MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Tell it to the world!!
SONICdopeFRESH
Posts: 389
Joined: Dec 20th, '10, 16:36

MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by SONICdopeFRESH » Jul 4th, '14, 12:24

THE UNDERTAKER = MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER EVER

So sitting here, talking with a few friends on great wrestlers. Now most off my friends are casual WWE knowledgeable fans. While I'm not too big on the million of smaller promotions, I do give credit where its due. So I you know named dropped guys like Vader, Muta, Sting, Ultimo Dragon, etc.

But then I got to thinking, what has one of the all time "greats" really ever done??? Underatker, sure, he took the majority of bumps in his matches... Oh wait. He never took most of the bumps, whether you want to say it was because of his gimmick (and I will touch on that in a second), or because he executed better, he didn't. I look at his HIAC vs. Mankind prime example. He didn't take a bump. Mankind flew off the cage through a table. He got tossed through the cell into the ring. He got tossed on thumbtacks. While Taker watched. I look at his inferno match. Kane took the burns. Not Taker. And then his matches early career (through about 97) were just awful because they were so slow paced (that is arguably due to the nature of his gimmick which again I'll touch). He really only took minor bumps when getting in the ring with super heavyweights (like Yokozuna or Mabel), because he was made to dominate all smaller competition (I'll say his matches with Bret kind of intrigued me). But I mean even against Stone Cold, he didn't really take many bumps or technically blow anyone away.

So then I thought, well his mic work was so damn good, you had to kind of consider him up there with The Rock... Well actually, he had the charisma of Hardcore Holly. I ask myself, take away the special effects Vince gave him nobody else, what do you have? Someone who NEEDED a manager (Paul Bearer literally saved what should've been fizzled out and forgotten or thrown in the mid card), because the man can't talk. Time after time we saw him mess up his lines (ESPECIALLY since about 2007). Even when he didn't and was working during the attitude era (when he talked the most until Kane buried him and he resurfaced as the Deadman), he still couldn't cut a promo worth a crap.

So then I asked myself, WHY is Taker considered a anything? Because honestly, he wasn't too impressive in the ring (maybe a TAD better than Nash, even though Nash was better on mic), never took the big bumps that his opponents would always take to make him look good, and couldn't talk out of a bag. Here's what I came up with

The Undertaker was only good because of Vince's billing. He gave him over the top pyro, theatrics, a manager, and spent a TON of money on this gimmick, more than any of his others. They built that streak up, which only 3 of those matches I'd say were worth a crap from a WRESTLING standpoint (both against HBK and him vs. Punk). He became stale when he didn't have Bearer to talk for him, thats why he NEEDED him. He relied on the other person to make him look better than he was, cause he was either too chickenshit to take the same bumps his opponents took, or because he couldn't. But WHY do they act like this man was that good? I mean, I was ALWAYS more impressed with Kane. A big man, who's been on the road just as long (just not under the game gimmick), but he actually worked year round, house shows, and DESERVES to be acknowledged as one of the greatest, because he's earned his battle scars. He can talk, and wrestle, but then his WWE booked brother gets all the credit as being one of the greatest, when truthfully, if it wasn't for the money spent on the theatrics, we'd be looking at another Snitzky.

K.
Booker T: "HIP BONE CONNECTED TO THE LEG BONE!!!" ...... Cole: "WHAAAAT?"

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 20950
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by cero2k » Jul 4th, '14, 13:20

Oh God YES! This is exactly how i feel about Taker
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 27378
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 4th, '14, 14:14

You can always count on SONIC to say something controversial and ridiculous! (WELCOME BACK!)]

I disagree with basically everything you said, but one, and even then: Taker's early matches weren't good, but that has a lot more to do with the guys he was matched up against (the Giant Gonzales of the word) than Taker himself.
You didn't like his matches with Hunter at Mania? or the Orton match? or Batista or Edge?
I've always LOVED Taker's promos. Were they over-produced? Yeah. But I loved them nonetheless. Even if he didn't come up with the words himself, the delivery was still his, and the delivery rocked. Was Taker promoted well? Obviously. But so was Flair, so was Rock, so was Sting, and so was Austin. Why hold that against him?

As for Taker needing a manager to talk for him, on that you are dead wrong. In fact, in his shoot interview with ROH, Paul Bearer specifically said that Taker was such a good talker that he would always let Taker talk during the promos.

I don't think anyone credits Taker with HIAC being so great (although he did jump down from the top of the cage into the ring ON A BROKEN FOOT), but he has had SO MANY OTHER GREAT MATCHES. Too many to list here (although I will start a list if you want me to).
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Ultimate Gate 2013
ROH/CMLL Global Wars Espectacular: Day 3

User avatar
Bob-O
Posts: 3390
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 06:06

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by Bob-O » Jul 6th, '14, 01:14

Big Red Machine wrote:Was Taker promoted well? Obviously. But so was Flair, so was Rock, so was Sting, and so was Austin. Why hold that against him?
Because (with the exception of Sting... Sorry Sonic...) with any one of these guys, you can go back today without context... without hype... and say "Wow! This is good stuff!". Historically, IMO, Taker was very hit or miss... mostly miss.
Big Red Machine wrote: he has had SO MANY OTHER GREAT MATCHES. Too many to list here (although I will start a list if you want me to).
I want you to. I want you to list all of the GREAT MATCHES that Undertaker carried.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 27378
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 6th, '14, 02:03

