The Trial of The Undertaker

[JaymeFuture]

So, for this week's podcast, we're returning to our "Court Case" format to debate the career of the Undertaker on the charge of misrepresentation of stature and level of contribution to WWE's success. We'd like your feedback to the question:

When you examine Undertaker's body of work on and off screen from 1990 to today, did he deserve the career and legacy WWE bestowed upon him, and do you feel he's been as important to WWE's success as they imply?

As always the best contributions will be read on the show during the debate and you'll be credited accordingly. So what do you think, guilty or not guilty, and why?

 

EDIT - Our show titled "The Trial of The Undertaker, featuring many of your contributions, is now online and available to listen to at the following link: http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/web/sxq2kc/SCG_Radio_95_-_The_Trial_Of_The_Undertaker.mp3

[JerryvonKramer]

 

You guys are cutting Taker way short

 

 

[shane McMahon's Jump vs. The Undertaker at Wrestlemania 32]

 

Thank you for giving us all the moments.

 

And who can forget this unforgettable moment!

 

[undertaker ascendes to the heavens, Royal Rumble 94]

 

(Ted's finest moment in an otherwise pretty rubbish commentary career)

Thank you for all the memories Mark

 

[Kane burns Undertaker]

 

[The Undertaker uses his powers to destroy the ring while Kurt Angle is in it: Royal Rumble 2006]

http://www.wwe.com/inside/top-25-undertaker-moments

 

Man, I wish I could have all of these on one DVD. That would be awesome!

The memories are flooding back. Who can forget when the Phenom joined forces with the Giant Big Show! The Unholy Alliance were a force to be reckoned with in the tag-team ranks of WWE competition! After a classic encounter with the Undertaker's brother, Kane, and his partner X-Pac at Summerslam 1999, the fearsome duo captured the tag-team gold. They would lose the titles a week later in another incredible bout against the Rock 'n' Sock Connection, The Rock and Mankind. But in an AMAZING twist would win them back only a week after that in a BURNED ALIVE match that we will never forget.

 

Just another month in the amazing and legendary career of The Undertaker.

In another incredibly memorable feud, The Greatest Manager of All Time, Paul Heyman, got The Dudley Boyz, of ECW and The Attitude Era fame, to kidnap Paul Bearer. In a remarkable turn of events, custody of Bearer ensured that Heyman now had control of The Master of Pain.

 

At the never-to-be-forgotten Great American Bash 2004, The Deadman had to face The Dudleys two on one in a Handicap Concrete Crypt match to stop Paul Heyman burying Paul Bearer in cement!

 

Yet another classic match for the ages that people will be talking about for many years to come.

Where do people go on the Mr. Kennedy match from No Mercy 2006?

 

How about the match with Kane at Bragging Rights 2010?

 

What are your views on the encounter with Muhammad Hassan at Great American Bash 2005?

 

I am keen to hear opinions on the match with Sycho Sid at Wrestlemania 13.

 

I'd like to see evaluations of his bout with The Big Show at Cyber Sunday 2008

 

Or how about the match with Rob Van Dam at Vengeance 2001?

 

I'd like to hear more about these terrific match ups.

For me the mark of a truly great worker is to count how many Wrestlemania moments they've had.

Your honour,

 

As you can see, The Undertaker is guilty of many Crimes Against Wrestling. In other words, you should lock him up and throw away the bloody key, just in case he thinks about coming back one last time.

 

Case closed.

 

Jerry Von Karma

[KB8]

That Cyber Sunday match against Big Show was actually pretty good. I mean, I think. Maybe?

[thebrainfollower]

This is a really tough question because it completely relates to WWE's bizarre version of wrestling history where a handful of friends are mostly responsible for everything good in wrestling during its biggest boom period. According to WWF Shawn Michaels is the GOAT and I don't think he belongs in a top 50 list. According to WWE the turnaround on the Monday Night War was HHH (and some others losers) showing up at Nitro with a tank. And according to WWE Undertaker is their longest and most consistent star ever, the living epitome of everything WWE is.

