a sign of a guy being "on" all the time and being able to project himself and sell even when he's in a secondary role. He's a great hot tag too. Taker never gets enough credit for how good a seller he is. I think he's outstanding, one of the very best in the company at it when active. He will eat offense, he's great at selling accumulated damage and exhaustion, and is especially great at selling facially - he comes in as the stone-faced zombie, but during a match you can clearly see his emotions all over his face, from "Oh damn son you just pissed off the wrong motherfucker!" to "Jesus this hurts!" to "Why can't I beat this fucker??" He gets over so much from the look on his face. He has good stuff with scrubs too. His bloodbath with Vince is great. He had one of Khali's very best matches, and this was in 2006, when Khali sucked so bad that WWE was too scared to put him on a live PPV. He's had ridiculously fun hoss matches with rando SD guys like Festus and Khali. Again, he has such an aura that the act of going toe-to-toe with someone like Festus puts him over. I don't give a shit about his locker room leadership or any other non-wrestling excuse you can come up with to explain away someone liking a wrestler that you don't. I'm curious to know if you've seen any latter-day Taker outside of Wrestlemania matches. Particularly the period of 2007-2010. He was really very good in those years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Jimmy, I wasn't trying to excuse or explain away people liking Taker, i was asking more when did the general perception of him in the (smart) fandom change? I can't remember exactly when it was that I stopped watching, maybe 2006? But in the 4-5 years that I was completely out of it, by the time I came back the narratives around Taker seemed to have changed to me. Back in the day, I don't think he was considered a good worker, whereas now he does seem to be. And outside of PWO, on podcasts I listened to circa 2010-11, he was talked of as a ring general, locker room leader, etc. etc. I think even by our very own Place To Be boys, Scott and Justin (back before I knew either of them). I've seen all those matches you listed. Although many of them not since the day they happened. As for later Taker, If it happened on Raw in the past decade, then I won't have seen it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Well I think the explanation is that he simply got better and put out years of good work. He was better in the last decade of his career than he was before, particularly in regards to having a lot of great matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 For you Jimmy and to keep me honest: Undertaker Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 1/3 2/3 1/3 = 4 Intangibles 9 Great matches 5 Length of Peak [never one of best in world] = 0 +1 ability to work heel +1 ability to work tags +1 ability to work gimmick matches Ability to work different styles / roles = 3 1. Hulk Hogan, 2. Shawn Michaels, 3. Mankind, 4. Jeff Hardy, 5. Kurt Angle / Rock, 6. Brock, 7. Randy Orton, 8. Batista, 9. Edge, 10. Big Show, 11. HHH, 12. CM Punk, 13. Vince, 14. Kane, 15. Austin Variety = 15 opponents = 7 28 Currently he'd rank with that score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downend2005 Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 I'm probably not helping your cause here but there are some surprising omissions based on variety. It could be argued that Taker had memorable matches and/or feuds with Diesel in 1996, Bret Hart in 1997 and Ric Flair in 2002. As you've included the Angle/Rock triple threat match, you could possibly also consider Vader as he was a part of the Final Four match in 1997. So that would bump him up to 18 opponents (19 if you count Vader), and a couple more points on his total. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Parv, which Kane/Big Show matches with Taker did you rate that highly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Parv, which Kane/Big Show matches with Taker did you rate that highly? I don't rate ANY of the matches particularly highly, but the criteria for variety is "memorable". Great matches is a separate metric. The Kane feud is still the most memorable thing Kane did in his career. I am thinking of that original debut run. Big Show is just that 08 No Mercy match Jimmy mentioned. Thing is, have a 25+ year career with a high profile, and you are likely to do well in that category. Variety rewards guys who did well in the business and had long careers. Lots of guys don't have careers that long. And yes, I'd add Diesel and Bret. They are fair shouts. I do not give him Flair in 02 or indeed in 92. Undertaker Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 1/3 2/3 1/3 = 4 Intangibles 9 Great matches 5 Length of Peak [never one of best in world] = 0 +1 ability to work heel +1 ability to work tags +1 ability to work gimmick matches Ability to work different styles / roles = 3 1. Hulk Hogan, 2. Shawn Michaels, 3. Mankind, 4. Jeff Hardy, 5. Kurt Angle / Rock, 6. Brock, 7. Randy Orton, 8. Batista, 9. Edge, 10. Big Show, 11. HHH, 12. CM Punk, 13. Vince, 14. Kane, 15. Austin, 16. Diesel, 17. Bret Hart Variety = 17 opponents = 8 29 When you see me rank Taker several places ahead of Rick Rude on my list, Downend2005 is the man to blame All good fun though! To me that is the nature of "greatness", even if someone like me -- not a fan of Taker, outright hate HBK, etc. -- is forced to rate the guy against the criteria has to give the guy his due. I don't claim greater objectivity cos some might give Taker 10 for intangibles and 8+ for Great Matches, and might argue he had some years as a top 30 worker in the world, etc., but there is some baseline of a standard. It breaks my heart that Taker is going to be above Ron Garvin and Bruno Sammartino, but criteria is criteria. It's GWE not "JvK's fave guys". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.00c68798e2502c92a7da65280cf7def4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.