Bob-O wrote:
Big Red Machine wrote:Was Taker promoted well? Obviously. But so was Flair, so was Rock, so was Sting, and so was Austin. Why hold that against him?
Because (with the exception of Sting... Sorry Sonic...) with any one of these guys, you can go back today without context... without hype... and say "Wow! This is good stuff!". Historically, IMO, Taker was very hit or miss... mostly miss.
Yeah. In the early days, when he was green and was stuck wrestling against sh*tty workers.
Bob-O wrote:
Big Red Machine wrote: he has had SO MANY OTHER GREAT MATCHES. Too many to list here (although I will start a list if you want me to).
I want you to. I want you to list all of the GREAT MATCHES that Undertaker carried.
I don't have enough expertise to be able to say who "carried" a match (for the most part), but ig you want a list of awesome Taker matches:

both HBK matches at Mania
vs. Kane at Mania XIV (though that was more about the spectacle)
vs. Angle at No Way Out 2006 (and the match on Smackdown against Kurt soon afterwards)
Triple H at Mania X-7 and 27
Punk at Mania 29
Batista at Mania 23 (and I think he had some other awesome matches with Batista that year, too)
Edge at Mania 24
the First Blood match with Austin in 99
Elimination Chamber 2009 (obviously there were other components to that match, but I thought he and Hunter put on an amazing little mini-match at the end)
Mania vs. Orton
Hell in a Cell vs. Orton
Hell in a Cell vs. Brock
Vengeance 2002 vs. Rock vs. Angle
vs. Austin at Judgement Day 2001
w/Kane vs. Two Man Power Trip at Backlash 2001
vs. Bret at Summer Slam 97
vs. Bret at Royal Rumble 1996
vs. Edge in Hell in a Cell
Hell in a Cell vs. HBK
vs. Bret vs. Austin vs. Vader at IYH: Final Four

And that's just off the top of my head, and doesn't include any Raw or Smackdown matches.

Is he the best worker of all time? Of course not. But I don't think anyone has ever claimed that he was. Was he a great worker? Absolutely. Then add in the awesomeness of the gimmick, and I don't think it is a stretch to call him one of the all-time greats of the business
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Ultimate Gate 2013
ROH/CMLL Global Wars Espectacular: Day 3

badnewzxl
Posts: 2918
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:53

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by badnewzxl » Jul 6th, '14, 13:53

Sonic, everything you said applies just as much to Sting as it does to Taker! Stings promo skills are just as corny and hokey as Hogans and there was a long stretch where he didn't have a single good match (95-98, and then almost all of his run in TNA). You say he didn't take any major bumps; do you not remember him doing the same dive to the outside that Sting did? Do you not consider walking the ropes a big spot? NOBODY had done anything like that on tv! Taker is one of the greatest of all time bc he played his character perfectly at all times, just like Sting did.do people exaggerate how good he was? Yes, but he's just about as good as it gets. STING is up there too; a lot of guys are and they all lack in some departments, but when you look at the totality of their careers, they ARE the best.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 27378
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 6th, '14, 14:25

badnewzxl wrote:Sonic, everything you said applies just as much to Sting as it does to Taker! Stings promo skills are just as corny and hokey as Hogans and there was a long stretch where he didn't have a single good match (95-98, and then almost all of his run in TNA). You say he didn't take any major bumps; do you not remember him doing the same dive to the outside that Sting did? Do you not consider walking the ropes a big spot? NOBODY had done anything like that on tv! Taker is one of the greatest of all time bc he played his character perfectly at all times, just like Sting did.do people exaggerate how good he was? Yes, but he's just about as good as it gets. STING is up there too; a lot of guys are and they all lack in some departments, but when you look at the totality of their careers, they ARE the best.
THIS!
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Ultimate Gate 2013
ROH/CMLL Global Wars Espectacular: Day 3

SONICdopeFRESH
Posts: 389
Joined: Dec 20th, '10, 16:36

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by SONICdopeFRESH » Jul 7th, '14, 09:45

badnewzxl wrote:Sonic, everything you said applies just as much to Sting as it does to Taker! Stings promo skills are just as corny and hokey as Hogans and there was a long stretch where he didn't have a single good match (95-98, and then almost all of his run in TNA). You say he didn't take any major bumps; do you not remember him doing the same dive to the outside that Sting did? Do you not consider walking the ropes a big spot? NOBODY had done anything like that on tv! Taker is one of the greatest of all time bc he played his character perfectly at all times, just like Sting did.do people exaggerate how good he was? Yes, but he's just about as good as it gets. STING is up there too; a lot of guys are and they all lack in some departments, but when you look at the totality of their careers, they ARE the best.
Yo check. I'll admit. I hang onto Sting nowadays for Nostalgia. Minus one or two matches during his TNA run, he's been s**t since returning to wrestling after WCW folded. And with his crowd character, it was moreso the gimmick rather than the wrestling, although he did put out some nice matches. But Surfer Sting was one of the best wrestlers ever, from every standpoint. His matches with Flair, Muta, Vader, and Rick Rude were iconic (even though Rick's career tragically ended due to a rough landing on a beautiful spot). So you watch your mouth and show the G.O.A.T some respect. Lol