 

So let's take a look at this. First off was Undertaker ever THE guy in WWE? My answer is going to be most definitely no. At no point in his career was he the top babyface in a company that (HHH aside) has always been a babyface company. At best he was second to Lex Luger, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin and John Cena. In that sense he's basically in the Andre role during the Bruno/Backlund eras, a big star who pops a crowd and is a special attraction but is nowhere near the centerpiece of the promotion.

 

Did UT draw money? That's harder to say. People usually came to see someone taking on the UT rather than Taker himself for much of his career. That's true of his early days with Warrior and Hogan and it's still true when he's fighting Austin years later. Once he became a part timer, with mostly a WM match each year, then I would say he became a draw. The streak itself was a big selling point and it's completely bizarre and thrown together ending is still a sour note for many fans.

 

I give him a ton of credit for taking a gimmick that should have lasted about as long as Papa Shango and turning it into the most successful wrestling gimmick of all time. He's a huge star, and a hall of famer and definitely among the most important 50 wrestlers of the last 60 years. But yes WWE massively overplays his importance to company history, largely as a result of backstage politics (not so much directly on his part I feel) and Vince's falling out at various times with the people who ARE arguably the biggest stars in company history (Bruno, Hogan, Rock and Austin)

[thebrainfollower]

I will say this though, if this turns into an UT match quality or workrate discussion it's just totally missing the point of what Undertaker and WWE are.

 

Also I do have an issue with this concept. What is the Undertaker on trial for? Being promoted as a bigger deal than he ever was? How is this his fault? It's not like Shawn's refusal to drop belts or HHH's decades of politics, if anyone should be on trial here it would be WWE not the Undertaker himself. It's not like he goes around bragging about being the biggest star in history and the key to WWE's success all the time.

[JerryvonKramer]

First off was Undertaker ever THE guy in WWE?

Arguably he was here:

 

 

That's about the only time I can think of though.

[JaymeFuture]

Also I do have an issue with this concept. What is the Undertaker on trial for? Being promoted as a bigger deal than he ever was? How is this his fault? It's not like Shawn's refusal to drop belts or HHH's decades of politics, if anyone should be on trial here it would be WWE not the Undertaker himself.

Its a dual charge, with WWE and Taker as defendants, just made for a quicker thread title this way. Charge against Taker is whether or not he lives up to the legacy put upon him. To reference the earlier point, if you feel Shawn doesnt live up to the "all-time great" title he's been assigned, you could argue fraud based on not living up to the billing. Thats the debate with Taker.

 

Its a topic skewed to the defence in many ways (who wants slam dunk guilty debates?), but the mix of response is interesting so far...

[Laz]

To me, his legacy and relevance can be summed up in one question:

 

Would a random person on the street know who the Undertaker is?

 

The answer is going to be "yes" more than it will be "no." Part of this is the WWE Machine being as fantastic at branding/marketing as it is, true, but that same machine failed to make the Berzerker, Mantaur, and other equally silly gimmicks into household names. With that said, what separated him from all the others? His pitch perfect portrayal and overpowering presence.

 

I feel Parv is selling him short. With Taker, it was less about match quality and memorable angles or rivalries and more about the aura in the moment. Even on the match quality front, if you step outside the PWO bubble you're going to find more people who feel he's had plenty of all-time classics, with expert witnesses like Mick Foley, Bret Hart, Ric Flair, Steve Austin, Shawn Michaels, and more to praise his ability and his work ethic.

 

The Undertaker is pro wrestling's Jason Voorhees. He's conceptually silly, never executed with perfection, and always a bit hokey, but you're not watching him to see an Oscar-worthy story unfold anyway. You're watching him to see a 6'10" zombie march out with spooky music to chokeslam and Tombstone some poor SOB.

[JerryvonKramer]

To me, his legacy and relevance can be summed up in one question:

 

Would a random person on the street know who the Undertaker is?

