|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Feb 28, 2014 8:22:53 GMT -5
someone find footage of THAT Bikertaker promo. it answers the OP pretty nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Bootista on Feb 28, 2014 8:23:55 GMT -5
We would all turn on him He's not Sting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2014 10:13:34 GMT -5
The Undertaker usually had something going on separate from the title picture. Usually something so over-the-top ridiculous that nobody could believe he'd ever lose to a "normal wrestler". If he wanted to be champion so bad, why couldn't he just zap Shawn Michaels with a bolt of lightning and take his belt?
Explain that on Regis & Kathie Lee.
|
|
Ginger Beer Man
Dennis Stamp
Jam Up Guy
The kids can call you HoJu!
Posts: 4,221
|
Post by Ginger Beer Man on Feb 28, 2014 11:55:25 GMT -5
He was boring and all his matches were the same.
|
|
|
Post by The IWC WORLD Champion on Feb 28, 2014 12:00:57 GMT -5
Well, they were lol
Not going to lie and say I think he is the GOAT just because he has been around longer than Australia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2014 12:03:12 GMT -5
He was boring and all his matches were the same. Pretty much. Punch, kick, kick, punch, kick, punch, no sell, no sell, chokeslam/tombstone, pin. On top of that the gimmick covered his inability to cut a promo.
|
|
|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on Feb 28, 2014 12:03:43 GMT -5
Well, they were lol Not going to lie and say I think he is the GOAT just because he has been around longer than Australia. They were up until say 1995 but from 1996 onwards I don't think that has been true. Also, he was THE babyface for much of 1997 and THE heel for much of 1999.
|
|
welshjobber
Trap-Jaw
How do you like me now?
Posts: 474
|
Post by welshjobber on Feb 28, 2014 16:46:51 GMT -5
If you ask any non-fan-like person in the street to name one wrestler in the WWE. I bet they say the Undertaker first.
You don't have to be like John Cena to be the 'face' of the company
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Feb 28, 2014 16:48:27 GMT -5
I cannot trust a wrestling fan who dislikes The Undertaker.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Feb 28, 2014 18:21:05 GMT -5
He's never been a good talker and he rarely jobs. Same reason as Andre Did a quick bit of research, just because. Taker sits at 91-65-5, his last year of not just working Mania (so 4 years ago) he was 2-4. For comparison sake, here are more. Triple H - 79-71-6 Rock - 41-35-2 (I thought about Austin, his record was 49-41-5 but am lazy, didn't sort out WCW) Cena - 72-47-4 Michaels - 52-58-7 Bret Hart (minus his 8-4 record in WCW) was 38-25-1 Orton is 55-55-3 Batista - 34-31-2 Kane - 63-87-7 Straight up PPV win percentage, it goes Hogan, Cena, Taker...so I guess an argument could be made that, while Taker rarely jobs, his record without Mania sits at 69-65-4 which is just about where everyone outside of Hogan and Cena are. www.profightdb.com/wrestlers-with-highest-ppv-win-percentages.html
|
|
|
Post by The Trashman on Feb 28, 2014 18:25:17 GMT -5
He's never been a good talker and he rarely jobs. Same reason as Andre Did a quick bit of research, just because. Taker sits at 91-65-5, his last year of not just working Mania (so 4 years ago) he was 2-4. For comparison sake, here are more. Triple H - 79-71-6 Rock - 41-35-2 (I thought about Austin, his record was 49-41-5 but am lazy, didn't sort out WCW) Cena - 72-47-4 Michaels - 52-58-7 Bret Hart (minus his 8-4 record in WCW) was 38-25-1 Orton is 55-55-3 Batista - 34-31-2 Kane - 63-87-7 Straight up PPV win percentage, it goes Hogan, Cena, Taker...so I guess an argument could be made that, while Taker rarely jobs, his record without Mania sits at 69-65-4 which is just about where everyone outside of Hogan and Cena are. www.profightdb.com/wrestlers-with-highest-ppv-win-percentages.htmlBut how much of that is by DQ or interference? People almost never beat Taker clean. Wrestling stats some of the most meaningless in sports.(or sports entertainment)
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Feb 28, 2014 18:44:49 GMT -5
Did a quick bit of research, just because. Taker sits at 91-65-5, his last year of not just working Mania (so 4 years ago) he was 2-4. For comparison sake, here are more. Triple H - 79-71-6 Rock - 41-35-2 (I thought about Austin, his record was 49-41-5 but am lazy, didn't sort out WCW) Cena - 72-47-4 Michaels - 52-58-7 Bret Hart (minus his 8-4 record in WCW) was 38-25-1 Orton is 55-55-3 Batista - 34-31-2 Kane - 63-87-7 Straight up PPV win percentage, it goes Hogan, Cena, Taker...so I guess an argument could be made that, while Taker rarely jobs, his record without Mania sits at 69-65-4 which is just about where everyone outside of Hogan and Cena are. www.profightdb.com/wrestlers-with-highest-ppv-win-percentages.htmlBut how much of that is by DQ or interference? People almost never beat Taker clean. Wrestling stats some of the most meaningless in sports.(or sports entertainment) Oh, I'm not trying to use stats as the typical sports metric, but rather the whole parity booking that WWE has become known for is a longer standing trend. Everybody seems to be, with rare exceptions, hanging out at the 50 to 55 percent range if they're on the positive side. Same site actually is pretty in depth though. Here's his win and loss type, seems he's been pinned more than anything else. www.profightdb.com/wrestler-win-types/the-undertaker-124.htmlNow I'm having fun with this. Cena has 5 losses via submission (Angle in 2004, Benoit, Angle, and a tag match with both of them in 2003,and it would appear Ron God Damn Waterman in 2003) . Taker has 1, to Punk. Trips has tapped 12 times, and loses 1 in 4 matches via DQ, but more than half his losses have been via pinfall.