Now, as far as Taker, I can't say the same. The dive over the ropes was about the ONLY time I can recall Taker actually taking a bump. What I'm saying, is ALL the matches you claim were awesome, look at who did the MAJORITY of the work in those matches. Surprise, it's not Taker. Wow, he took two steps onto the ropes and landed on both feet, I'm def not impressed at all with that. But in terms of his gimmick, almost ANYONE could play it. Do we not remember when Brian Lee played the gimmick for that short period of time? Never could tell the difference. People STILL to this day think he only played it the night of Summerslam, but if you watch tapes leading to, he played it a few episodes leading up. Why? Not just because of the resemblence, but because the gimmick wasn't hard to play. Required NO mic work, just standing there looking like boo boo the fool cause he can't cut a promo. Fast forward that to the Ministry ages. His mic work was mediocre at best! Even the ABA/Big Evil years (his mic work was just as bad as his Deadman persona return in 04-present, and don't get me started on that). Combined unsatisfactory mic work, less concentrated effort in ring s his opponent, and not taking bumps like his other did, and what do you have? Another WWE product posing as a wrestler (OOPS). That's all. Cena is much better (and I'll even go as far to say Orton).
Booker T: "HIP BONE CONNECTED TO THE LEG BONE!!!" ...... Cole: "WHAAAAT?"

badnewzxl
Posts: 2918
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:53

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by badnewzxl » Jul 7th, '14, 10:29

SONICdopeFRESH wrote:
badnewzxl wrote:Sonic, everything you said applies just as much to Sting as it does to Taker! Stings promo skills are just as corny and hokey as Hogans and there was a long stretch where he didn't have a single good match (95-98, and then almost all of his run in TNA). You say he didn't take any major bumps; do you not remember him doing the same dive to the outside that Sting did? Do you not consider walking the ropes a big spot? NOBODY had done anything like that on tv! Taker is one of the greatest of all time bc he played his character perfectly at all times, just like Sting did.do people exaggerate how good he was? Yes, but he's just about as good as it gets. STING is up there too; a lot of guys are and they all lack in some departments, but when you look at the totality of their careers, they ARE the best.
Yo check. I'll admit. I hang onto Sting nowadays for Nostalgia. Minus one or two matches during his TNA run, he's been s**t since returning to wrestling after WCW folded. And with his crowd character, it was moreso the gimmick rather than the wrestling, although he did put out some nice matches. But Surfer Sting was one of the best wrestlers ever, from every standpoint. His matches with Flair, Muta, Vader, and Rick Rude were iconic (even though Rick's career tragically ended due to a rough landing on a beautiful spot). So you watch your mouth and show the G.O.A.T some respect. Lol

Now, as far as Taker, I can't say the same. The dive over the ropes was about the ONLY time I can recall Taker actually taking a bump. What I'm saying, is ALL the matches you claim were awesome, look at who did the MAJORITY of the work in those matches. Surprise, it's not Taker. Wow, he took two steps onto the ropes and landed on both feet, I'm def not impressed at all with that. But in terms of his gimmick, almost ANYONE could play it. Do we not remember when Brian Lee played the gimmick for that short period of time? Never could tell the difference. People STILL to this day think he only played it the night of Summerslam, but if you watch tapes leading to, he played it a few episodes leading up. Why? Not just because of the resemblence, but because the gimmick wasn't hard to play. Required NO mic work, just standing there looking like boo boo the fool cause he can't cut a promo. Fast forward that to the Ministry ages. His mic work was mediocre at best! Even the ABA/Big Evil years (his mic work was just as bad as his Deadman persona return in 04-present, and don't get me started on that). Combined unsatisfactory mic work, less concentrated effort in ring s his opponent, and not taking bumps like his other did, and what do you have? Another WWE product posing as a wrestler (OOPS). That's all. Cena is much better (and I'll even go as far to say Orton).
EVERYONE could tell Brian Lee wasn't the actual Undertaker. He was about four inches shorter and obviously funnier, lol.

You're hating on his ring work, ignoring the fact that all those things went along with the gimmick. Mic work was the same. Now, when he was the bikertaker, both his in ring and Mic work stepped up. I always thought these were his best times showing his range bc he wasn't restricted by the gimmick, but I may be the only one.

I just don't get what your point is. Is Andre the giant overrated in your book too? I mean, he doesn't have but a handful of actually great matches and he pretty much never took bumps. His Mic skills were awful too. Is he overrated? Not imo bc he makes up for what he lacks. I think Taker does the same.

