|
Post by sportatorium on Apr 7, 2015 13:07:56 GMT -5
His first face turn against Jake Roberts was off the charts good.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Apr 7, 2015 13:12:55 GMT -5
It's sort of apples to oranges. Fans back then were less particular about the product. Plus, Undertaker wasn't built up over months; he was just randomly placed against Hogan without much buildup. And, as mentioned, his reign only lasted a few days.
|
|
|
Post by somsta on Apr 7, 2015 13:16:09 GMT -5
I'd argue that Reigns already has far more high quality six man tags that Taker had in his entire 65 year career.
Also - has anyone pointed out the different eras of when the two debuted?
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Apr 7, 2015 13:32:25 GMT -5
Taker has always been awesome. It's just that between 1992 and 1996 she was stuck with too many fat guys to work with, or just outright shit like Giant Gonzalez
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 13:33:49 GMT -5
Taker wasn't a Wank Pheasant either.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Apr 7, 2015 13:39:38 GMT -5
Also didn't Taker "get pushed to the moon" and win the title within about a year. He won the title for like 2 days, and it was mostly just a gimmick to get the title away from Hogan. He was always predominantly featured, but he didn't exactly spend most of the 90s in high profile matches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 13:43:25 GMT -5
Wrestling really was different back then. Fans were more entertained by the spectacle and soap opera esque aspects of the matches back then oppose to now where workrate and athleticism s really important to get over. Just look at The Undertaker for proof, when he got older he started wrestling harder and adding way more athleticism to his matches as a old man not as a young man
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Apr 7, 2015 13:44:13 GMT -5
Also didn't Taker "get pushed to the moon" and win the title within about a year. He won the title for like 2 days, and it was mostly just a gimmick to get the title away from Hogan. He was always predominantly featured, but he didn't exactly spend most of the 90s in high profile matches. Hell Taker never really had the title for any real length of time (133 days is his longest and most of the others were 60 days or less) also for being in the WWF as long as he was he's only held the WWF/e title 4 times.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Apr 8, 2015 4:23:17 GMT -5
So we have to wait another nine years for Roman to not suck a bag of dicks in the ring?
Undertaker really was the Bray Wyatt of his era, only more over and logical, because his good matches were few and far between for YEARS, and he had appalling chemistry with the two hottest faces of the Attitude Era, Rock and Austin.
|
|
Madagascar Fred
El Dandy
TAFKA roidzilla and SUFFERIN' SUCCOTASH SON!
Posts: 8,784
|
Post by Madagascar Fred on Apr 8, 2015 4:34:02 GMT -5
Taker has always been awesome. It's just that between 1992 and 1996 she was stuck with too many fat guys to work with, or just outright shit like Giant Gonzalez oh hell no, when did he ever had a really good match prior to the one against Bret at Royal Rumble 96? that's OVER FIVE YEARS of not one really good match even after that, he could only have a good match against top notch performers (Bret, Shawn, Foley, Austin at SS98)...matches against Kane, Faarooq or Shamrock didn't go too well plus he was really in a rut in 1999-2002, then after his face turn and Hardy/Lesnar stuff his ring work improved again
|
|
Madagascar Fred
El Dandy
TAFKA roidzilla and SUFFERIN' SUCCOTASH SON!
Posts: 8,784
|
Post by Madagascar Fred on Apr 8, 2015 4:36:56 GMT -5
So we have to wait another nine years for Roman to not suck a bag of dicks in the ring? Undertaker really was the Bray Wyatt of his era, only more over and logical, because his good matches were few and far between for YEARS, and he had appalling chemistry with the two hottest faces of the Attitude Era, Rock and Austin. I don't think Taker had multiple ****+ matches three years in after his debut... either way, Undertaker vs. The Rock was never ever a good match, please show me one
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Apr 8, 2015 4:38:54 GMT -5
So we have to wait another nine years for Roman to not suck a bag of dicks in the ring? Undertaker really was the Bray Wyatt of his era, only more over and logical, because his good matches were few and far between for YEARS, and he had appalling chemistry with the two hottest faces of the Attitude Era, Rock and Austin. I don't think Taker had multiple ****+ matches three years in after his debut... either way, Undertaker vs. The Rock was never ever a good match, please show me one ...You do realise you're disagreeing with me, while saying the same thing as me, right?
|
|
Madagascar Fred
El Dandy
TAFKA roidzilla and SUFFERIN' SUCCOTASH SON!
Posts: 8,784
|
Post by Madagascar Fred on Apr 8, 2015 4:42:54 GMT -5
I don't think Taker had multiple ****+ matches three years in after his debut... either way, Undertaker vs. The Rock was never ever a good match, please show me one ...You do realise you're disagreeing with me, while saying the same thing as me, right? okay gotcha, didn't catch the sarcasm in the first paragraph! btw Bray vs. Bryan at RR14 was better than any Taker match from his debut up until Taker's series against Shawn in fall 1997
|
|
|
Post by joediego on Apr 8, 2015 7:15:22 GMT -5
Never ceases to amaze me how people can't see the difference between 'winning the title' and 'face of the company'.
Bob Backlund '94 won the title. Diesel '94 is pushed to face of the company status.
Taker '91 won the title. Hogan was the face of the company.
Just look at Taker at Mania -
WM7 - squash match. WM8 - mid-card feud. WM9 - mid-card feud. WM10 - did not appear. WM11 - mid card feud. WM12 - top of the undercard WM13 - Main Event (hastily thrown together after HBK ruined original plans). WM14 - top of the undercard WM15 - mid card feud. WM16 - did not appear. WM17 - top of the undercard. WM18 - mid card feud. WM19 - very low down the card WM20 - top of the undercard. WM21 - mid card feud. WM22 - mid card feud. WM23 - Brand split Main Event WM24 - Brand split Main Event WM25 - Top of the undercard WM26 - Main Event WM27 - Top of the undercard WM28 - Top of the undercard WM29 - Top of the undercard WM30 - Top of the undercard WM31 - Mid card feud.
Roman Reigns -
WM29 - Mid card feud WM30 - Mid card feud (probably very low down the card) WM31 - Main Event.
It's early days yet but Roman Reigns has been pushed harder and quicker than Taker ever was. It took Taker 6 years to be consistently near the top of the card and I would say 10 years+ until he was considered a permanent Main Eventer.
|
|
Super Duper Dragunov
Grimlock
On a scale of 1 to Awesome, I'm Super-great!
Posts: 13,774
Member is Online
|
Post by Super Duper Dragunov on Apr 8, 2015 7:24:28 GMT -5
The hell can you do with Roman's gimmick? Right now, he's just... a dude. THE SHIELD. B'leedat. Fixed. As others have said, Undertaker has always been amazing, he was never given the ball like he should have been. When he was stupid over in the early 90's he should have been given a lengthy title reign not fighting any large guy with crappy workrate they could find. He should have been pushed to the moon after his fantastic face turn with Jake. If he'd had the chance to work with better talent early on I believe he'd be perceived better by some.
|
|