|
|
Chuck Conry
Dennis Stamp
zombies DON'T Run
Posts: 3,728
|
Post by Chuck Conry on Feb 28, 2014 18:57:43 GMT -5
Not at all trying to troll or start a fight with anyone, but when you look at it, Taker is probably 8th or 9th all-time at best.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Feb 28, 2014 19:51:02 GMT -5
It was hard to get people emotionally involved with the character. Awesome to watch but there wasn't that empathetic hook there was with some others. You could be awed by him but not really engaged. How does a fan relate to someone like that? To be the man you've got to take people along with you and to care about your character and its fortunes. Taker's never been able to deliver that due to the gimmick.
|
|
willyjakes
Don Corleone
Dingleberry Don
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 1,646
|
Post by willyjakes on Feb 28, 2014 20:16:08 GMT -5
because he was never good enough, and he never had quite the following. There was always some shooting star rising up past him. Be it Hitman or Austin or Rock
Undertaker just never drew the big money or the ratings. He was consistently popular for a long period of time, but he was never that PHENOM that they claim him to be
Austin in 1998-1999. He was a phenom
Hogan from 1984-....to well right this very day...is a phenom
Rock is a phenom
Ultimate Warrior in his early run actually challenged Hogan in popularity and was the only one in that era to even get close!
UT just never was. Always a cut below
The WWE builds Taker up to a greater legendary status than he deserves as a reward for him staying the WWE since 1990. That's it. Hogan, Savage, Flair, Piper, Andre, Rock, Austin are all cuts above when it comes to fan reaction, drawing $$$, and ratings.
|
|
|
Post by lmagicdancer1 on Feb 28, 2014 20:34:03 GMT -5
why are people saying that he cant talk? just because he doesn't talk that often doesn't mean he cant. I have always considered him one of the better promo guys.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Mar 1, 2014 1:19:32 GMT -5
People saying "He Can't Talk". Huh? I actually think Taker is one of the better talkers in the company. It's a shame they limited his speaking from 1990-1997 and again when he returned in 2004. He always had the emotion, intensity, and wordplay.
|
|
|
Post by Clawley Race on Mar 1, 2014 1:26:37 GMT -5
If you ask any non-fan-like person in the street to name one wrestler in the WWE. I bet they say the Undertaker first. You don't have to be like John Cena to be the 'face' of the company I REALLY doubt that is the answer. It depends on the degree of non fan that the person is. If they have NEVER watched wrestling, they'd say Hulk Hogan/Rock/Austin. If they are someone who gave up on the product 10-15 years ago...I think there is a good change they said Triple H honestly. It also depends on their age. I really think that Undertaker would be quite a bit lower on the list of just asking random people on the street to 'name on wrestler'
|
|
|
Post by adam3s on Mar 1, 2014 8:17:59 GMT -5
It was hard to get people emotionally involved with the character. Awesome to watch but there wasn't that empathetic hook there was with some others. You could be awed by him but not really engaged. How does a fan relate to someone like that? To be the man you've got to take people along with you and to care about your character and its fortunes. Taker's never been able to deliver that due to the gimmick. Sorry but BS. Look at the way people react to near falls in his streak matches and that's not just because of the streak itself. It's because people have a genuine emotional connection to the character and people have for almost Takers entire run. Tidbit for the OP but here in the UK a lot of the time Sky or WWE's advertisement team, whichever one it was, would promote PPVs using Undertake's match/return more than the supposed main event so they must've worked out that he was amongst the most popular wrestlers here and essentially was the face of the WWE even if Cena was THE guy.
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Mar 1, 2014 10:53:50 GMT -5
His gimmick really couldn't be portrayed as the top guy for an extended period time. Exactly. Just like the old days. Novelty attractions can't be overexposed or they lose their aura. Also - The kliq was around when Taker was in peak years.
|
|