Surfer Sting was the ish, no doubt about that.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 27378
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 7th, '14, 10:32

SONICdopeFRESH wrote:
badnewzxl wrote:Sonic, everything you said applies just as much to Sting as it does to Taker! Stings promo skills are just as corny and hokey as Hogans and there was a long stretch where he didn't have a single good match (95-98, and then almost all of his run in TNA). You say he didn't take any major bumps; do you not remember him doing the same dive to the outside that Sting did? Do you not consider walking the ropes a big spot? NOBODY had done anything like that on tv! Taker is one of the greatest of all time bc he played his character perfectly at all times, just like Sting did.do people exaggerate how good he was? Yes, but he's just about as good as it gets. STING is up there too; a lot of guys are and they all lack in some departments, but when you look at the totality of their careers, they ARE the best.
Yo check. I'll admit. I hang onto Sting nowadays for Nostalgia. Minus one or two matches during his TNA run, he's been s**t since returning to wrestling after WCW folded. And with his crowd character, it was moreso the gimmick rather than the wrestling, although he did put out some nice matches. But Surfer Sting was one of the best wrestlers ever, from every standpoint. His matches with Flair, Muta, Vader, and Rick Rude were iconic (even though Rick's career tragically ended due to a rough landing on a beautiful spot). So you watch your mouth and show the G.O.A.T some respect. Lol

Now, as far as Taker, I can't say the same. The dive over the ropes was about the ONLY time I can recall Taker actually taking a bump. What I'm saying, is ALL the matches you claim were awesome, look at who did the MAJORITY of the work in those matches. Surprise, it's not Taker. Wow, he took two steps onto the ropes and landed on both feet, I'm def not impressed at all with that. But in terms of his gimmick, almost ANYONE could play it. Do we not remember when Brian Lee played the gimmick for that short period of time? Never could tell the difference. People STILL to this day think he only played it the night of Summerslam, but if you watch tapes leading to, he played it a few episodes leading up. Why? Not just because of the resemblence, but because the gimmick wasn't hard to play. Required NO mic work, just standing there looking like boo boo the fool cause he can't cut a promo. Fast forward that to the Ministry ages. His mic work was mediocre at best! Even the ABA/Big Evil years (his mic work was just as bad as his Deadman persona return in 04-present, and don't get me started on that). Combined unsatisfactory mic work, less concentrated effort in ring s his opponent, and not taking bumps like his other did, and what do you have? Another WWE product posing as a wrestler (OOPS). That's all. Cena is much better (and I'll even go as far to say Orton).
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!
Brian Lee played the Undertaker character as a kayfabe replacement for Undertaker. That was the storyline building up to Summer Slam. Ted Dibiase claimed he had The Undertaker, but it wasn't the real deal. Not just anyone can play The Undertaker, because playing that character requires a dedication to it. The stoicism necessary for the Undertaker character to work is very hard to achieve. You need to be fully immersed in the character, and not many people can do that. As Stone Cold said on a recent podcast "when Taker is out there, Mark don't exist."

I also find your criticism that Taker isn't a great worker because he didn't take many bumps to be... well... frankly ridiculous. Of course Taker didn't take the majority of the bumps in his match. HE'S 6'10'' AND THREE HUNDRED POUNDS. That's called good psychology, and it is a very important part of working a match.
So what if Taker didn't take most of the bumps. It takes two to tango. Both guys are important parts of the match. Have you seen Flair vs. Sting from the first Clash? Do you know who took most of the bumps in that match? HINT: It sure as hell wasn't Sting. That match was AMAZING, and Sting definitely deserves a lot of credit for it. How often did the Road Warriors even SELL, never mind take bumps?

A lot of Taker's mic work definitely does come down to personal taste, but to say that he isn't one of the all-time greats (especially as far as big-men go) is utterly silly. And to dismiss him as a just a "product" and not a wrestler? Hell... you're the guy who called Hogan vs. Goldberg the best match of the 90's! DOES NOT COMPUTE!
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Ultimate Gate 2013
ROH/CMLL Global Wars Espectacular: Day 3

badnewzxl
Posts: 2918
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:53

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by badnewzxl » Jul 7th, '14, 10:47

Big Red Machine wrote:
SONICdopeFRESH wrote:
badnewzxl wrote:Sonic, everything you said applies just as much to Sting as it does to Taker! Stings promo skills are just as corny and hokey as Hogans and there was a long stretch where he didn't have a single good match (95-98, and then almost all of his run in TNA). You say he didn't take any major bumps; do you not remember him doing the same dive to the outside that Sting did? Do you not consider walking the ropes a big spot? NOBODY had done anything like that on tv! Taker is one of the greatest of all time bc he played his character perfectly at all times, just like Sting did.do people exaggerate how good he was? Yes, but he's just about as good as it gets. STING is up there too; a lot of guys are and they all lack in some departments, but when you look at the totality of their careers, they ARE the best.
Yo check. I'll admit. I hang onto Sting nowadays for Nostalgia. Minus one or two matches during his TNA run, he's been s**t since returning to wrestling after WCW folded. And with his crowd character, it was moreso the gimmick rather than the wrestling, although he did put out some nice matches. But Surfer Sting was one of the best wrestlers ever, from every standpoint. His matches with Flair, Muta, Vader, and Rick Rude were iconic (even though Rick's career tragically ended due to a rough landing on a beautiful spot). So you watch your mouth and show the G.O.A.T some respect. Lol