 

The answer is going to be "yes" more than it will be "no." Part of this is the WWE Machine being as fantastic at branding/marketing as it is, true, but that same machine failed to make the Berzerker, Mantaur, and other equally silly gimmicks into household names. With that said, what separated him from all the others? His pitch perfect portrayal and overpowering presence.

 

I feel Parv is selling him short. With Taker, it was less about match quality and memorable angles or rivalries and more about the aura in the moment. Even on the match quality front, if you step outside the PWO bubble you're going to find more people who feel he's had plenty of all-time classics, with expert witnesses like Mick Foley, Bret Hart, Ric Flair, Steve Austin, Shawn Michaels, and more to praise his ability and his work ethic.

 

The Undertaker is pro wrestling's Jason Voorhees. He's conceptually silly, never executed with perfection, and always a bit hokey, but you're not watching him to see an Oscar-worthy story unfold anyway. You're watching him to see a 6'10" zombie march out with spooky music to chokeslam and Tombstone some poor SOB.

Do you think he's as famous as Molly Ringwald was in the 80s?

[joeg]

A friend of mine whose a life long casual fan described the undertaker the best- he and DX were the guys who when he came on you flipped to Nitro to check what was going on with the nWo simply because you weren't flipping off Austin Rock or Foley

[Manatee]

To me, his legacy and relevance can be summed up in one question:

 

Would a random person on the street know who the Undertaker is?

 

The answer is going to be "yes" more than it will be "no." Part of this is the WWE Machine being as fantastic at branding/marketing as it is, true, but that same machine failed to make the Berzerker, Mantaur, and other equally silly gimmicks into household names. With that said, what separated him from all the others? His pitch perfect portrayal and overpowering presence.

 

I feel Parv is selling him short. With Taker, it was less about match quality and memorable angles or rivalries and more about the aura in the moment. Even on the match quality front, if you step outside the PWO bubble you're going to find more people who feel he's had plenty of all-time classics, with expert witnesses like Mick Foley, Bret Hart, Ric Flair, Steve Austin, Shawn Michaels, and more to praise his ability and his work ethic.

 

The Undertaker is pro wrestling's Jason Voorhees. He's conceptually silly, never executed with perfection, and always a bit hokey, but you're not watching him to see an Oscar-worthy story unfold anyway. You're watching him to see a 6'10" zombie march out with spooky music to chokeslam and Tombstone some poor SOB.

 

A few years ago I asked a female friend who was probably 23 years old how many wrestlers she could name and The Undertaker was the only one she knew. She knew who The Rock and Andre the Giant were but she only knew them as actors.

[pmo]

Taker was never the guy but he took Andres spot as the top attraction.

[Sidebottom]

This one is pretty black and white, yet I see the discussion going long and tedious.

[Laz]

 

The Undertaker is pro wrestling's Jason Voorhees. He's conceptually silly, never executed with perfection, and always a bit hokey, but you're not watching him to see an Oscar-worthy story unfold anyway. You're watching him to see a 6'10" zombie march out with spooky music to chokeslam and Tombstone some poor SOB.

Do you think he's as famous as Molly Ringwald was in the 80s?

Please note the part of my initial post that I left there. That is the best analogy for Taker's fame I can think of. Even if you're not into the F13 movies or horror at all, you still know what the hockey mask means, just as non-wrestling fans still at least know what a Tombstone is.

[JaymeFuture]

I want to thank everybody for the contributions, we got to read many of them on the show, which is now available at the following link:

http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/web/sxq2kc/SCG_Radio_95_-_The_Trial_Of_The_Undertaker.mp3

Join us for The Trial of The Undertaker! Both Taker and WWE are up on the charge of Misrepresentation of Stature, and Fraud in overstating Taker's success in and impact on WWE. We take your "witness statements" on the charge, and debate the first Decade of Destruction, the Biker/Deadman Part Deux years, as well as his time as a Special Attraction with his famed WrestleMania streak. A debate that covers every facet of Undertaker's WWE career, this was a tremendously spirited Trial, covering backstage politics, what his role in the company really was in the 90s, his importance as WWE's fortunes changed, loyalty, preferencial treatment and more. Check it out and let us know what you think!