I know it was the gimmick of Undertaker to be invincible to pain and all that shit. He was still slow and boring whichever way you slice. Then Foley came and breathed some life into the Deadman and he started actually having decent matches. Then he went to being the American Bad Ass and while I liked the gimmick, the matches were terrible. From 2004-2007, he had some glipses here and there against Orton and Kurt Angle but was mediocre for the most part. Batista gave Undertaker one of the best WM matches he ever had up to that point. Injuries play a factor especially in his later years but it doesn't change the fact that his matches have been average at best during his whole career.
Beating the Undertaker used to give a wrestler credibility but it doesn't anymore. Kozlov beat the Undertaker fifteen months ago. How's that working out for him? You would think his profile would be raised a little bit after beating him wouldn't you think?
On the other hand, a wrestler can even gain credibility just by losing to Cena. Everybody says Miz is the most improved wrestler. Where did that start? When he feuded with Cena and he's taken off since. The Great Khali was undefeated before he lost to Cena twice. Khali won the WHC the next month. Umaga was chosen to be McMahon's representative in the Hair vs. Hair match a month after feuding with Cena. Today, even being in the ring with Cena gives a wrestler more credibility than simply beating Undertaker because Undertakers isn't the guy to beat and hasn't been for a long time.
I'm glad you joined the forums just because of me. It's a honor.
I agree that he was slow, and stiff, ya know, like a dead body (which after all, was his character). But to me, he wasn't boring. His match with Jake Roberts at Wrestlemania 8 was anything but boring. That was the first big PPV where Taker was the genuine face of the match, and he peformed like it. Sure, he was still stiff (or, in character), but he still moved a hell of a lot faster when he was actually moving around, and not just stalking someone. The man told a story in the ring as well or better than anyone during the first five or so years of his career. Look at his match with Yoko at Royal Rumble 1994. Technically great? Big spots? No. But a great story was told, and it was entertaining.
He also had another great match with Bret Hart at Royal Rumble 1996. He wasn't nearly as stiff as he was before, but still sold the fact that he was "that dead guy." Once again, IMO, it was entertaining stuff.
And I don't think Mick Foley should be given as much credit as you are throwing out there. Taker was changing with the times. The supernatural stuff still worked, but the WWF was moving into a more realistic type of programming. They were beginning to shed themselves of most "gimmick" and they were moving toward more realism. Foley took a beating like no one I have ever seen, but Taker always carried the offensive side of the matches.
I do agree that Taker's worst matches came under the American Bad Ass gimmick. I hated that gimmick, but that's another story. He was a bit out of shape, banged up and just looked slower. But let's not act like the guy was taking a shit out there every night. He still put on some decent matches, as someone pointed out earlier.
Batista GAVE Taker a great match at Mania? Is that supposed to be a joke? Batista has never carried another wrestler in a match, in his life. I saw that match live, and on DVD later, and while Dave did a hell of job, it was an equally great performance by Taker. Why would you even throw that in there? Are you really that big of a Cena mark that you need to tear down
everything Taker has down just so John can win a fantasy tournament?
Taker gave Kozlov a win...and Kozlov sucks. It's not like Taker was scouting this guy, telling the world he was going to be the next big thing. Blame that on McMahon, Hayes, whoever. But to make fun of Taker for losing a bum they TOLD him to lose to is just weak. Plus, there is a bigggg difference between getting a quick pin on Taker on Smackdown, and beating him clean in the main event of any PPV. Big difference. Taker is the most over guy in the company, so by default (combined with his 20 year career), beating Taker is easily a bigger deal than beating John Cena..right now, maybe not in 5 years, but right now yes.
The Miz is the most improved character, but I wouldn't say the most improved wrestler. And yes, anytime a mid carder (who already has a TON of talent on the mic) moves up to face off against the face of the company, his stock is going to rise. But let's not act like he has become the hottest thing in wrestling since his deal with Cena. He's won tag team and US gold, neither of the big belts. It helped him, but not as much as you are putting out there. Khali...come on, really? The man was a walking gimmick, another monster for Cena to slay, and then a monster for Batista to slay. Let's not overstate his importance.
You talk about how average Taker's matches have been, besides his matches with HBK, Batista, etc. What about Cena? Outside of HBK aroud Wrestlemania 23, when has Cena put on a performance that would make him in any way superior to Taker? When did John Cena become the greatest in-ring competitor out there? There is a reason the man is boo'ed by live audiences. Does he take more heat than he should? Absolutely. But if he were out there putting on great matches week in and week out, month in and month out, it wouldn't happen. He be as loved by everyone as he is by women and children. Taker has NEVER had that happen to him. Never. I think that alone shows just how big Taker has been in pro wrestling.
excuse me for a moment because i can't breathe because im laughing so hard at this! Botchtista save somebody haha wow.. alright now that that's over with Undertaker was and always was great during this whole little time period tell batista came along. I'm starting to think you didn't even watch wrestling before the Batista Undertaker feud. but i'll give you the benefit of doubt and say you did.