Now, as far as Taker, I can't say the same. The dive over the ropes was about the ONLY time I can recall Taker actually taking a bump. What I'm saying, is ALL the matches you claim were awesome, look at who did the MAJORITY of the work in those matches. Surprise, it's not Taker. Wow, he took two steps onto the ropes and landed on both feet, I'm def not impressed at all with that. But in terms of his gimmick, almost ANYONE could play it. Do we not remember when Brian Lee played the gimmick for that short period of time? Never could tell the difference. People STILL to this day think he only played it the night of Summerslam, but if you watch tapes leading to, he played it a few episodes leading up. Why? Not just because of the resemblence, but because the gimmick wasn't hard to play. Required NO mic work, just standing there looking like boo boo the fool cause he can't cut a promo. Fast forward that to the Ministry ages. His mic work was mediocre at best! Even the ABA/Big Evil years (his mic work was just as bad as his Deadman persona return in 04-present, and don't get me started on that). Combined unsatisfactory mic work, less concentrated effort in ring s his opponent, and not taking bumps like his other did, and what do you have? Another WWE product posing as a wrestler (OOPS). That's all. Cena is much better (and I'll even go as far to say Orton).
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!
Brian Lee played the Undertaker character as a kayfabe replacement for Undertaker. That was the storyline building up to Summer Slam. Ted Dibiase claimed he had The Undertaker, but it wasn't the real deal. Not just anyone can play The Undertaker, because playing that character requires a dedication to it. The stoicism necessary for the Undertaker character to work is very hard to achieve. You need to be fully immersed in the character, and not many people can do that. As Stone Cold said on a recent podcast "when Taker is out there, Mark don't exist."

I also find your criticism that Taker isn't a great worker because he didn't take many bumps to be... well... frankly ridiculous. Of course Taker didn't take the majority of the bumps in his match. HE'S 6'10'' AND THREE HUNDRED POUNDS. That's called good psychology, and it is a very important part of working a match.
So what if Taker didn't take most of the bumps. It takes two to tango. Both guys are important parts of the match. Have you seen Flair vs. Sting from the first Clash? Do you know who took most of the bumps in that match? HINT: It sure as hell wasn't Sting. That match was AMAZING, and Sting definitely deserves a lot of credit for it. How often did the Road Warriors even SELL, never mind take bumps?

A lot of Taker's mic work definitely does come down to personal taste, but to say that he isn't one of the all-time greats (especially as far as big-men go) is utterly silly. And to dismiss him as a just a "product" and not a wrestler? Hell... you're the guy who called Hogan vs. Goldberg the best match of the 90's! DOES NOT COMPUTE!
BEST MATCH OF THE 90s!?!?!? I'm gonna have to see the evidence; I don't wanna believe anyone would say such a ridiculous thing
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 27378
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 7th, '14, 11:01

badnewzxl wrote:
Big Red Machine wrote:
SONICdopeFRESH wrote: Yo check. I'll admit. I hang onto Sting nowadays for Nostalgia. Minus one or two matches during his TNA run, he's been s**t since returning to wrestling after WCW folded. And with his crowd character, it was moreso the gimmick rather than the wrestling, although he did put out some nice matches. But Surfer Sting was one of the best wrestlers ever, from every standpoint. His matches with Flair, Muta, Vader, and Rick Rude were iconic (even though Rick's career tragically ended due to a rough landing on a beautiful spot). So you watch your mouth and show the G.O.A.T some respect. Lol

Now, as far as Taker, I can't say the same. The dive over the ropes was about the ONLY time I can recall Taker actually taking a bump. What I'm saying, is ALL the matches you claim were awesome, look at who did the MAJORITY of the work in those matches. Surprise, it's not Taker. Wow, he took two steps onto the ropes and landed on both feet, I'm def not impressed at all with that. But in terms of his gimmick, almost ANYONE could play it. Do we not remember when Brian Lee played the gimmick for that short period of time? Never could tell the difference. People STILL to this day think he only played it the night of Summerslam, but if you watch tapes leading to, he played it a few episodes leading up. Why? Not just because of the resemblence, but because the gimmick wasn't hard to play. Required NO mic work, just standing there looking like boo boo the fool cause he can't cut a promo. Fast forward that to the Ministry ages. His mic work was mediocre at best! Even the ABA/Big Evil years (his mic work was just as bad as his Deadman persona return in 04-present, and don't get me started on that). Combined unsatisfactory mic work, less concentrated effort in ring s his opponent, and not taking bumps like his other did, and what do you have? Another WWE product posing as a wrestler (OOPS). That's all. Cena is much better (and I'll even go as far to say Orton).
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!
Brian Lee played the Undertaker character as a kayfabe replacement for Undertaker. That was the storyline building up to Summer Slam. Ted Dibiase claimed he had The Undertaker, but it wasn't the real deal. Not just anyone can play The Undertaker, because playing that character requires a dedication to it. The stoicism necessary for the Undertaker character to work is very hard to achieve. You need to be fully immersed in the character, and not many people can do that. As Stone Cold said on a recent podcast "when Taker is out there, Mark don't exist."

I also find your criticism that Taker isn't a great worker because he didn't take many bumps to be... well... frankly ridiculous. Of course Taker didn't take the majority of the bumps in his match. HE'S 6'10'' AND THREE HUNDRED POUNDS. That's called good psychology, and it is a very important part of working a match.
So what if Taker didn't take most of the bumps. It takes two to tango. Both guys are important parts of the match. Have you seen Flair vs. Sting from the first Clash? Do you know who took most of the bumps in that match? HINT: It sure as hell wasn't Sting. That match was AMAZING, and Sting definitely deserves a lot of credit for it. How often did the Road Warriors even SELL, never mind take bumps?

