mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,944
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Apr 7, 2015 10:43:45 GMT -5
Undertaker was far from the greatest wrestler when he started. He had the gimmick and a few cool things he did, but it took him a while to get good enough in the ring to match his character. Sure he spent the early nineties in boring matches with guys even bigger than him, but eventually, perhaps around 2002 he became a formidable in ring talent. He added a lot to his game and really improved.
That's not to say he didn't have some pretty good matches with Foley, Kane, Austin et al in the late nineties.
My point is, Reigns is going to be fine. He's not great, yet, he needs time. Fans are hating on him, but he is a big athletic guy, passion for the business, has the look, performed well at the last 2 PPVs and is going to continue to get better. The social media age of smart fans hate him, and I damn sure didn't want him to beat Lesnar, but eventually, he's going to be good. Thoughts?
|
|
Thaal Sinestro
Hank Scorpio
In Brightest Night, In Blackest Day. Etc.
Posts: 5,012
|
Post by Thaal Sinestro on Apr 7, 2015 10:48:02 GMT -5
No problem with that. Until he improves I'll still boo him.
|
|
Jeff Mangum PI
Hank Scorpio
11 herbs and spices for the rest of eternity; Is Number Two. Number Two!
The 2nd Coming
Posts: 6,957 
|
Post by Jeff Mangum PI on Apr 7, 2015 10:53:03 GMT -5
IMO, Undertaker f***ing sucked up until the Jeff Hardy ladder match. It wasn't until WM21 when he became a legend in my eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Apr 7, 2015 10:54:29 GMT -5
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,944
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Apr 7, 2015 11:06:39 GMT -5
Also didn't Taker "get pushed to the moon" and win the title within about a year.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,944
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Apr 7, 2015 11:08:22 GMT -5
Yeah that match is fun, but I don't really enjoy early Taker matches as so much is missing from his arsenal that he would later add and develop. I think the feud with Mankind was a big turning point for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Apr 7, 2015 11:09:04 GMT -5
But, Taker had the gimmick. That's the big difference between him and Roman. He didn't have to be a great worker because they could smoke and mirror the shit out of his matches if it came down to it.
The hell can you do with Roman's gimmick? Right now, he's just...a dude. No real defining traits or much of anything to separate him from the pack. I'm not saying Roman can't grow but this really isn't a fair comparison at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by thetower52 on Apr 7, 2015 11:13:08 GMT -5
Taker is anazing worker
That's why he was able to make the undertaker character amazing.
He knew how to work with it and come across and The Undertaker
Be scary and make sure everyone was shitting there pants when he was there
He didn't need to be more then passable at wrestling
|
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Apr 7, 2015 11:13:45 GMT -5
Undertaker appeared in an era with 4 PPVs a year with mostly jobbersquash television and had a strong gimmick to protect him, Roman Reigns is active in the 5 hours + of TV era, 12 ppvs a year era with crowds that are no longer prepared to just roll over and accept whatever Vince wants to put out there.... And his gimmick is basically being the chosen one, the blue eyed boy which isn't a face gimmick at all. How can you garner sympathy and build a fanbase when you've basically admitted the guy is in the main event because of who he's related to?
He'll be fine in the long run, main eventing without a real fanbase like Sheamus, Orton and Del Rio but he'll never reach the heights they hope he will.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,944
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Apr 7, 2015 11:14:03 GMT -5
But, Taker had the gimmick. That's the big difference between him and Roman. He didn't have to be a great worker because they could smoke and mirror the shit out of his matches if it came down to it. The hell can you do with Roman's gimmick? Right now, he's just...a dude. No real defining traits or much of anything to separate him from the pack. I'm not saying Roman can't grow but this really isn't a fair comparison at all. True, Taker was not good in the ring at the time, but you could hide it behind the character. I think Reigns now is a better wrestler than Undertaker was in his first 2 or 3 years in WWF. He just needs to find the gimmick. |
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Apr 7, 2015 11:31:43 GMT -5
Or the rest of his career. Yeah, I'm one of those people.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,944
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Apr 7, 2015 11:37:49 GMT -5
Or the rest of his career. Yeah, I'm one of those people.  |
|
|
|
Post by MC Blowfish on Apr 7, 2015 11:39:54 GMT -5
Also didn't Taker "get pushed to the moon" and win the title within about a year. Taker debuted in November 1990 and won the title from Hogan in 1991 at the Survivor Series. |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Apr 7, 2015 11:40:02 GMT -5
Taker was also wrestling for years before he came to the WWF to do his Zombie schtick. I never saw the Mean Mark Callous stuff but I'd imagine in ring he was better than early taker stuff because he was allowed to sell and move faster than a corpse. Or the rest of his career. Yeah, I'm one of those people. We call those people wrong.  |
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Apr 7, 2015 11:45:34 GMT -5
Or the rest of his career. Yeah, I'm one of those people. He has some good years (96, 97, parts of 98, 2006-Mania 25 then the Mania matches). But he has A LOT of awful, so you aren't that wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Apr 7, 2015 12:07:25 GMT -5
Or the rest of his career. Yeah, I'm one of those people. Oh god.....I take it back |
|
|
|
Post by berlynwright on Apr 7, 2015 12:17:07 GMT -5
Also didn't Taker "get pushed to the moon" and win the title within about a year. That was because he was getting very over and they tried to push Tuesday in Texas event. He also only held the title for less than a week. 96 onwards he was good in the ring. That's because he's got to work with good workers Like Bret and Mankind. I don't think even Benoit can have good matches with Bundy & Gonzalez |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus Sex on Apr 7, 2015 12:37:57 GMT -5
Taker in 90-91 and Roman Reigns now can't really be compared. The style, tone and overall feel was totally different back then. Storylines were much more character based than wrestling oriented, so Taker could get away with being more style than substance. And that style was VERY well done. In the modern day, a sort of balance between character and wrestling is needed for one to be exciting, entertaining and all of that. As someone who marked the hell out at Reigns losing at WrestleMania and not wanting him to be at the top right now, I do actually agree with the main point that he can and hopefully will improve though, even not liking him, it was still kind of cool seeing a whole new face in the main event.
|
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Apr 7, 2015 12:42:44 GMT -5
He didn't need to be good in his early years as he was portraying an undead zombie who is impervious to pain. Heck his ability to perform that role in the early 90s was damn convincing.
If he chucked out an armbar takedown or a submission hold the illusion would be shattered that this was an intimidating Solomon Grundy type of character.
Comparing debut Undertaker to debut Reigns is ridiculous, different eras different requirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Apr 7, 2015 12:57:47 GMT -5
A more relevant comparison could be made for Reigns and Ron Simmons, powerful athletic guys with a modicum of showmanship who they don't/didn't know what to do with.
|
|