A lot of Taker's mic work definitely does come down to personal taste, but to say that he isn't one of the all-time greats (especially as far as big-men go) is utterly silly. And to dismiss him as a just a "product" and not a wrestler? Hell... you're the guy who called Hogan vs. Goldberg the best match of the 90's! DOES NOT COMPUTE!
BEST MATCH OF THE 90s!?!?!? I'm gonna have to see the evidence; I don't wanna BOlieve anyone would say such a ridiculous thing
It's somewhere in that ridiculously long debate SONIC and I had a few years ago. The thread is called "Sting's New Gimmick" or something like that. Good times.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Ultimate Gate 2013
ROH/CMLL Global Wars Espectacular: Day 3

badnewzxl
Posts: 2918
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:53

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by badnewzxl » Jul 7th, '14, 11:34

That debate WAS epic; classic, unlike ANY Goldberg match (I will admit that I do watch the DDP v. Goldberg match from time to time; and the one that got Regal fired)
Image

User avatar
Bob-O
Posts: 3390
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 06:06

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by Bob-O » Jul 7th, '14, 22:15

badnewzxl wrote:and the one that got Regal fired)
lol I love that match...

I've been thinking about this most of the day. Um, you know, Undertaker not Regal/Goldberg.

I mean, I agree with the OP, 'Taker is overrated. While I did enjoy every match on that list, BRM, they were ALL with outstanding workers... and 2 with Triple H, who even I'll admit can carry a good story in the ring. His great matches were all with guys that could pull a great match out of Howard Finkle if they were assigned the task. All Taker had to do was not screw up. You don't hear about Taker vs Sid, or Taker vs Diesel, or any Streak match before X-7...

That said, he's IS one of the all time greats... because he got over, and he STAYED over for like, two decades! Face, heel, whatever didn't matter, The Undertaker made them A LOT of money. Keeping your spot for THAT LONG, selling the tickets, moving the merch, keeping people talking for 20 years... does it really matter if he was carried through his memorable matches? Does it really matter what anyone thinks of his promos?

When it comes right down to it, in wrestling isn't that what "greatness" is? How many people are entertained by you and how long you can manage to keep them entertained?

Yes, WWE put him there. They spared no expense in promoting him, and spared no humility in protecting him, but that's what they do! Vince McMahon is a promoter. They promote LOTS of guys, and while it's got a lot to do with The Undertaker's success, you can't possibly think that it's kept him at a top billing for over 20 years. Look at the money spent on renting Alberto Del Rio those cars, or other over the top entrances like Brodus Clay or Adam Rose, The Brood's entrance imo was WAY COOLER than Taker's... and let's not forget, all that came later. Taker got over by magically turning the lights on and off... that's it.

It's a cool gimmick, and they picked the right guy for the right job. Yes he's overrated, but who isn't? That's the whole point of promotion, and half the fun of being a fan. Austin was the World's Toughest SOB... on two shot knees and the neck of an 80 year old. The Rock is the COOLEST, the greatest talker of all time... who drove the same 3 catch phrases into the ground and has to write notes on his hand today to get by. Hulk Hogan is... HULK HOGAN! HULKAMANIA! He revolutionized the sport!... with his ridiculous half bald head, incoherent promos, and lazy matches. Need me to run anyone else down? I can go on...
Image

badnewzxl
Posts: 2918
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:53

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by badnewzxl » Jul 7th, '14, 23:01

Bob-O wrote:
badnewzxl wrote:and the one that got Regal fired)
lol I love that match...

I've been thinking about this most of the day. Um, you know, Undertaker not Regal/Goldberg.

I mean, I agree with the OP, 'Taker is overrated. While I did enjoy every match on that list, BRM, they were ALL with outstanding workers... and 2 with Triple H, who even I'll admit can carry a good story in the ring. His great matches were all with guys that could pull a great match out of Howard Finkle if they were assigned the task. All Taker had to do was not screw up. You don't hear about Taker vs Sid, or Taker vs Diesel, or any Streak match before X-7...

That said, he's IS one of the all time greats... because he got over, and he STAYED over for like, two decades! Face, heel, whatever didn't matter, The Undertaker made them A LOT of money. Keeping your spot for THAT LONG, selling the tickets, moving the merch, keeping people talking for 20 years... does it really matter if he was carried through his memorable matches? Does it really matter what anyone thinks of his promos?

When it comes right down to it, in wrestling isn't that what "greatness" is? How many people are entertained by you and how long you can manage to keep them entertained?

Yes, WWE put him there. They spared no expense in promoting him, and spared no humility in protecting him, but that's what they do! Vince McMahon is a promoter. They promote LOTS of guys, and while it's got a lot to do with The Undertaker's success, you can't possibly think that it's kept him at a top billing for over 20 years. Look at the money spent on renting Alberto Del Rio those cars, or other over the top entrances like Brodus Clay or Adam Rose, The Brood's entrance imo was WAY COOLER than Taker's... and let's not forget, all that came later. Taker got over by magically turning the lights on and off... that's it.

It's a cool gimmick, and they picked the right guy for the right job. Yes he's overrated, but who isn't? That's the whole point of promotion, and half the fun of being a fan. Austin was the World's Toughest SOB... on two shot knees and the neck of an 80 year old. The Rock is the COOLEST, the greatest talker of all time... who drove the same 3 catch phrases into the ground and has to write notes on his hand today to get by. Hulk Hogan is... HULK HOGAN! HULKAMANIA! He revolutionized the sport!... with his ridiculous half bald head, incoherent promos, and lazy matches. Need me to run anyone else down? I can go on...
Bob-O, you said it perfect, brother!
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 27378
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 7th, '14, 23:03

Bob-O wrote:
badnewzxl wrote:and the one that got Regal fired)
lol I love that match...

I've been thinking about this most of the day. Um, you know, Undertaker not Regal/Goldberg.

I mean, I agree with the OP, 'Taker is overrated. While I did enjoy every match on that list, BRM, they were ALL with outstanding workers... and 2 with Triple H, who even I'll admit can carry a good story in the ring. His great matches were all with guys that could pull a great match out of Howard Finkle if they were assigned the task. All Taker had to do was not screw up. You don't hear about Taker vs Sid, or Taker vs Diesel, or any Streak match before X-7...
I actually thought his match with Sid was great. I gave it 7.25/10. I don't understand why it gets such a bad rap.
As far as all of those matches being with outstanding workers... Batista is not an outstanding worker by any stretch. Brock was green as goose poop at the time of their HIAC match (and that was Brock's first truly awesome match).

And even so... how many times has Sting pulled someone who wasn't a great worker to an awesome match? Or Austin? I don't even remember HBK doing it that often, and the "bad workers" HBK was paired with were MUCH worse than the "bad workers" Taker had to deal with.
As I said before: it takes two to tango. If Taker weren't as good a worker as he is, those matches would not have been as amazing as they were.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Ultimate Gate 2013
ROH/CMLL Global Wars Espectacular: Day 3

badnewzxl
Posts: 2918
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:53

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by badnewzxl » Jul 7th, '14, 23:38

Big Red Machine wrote:
Bob-O wrote:
badnewzxl wrote:and the one that got Regal fired)
lol I love that match...

I've been thinking about this most of the day. Um, you know, Undertaker not Regal/Goldberg.

I mean, I agree with the OP, 'Taker is overrated. While I did enjoy every match on that list, BRM, they were ALL with outstanding workers... and 2 with Triple H, who even I'll admit can carry a good story in the ring. His great matches were all with guys that could pull a great match out of Howard Finkle if they were assigned the task. All Taker had to do was not screw up. You don't hear about Taker vs Sid, or Taker vs Diesel, or any Streak match before X-7...
I actually thought his match with Sid was great. I gave it 7.25/10. I don't understand why it gets such a bad rap.
As far as all of those matches being with outstanding workers... Batista is not an outstanding worker by any stretch. Brock was green as goose poop at the time of their HIAC match (and that was Brock's first truly awesome match).

And even so... how many times has Sting pulled someone who wasn't a great worker to an awesome match? Or Austin? I don't even remember HBK doing it that often, and the "bad workers" HBK was paired with were MUCH worse than the "bad workers" Taker had to deal with.
As I said before: it takes two to tango. If Taker weren't as good a worker as he is, those matches would not have been as amazing as they were.
Hell, most are the same guys! Vader, Sid, Foley, and Roberts all feuded with STING and Taker; aside from that it was the same caliber of guys bc both guys served the same exact purpose just for two separate companies.

I remember having a copy of MAD magazine that was all wrestling themed and the centerpiece was a two sided poster. One side featured Nacho Man vs. BULK Hogan, while the other was STINK vs. The Undiestaker. That'sno coincidence. It wasn't hbk or Nash or anybody else, it was Taker. Just like it was STING and not Luger or Giant.
Image

SONICdopeFRESH
Posts: 389
Joined: Dec 20th, '10, 16:36

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by SONICdopeFRESH » Jul 8th, '14, 08:35

badnewzxl wrote:
EVERYONE could tell Brian Lee wasn't the actual Undertaker. He was about four inches shorter and obviously funnier, lol.

You're hating on his ring work, ignoring the fact that all those things went along with the gimmick. Mic work was the same. Now, when he was the bikertaker, both his in ring and Mic work stepped up. I always thought these were his best times showing his range bc he wasn't restricted by the gimmick, but I may be the only one.

I just don't get what your point is. Is Andre the giant overrated in your book too? I mean, he doesn't have but a handful of actually great matches and he pretty much never took bumps. His Mic skills were awful too. Is he overrated? Not imo bc he makes up for what he lacks. I think Taker does the same.

Surfer Sting was the ish, no doubt about that.
There are many people out there who think Brian Lee ONLY took the role of Undertaker the night of Summerslam. Just to work the match. ANYONE could play that gimmick, it required little/NO effort, just a manager and money spent on theatrics.

Then tell me why Kane, who was also billed as a monster, has much better ring work, works year round, takes bumps, doesn't get the credit? Taker is overrated. A big lazy bum. Top 25 of all time, but closer to #25 if I say so myself.

Andre the Giant SUCKED. I hate that people think that just because you pioneered, you were good. Oh, so because he was big & WWE billed him as a monster, he was good? Let's be honest, he was Khali of the 80's. The man couldn't move, couldn't work, couldn't take bumps, couldn't talk, the WWE just used him as a freak machine. I'm def putting Paul Wight over Andre, Vader over Andre, and the list of bigs keep going on. Andre was TERRIBLE.
Booker T: "HIP BONE CONNECTED TO THE LEG BONE!!!" ...... Cole: "WHAAAAT?"

SONICdopeFRESH
Posts: 389
Joined: Dec 20th, '10, 16:36

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by SONICdopeFRESH » Jul 8th, '14, 08:43

Big Red Machine wrote:
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!
Brian Lee played the Undertaker character as a kayfabe replacement for Undertaker. That was the storyline building up to Summer Slam. Ted Dibiase claimed he had The Undertaker, but it wasn't the real deal. Not just anyone can play The Undertaker, because playing that character requires a dedication to it. The stoicism necessary for the Undertaker character to work is very hard to achieve. You need to be fully immersed in the character, and not many people can do that. As Stone Cold said on a recent podcast "when Taker is out there, Mark don't exist."

I also find your criticism that Taker isn't a great worker because he didn't take many bumps to be... well... frankly ridiculous. Of course Taker didn't take the majority of the bumps in his match. HE'S 6'10'' AND THREE HUNDRED POUNDS. That's called good psychology, and it is a very important part of working a match.
So what if Taker didn't take most of the bumps. It takes two to tango. Both guys are important parts of the match. Have you seen Flair vs. Sting from the first Clash? Do you know who took most of the bumps in that match? HINT: It sure as hell wasn't Sting. That match was AMAZING, and Sting definitely deserves a lot of credit for it. How often did the Road Warriors even SELL, never mind take bumps?

A lot of Taker's mic work definitely does come down to personal taste, but to say that he isn't one of the all-time greats (especially as far as big-men go) is utterly silly. And to dismiss him as a just a "product" and not a wrestler? Hell... you're the guy who called Hogan vs. Goldberg the best match of the 90's! DOES NOT COMPUTE!
Many people don't know that though. Because to play the gimmick you had to do NOTHING. You just walked, hair covered your face, did a chop here, throat thrust there, chokeslam, tombstone, then wait for your manager to escort your backstage. There's NOTHING hard about the gimmick he played. Stone Cold obviously would say that, he's a WWE lover anyways, that's why they still pay him lol. He'll say HBK is the GOAT over Hogan, I mean goodness, that's irrelevant to toss in.

As I mentioned in response to badnews, I beg to differ. It DOES matter. Tell me why Kane has been far more impressive, fluid, and better in ring than Taker. Oh, did I mention he works year round too?!?!?!? And isn't some sucker of an excuse to not be on the road?

And you're correct, but look at the rematches and matches after. Look how he worked! Always gave it everything and got it in. Taker, same thing just a different week. The most predictable & boring in ring worker I've seen make it to a permanent main event level, ever. And they said Sycho Sid couldn't work...

People only say he is because again, look at how the WWE billed him. That RIDICULOUS streak (which I cried tears of joy when it ended), the foolish amounts of money they spend for that man on theatrics, and everything to basically bail him out, that when down to the nitty gritty, he's a mediocre wrestler at best. Should've stayed Mean Mark Callous if you ask me...

And yes, Goldberg vs. Hogan was the most INTENSE match of the 90's. When he won... The world cried many many tears of happiness. It was even better than when UT's streak was broken.
Booker T: "HIP BONE CONNECTED TO THE LEG BONE!!!" ...... Cole: "WHAAAAT?"

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 20950
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: MOST OVERRATED WRESTLER OF ALL TIME

Post by cero2k » Jul 8th, '14, 09:40

Bob-O wrote:
badnewzxl wrote:
It's a cool gimmick, and they picked the right guy for the right job. Yes he's overrated, but who isn't? That's the whole point of promotion, and half the fun of being a fan. Austin was the World's Toughest SOB... on two shot knees and the neck of an 80 year old. The Rock is the COOLEST, the greatest talker of all time... who drove the same 3 catch phrases into the ground and has to write notes on his hand today to get by. Hulk Hogan is... HULK HOGAN! HULKAMANIA! He revolutionized the sport!... with his ridiculous half bald head, incoherent promos, and lazy matches. Need me to run anyone else down? I can go on...
uh uh, do Macho Man and CM Punk now! :D
Bob-O wrote:
BRM wrote: And even so... how many times has Sting pulled someone who wasn't a great worker to an awesome match? Or Austin? I don't even remember HBK doing it that often, and the "bad workers" HBK was paired with were MUCH worse than the "bad workers" Taker had to deal with.
As I said before: it takes two to tango. If Taker weren't as good a worker as he is, those matches would not have been as amazing as they were.
they really weren't, when Taker had to pull the matches out of wrestlers, those matches are considered abysmal. Taker v Gonzales? Taker v Khali? Taker v Kozlov? Even a lot of Taker v Kane matches were not that good. Not putting on the blame on Taker, but i'm sure someone like HBK or Angle or Punk could get better matches out of those guys. Rock got a great match out of Hogan, HBK got a decent match out of Hogan, Taker not so much
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests