The Trial of The Undertaker

**hb2k** · 08-23-2016, 03:58 AM

So, for this week's podcast, we're returning to our "Court Case" format to debate the career of the Undertaker on the charge of misrepresentation of stature and level of contribution to WWE's success. We'd like your feedback to the question:

When you examine Undertaker's body of work on and off screen from 1990 to today, did he deserve the career and legacy WWE bestowed upon him, and do you feel he's been as important to WWE's success as they imply?

As always the best contributions will be read on the show during the debate and you'll be credited accordingly. So what do you think, guilty or not guilty, and why?

EDIT - Our show titled "The Trial of The Undertaker, featuring many of your contributions, is now online and available to listen to at the following link: http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean....Undertaker.mp3

**Maluco** · 08-23-2016, 06:04 AM

I wrote this thread a while back about him and seems like a good place to start of this discussion...with an extreme viewpoint...

I was thinking about this while listening to wrestling themes at the gym, and the more I thought about it, the more I was convinced.

The reason it came into my head were the different versions of his themes. It's incredible how many times he has changed it up and reimagined the character to keep it fresh.

This is the only guy who mixed it up with Hogan's generation at a main event level and continues to do so in today's 'legend' form. Survivor Series will be 25 years and The Undertaker has been at the top that whole time.

He has carried feuds with lumbering giants and monsters and retained fans interest in his battles when the match quality was poor and he has also triumphed at the other end of the scale, having some fantastic matches with an array of opponents, including some of the best matches ever with HBK.

He has also sat at the top of the tree as a heel and a face character, whether that was as a heel with Hogan in the beginning or as the sinister Ministry character. He has also had entire crowds behind him at the very biggest events as a face.

He is not a devisive character like a John Cena might be defined. Crowds fully bought him as a face and as a heel across eras and feuds and different landscapes.

He was also a guy who paid his dues early on. Legend has it that Vince wasn't sold on him as a performer and given one opportunity, he turned the Undertaker into the greatest gimmick of all time. People can say it was a winner from the start but it really wasn't. It could have been cartoonish or downright laughable, but he played it so well and constantly updated it and redefined it.

The streak stands as a testament to, who I believe is, the greatest of all time, someone who stood tall across a variety of feuds, opponents, generations, eras and landscapes. He consistently made the very most of what was given to him and managed to stay at the very top for a very long time, through not just the strengths of his character, but because of his performance and vision, constantly changing and adapting to his environment.

He has so many unique qualities and has so many unique attributes and achievements that I believe he stands alone as the very best of all time.

**Stickman** · 08-23-2016, 12:03 PM

I think he may be a little over rated. I am not sure how many butts he put into seats. I think he had a great supporting cast but he was never the guy.

**KIRA** · 08-23-2016, 01:26 PM

To me there will always be a next John Cena or a next HBK(Dolph Ziggler seems to be gunning for that) but I don't think we will ever get another Undertaker he was lighting in a bottle the right man the right gimmick(which could've fallen flat due to its goofy nature but it didn't because the man playing the part was so damn good at it) the right presentation all of these things just came together and its just not something that you can readily duplicate.

When you add to that his backstage reputation and yea I think he deserves every bit of his status in pro wrestling. He actually does not have that many title reigins at all but he kind of transcended the need to even have a belt.

**The Condor** · 08-23-2016, 02:28 PM

UT was always restricted by the gimmick in the beginning, as far as in-ring work is concerned, but he was so good in the part that it didn't matter. I think when he was able to work with competent workers (Bret, Shawn, Austin, Brock, Kurt) he was able to rise to their level, and that is a complement for a guy who is 6'10, 300+ pounds. He has transitioned from workhorse, and top 3 face or heel, into an attraction, with great success. He is a legend and deserves his place in WWE lore.

However, there is a back mark, for me, on his career, and that is his backstage politicking and lack of effort from his return in 2000 through the Invasion. It is fairly well documented that he pushed his weight around a bit, and it's not hard to watch some of those shows back and see an unmotivated, sloppy, and out of shape UT. Fortunately, it was a drop in the ocean of time when you take into account his nearly 30 year career.

**Ruien** · 08-23-2016, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KIRA

To me there will always be a next John Cena or a next HBK(Dolph Ziggler seems to be gunning for that) but I don't think we will ever get another Undertaker he was lighting in a bottle the right man the right gimmick(which could've fallen flat due to its goofy nature but it didn't because the man playing the part was so damn good at it) the right presentation all of these things just came together and its just not something that you can readily duplicate.

When you add to that his backstage reputation and yea I think he deserves every bit of his status in pro wrestling. He actually does not have that many title reigins at all but he kind of transcended the need to even have a belt.

Bray had the character and ability yl be the next Taker

**KIRA** · 08-23-2016, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruien

Bray had the character and ability yl be the next Taker

Oh man Bray could've been something special(he still can )but not what he could've been. I was hoping against hope he'd get to SD live and get a fresh start to be an unstoppable force. Alas

Who did he piss off?

**KIRA** · 08-23-2016, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Condor

UT was always restricted by the gimmick in the beginning, as far as in-ring work is concerned, but he was so good in the part that it didn't matter. I think when he was able to work with competent workers (Bret, Shawn, Austin, Brock, Kurt) he was able to rise to their level, and that is a complement for a guy who is 6'10, 300+ pounds. He has transitioned from workhorse, and top 3 face or heel, into an attraction, with great success. He is a legend and deserves his place in WWE lore.

However, there is a back mark, for me, on his career, and that is his backstage politicking and lack of effort from his return in 2000 through the Invasion. It is fairly well documented that he pushed his weight around a bit, and it's not hard to watch some of those shows back and see an unmotivated, sloppy, and out of shape UT. Fortunately, it was a drop in the ocean of time when you take into account his nearly 30 year career.

How did you feel about Big Evil Taker cause that was fun

**Anybody Thrilla** · 08-23-2016, 04:57 PM

The Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak was pretty laughable up until the point where they started making a deal out of it. He was in some of the shittiest and corniest Wrestlemania matches of all time.

In fairness though, I'm not sure who made the ultimate call for him to go over as many times as he did.

**The Condor** · 08-23-2016, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KIRA

How did you feel about Big Evil Taker cause that was fun

Big Evil UT, from his Hardcover title run through the Lesnar feud was fantastic, and you can see it in his work, his promos and the fact that he got himself back into tremendous shape. I'm a huge mark for Big Evil.

**Fignuts** · 08-23-2016, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stickman

I think he may be a little over rated. I am not sure how many butts he put into seats. I think he had a great supporting cast but he was never the guy.

He has never been praised as a top draw or as being "the guy".

He's been hyped as being one of the most reliable professionals in the business, for the spectacle of his character, for being able to go in the ring and bring a big match feel, and for his ability to adapt and keep his character fresh.

All that is 100% accurate.

**Heyman** · 08-24-2016, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hb2k

So, for this week's podcast, we're returning to our "Court Case" format to debate the career of the Undertaker on the charge of misrepresentation of stature and level of contribution to WWE's success. We'd like your feedback to the question:

When you examine Undertaker's body of work on and off screen from 1990 to today, did he deserve the career and legacy WWE bestowed upon him, and do you feel he's been as important to WWE's success as they imply?

As always the best contributions will be read on the show during the debate and you'll be credited accordingly. So what do you think, guilty or not guilty, and why?

I think to a large extent, he deserves his legacy. However, I also feel that the reason why Undertaker has "the machine" behind him at full force to hype is legacy, is due to the fact that he helped keep the WWE afloat back when in the early/mid 90's when top stars were defecting to WCW.

Undetaker is deserving of his legacy due to his gimmick, matches, character backstage, etc., but it has been greatly hyped by "the machine" no doubt.

**hb2k** · 08-28-2016, 07:06 AM

I want to thank everybody for the contributions, we got to read many of them on the show, which is now available at the following link:

http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean....Undertaker.mp3

Join us for The Trial of The Undertaker! Both Taker and WWE are up on the charge of Misrepresentation of Stature, and Fraud in overstating Taker's success in and impact on WWE. We take your "witness statements" on the charge, and debate the first Decade of Destruction, the Biker/Deadman Part Deux years, as well as his time as a Special Attraction with his famed WrestleMania streak. A debate that covers every facet of Undertaker's WWE career, this was a tremendously spirited Trial, covering backstage politics, what his role in the company really was in the 90s, his importance as WWE's fortunes changed, loyalty, preferencial treatment and more. Check it out and let us know what you think!

**Dewidi** · 08-29-2016, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruien

Bray had the character and ability yl be the next Taker

Harris retundo or what ever his name is is no way even close to the work ethic ofmark calloway if the bray wyatt gimmick lasts another 5 yrs it will be a miracle.
mark calloway has been wrestling for decades yrs b4 the wwe, and wcw there are pics of him and scott hall pre razor ramon and undertaker.
this is the same man who wrestled with a cracked eye socket(the only other wrestler to do this was road warrior animal) he has wrestled with a pulled groin injury sporaticly yes but he did wrestle.
bray wyatt got injured not to long ago and was out a good month b4 coming back.
yes he only shows 1 time a year wrestlemania but unlike hogan he keeps himself due tohis wife michele mccool but he keeps in shape none the less.

**Mr. Nerfect** · 08-30-2016, 07:09 AM

I'm listening to this now. I threw some of my streak opinions into the "Against the Grain" stuff, but I really wish I could have thrown some support your way, Liam and Karl. The rose-colored glasses people view Taker through irks me.

* A point brought up was that Taker would even lie down occasionally. Yeah, for lugs he knows aren't going to be around in a few years. He also gets to say "See what happens when I lose to guys, Vince?" The guy was notorious for protecting his spot in the late 90's/early 00's. His entrance at WrestleMania alone keeps four guys off the card and winning money for their families. And I'm not saying that's necessarily bad (Taker protecting his spot; not families starving). I actually think more people in the business need to protect their shit and go to fend for themselves, so we get some actual stars.

* I get the idea that his stature and ability is kind of self-evident. I mean, wrestling is a work, so if Taker is presented as the greatest of all-time and people eat it up, then he is a legend. With that being said, when people were told he was the WWF World Champion, people didn't eat it up -- people went without dessert. It's only retroactively that those droll years of Taker's gain any semblance of significance.

* One testament to some measure of charisma he must have is that he managed to turn being a veteran into that kind of revisionist history of greatness. I mean, Hardcore Holly was pushed as a veteran and that didn't really pan out, did it? That being said, I guess some of that is probably being pushed on top, given the World Title, given WrestleMania main events, talked about as if you were a top guy for many years, and THEN get that sort of mileage without leaving for WCW because you don't own your own gimmick.

* At some point, people stop forgetting you were horrible if you become so familiar to them. Mark Henry is an example of this. Yeah, he got somewhat interesting in 2011 with a heel push. He had received the same heel push as ECW Champion. He received the same heel push when he was putting guys out on "sabbaticals." He was also Sexual Chocolate. I respect Mark Henry's hard work over the years to get himself better, but was he really worth those millions sunk into him over the first portion of his career, speaking objectively? I feel like it's a similar thing with Taker. His critically panned years are swept over because he manages to spike in certain points.

* If you take those early years of Taker as a house show draw, his later 1997-1998 stint, we'll condense his American Bad-Ass run down to one year of quality stuff, then his feud with Edge into another, and we'll count his stuff with Shawn Michaels as two years worth of value, you still get a really low "Fresh Rating" for Taker, even if you round up. He's sitting at about 33%.

* I also feel that the streak was, overall, bad for business. It was shoe-horned into being an attraction, but I think it came at the expense of a lot of other money that could have been made. It also got in the way of certain stars being made. It's like a business plan making $1,000,000 being called a success, but left on the drawing room floor are $100,000,000 worth of ideas.

He's a legend in the business, that's for sure -- but it's a work and a lot of people buy into it these days that wouldn't have even a decade ago.

**Mr. Nerfect** · 08-30-2016, 07:14 AM

A weird thing about Taker: Jim Cornette was once asked on his podcast about The Undertaker's rise to power. Corny's answer was kind of interesting, because he kind of marks out for the guy too, and just says "It's The Undertaker and he was a legend in the business." He'd be in the WWF for less than a decade at this point.

The Miz has a twelve year association with the WWE. R-Truth showed up sixteen years ago. Dolph Ziggler first showed up as Chavo Guerrero's caddy in 2005. These guys don't have the "stature" of The Undertaker. I love Cornette, but I found his glossing over The Undertaker's rise to power in WWF fascinating, because even he seems to get a bit revisionist with it. It may have been that close working association they had for a while, guys who love the business respecting each other or simply that Taker is a natural leader (wrestling needs more of those), but it seems that Taker years are longer than normal people years.

**hb2k** · 08-30-2016, 08:17 AM

Trust me Noid, we could have done with the support too - almost every response we got for the show was pro-Taker in the "how can you look at it that way?" vibe.

Now the Trial is done, I don't know where I legitimately sit on the charge, but the fact I think the case against him is actually fairly strong when you lay it out does adjust your perspective of Taker in a funny way.

One of the things that never came up that I meant to raise was to challenge the common consensus that the Undertaker is the best gimmick ever. WWE says it, fans say it, everyone says it. But it's not one gimmick. It's several. It's actually a ridiculous premise when you think about it. A character that changed drastically and was redefined several times to stay relevant or reinvigorate his purpose when he stopped being as effective, is considered one gimmick and the greatest ever.

Which one are people saying is the best creation? All of them with him playing them? Again, no single incarnation was as effective as several other creations throughout history, it's the cumulative effect that people are judging.

Taker won "Best Gimmick" in the Observer awards (not that this is the all-encompassing barometer, but bear with me) from 1990 to 1994. As we said on the show, he stopped being a house show draw in 1994. After 94, he never won Best Gimmick a single time for the rest of his career.

Food for thought, I suppose.

**Mr. Nerfect** · 09-01-2016, 05:09 AM

Most of what I rambled about was covered and covered well. Great podcast -- my favorite of the trials I have listened to.

The gimmick angle is an interesting one. When people think of "wrestling gimmicks," it might be one of the more obvious ones, but just what constitutes a gimmick? Do you consider "bad-ass beer-drinking redneck" to be a gimmick? What about cocky jock with $500 shirts that talks in the third person? What about party animal that rides in limousines with beautiful women and has a hard time keeping his alligators down? The Undertaker might be the best "unrealistic" gimmick of all-time.

But even then, how many people were turned away from the product because of things like him ascending to heaven? It's hard to quantify these hypothetical situations, but it isn't insane to speculate that many people might have been turned away by The Undertaker gimmick -- whether it be because they don't buy it or little kids were too scared of it or whatever.

I think Taker was WWF World Champion during a time period where it did matter who the champion was, and I don't think he should be exempted from those metrics. They needed a top guy, they chose Undertaker, business went down. It really is that simple.

That's not to say that the guy isn't a legend or that he's even bad. He is a legend, and good and bad are subjective to a large degree. Most will tell you that he is good, I guess. But what we can measure his effects on business, and there were periods where that really wasn't good, and ultimately, wrestling is a business.

That being said, he now builds off the mythic constructions around him and probably does draw now. You guys mentioned Hell in a Cell against Shane this year, but there's also the Mexico tour he was called in for. I'm not sure how those shows ended up doing, but I remember reading something about him saving their ass.

I think the loyalty aspect is a bigger debate than is often given credit too. When would Taker have left WWF? When he was pushed to the World Title after just a year of being there? It's not like he was jobbed out or anything like that. He was put in the chief positions while other guys were fed up and walking out the door. Maybe he would have jumped sometime in the late 90's, but the window where WCW was kicking their ass was a window where he was being treated as a big player, and after that was when Austin had turned the WWF around. And what would he have done in WCW? Gone and taken Nash's spot? He couldn't just walk out "Cadaver" and expect people to take him seriously.

It was Vince's gimmick and Mark Callaway knew he had to stay there to make it work. It's a symbiotic relationship where Undertaker needs the WWF and the WWF can count on Undertaker. But I do not equate that to loyalty. In fact, I think that when the Invasion angle started, Undertaker's bully stage might have been a response to genuine dislike for WCW because he was so attached to the WWF out of necessity, and he knows how close they were to going out. I'm sure he was just as elated as Vince was when things turned around for the WWF.

The politics of wrestling is very interesting and could make a good podcast at some point, whether it's looking at specific relationships between owners/promoters and certain stars, or just some of the weirder dick-bag moves certain guys make. I was listening to Kevin Sullivan on his podcast talk about how Hogan would try to play Savage. I might be taking things out of context a little and paraphrasing, but Hogan would do things like agree to drop the belt to Savage when he knew business would be getting tough over the next few weeks, so the stank of being a failure as champ would be on Savage and not him. Going back to your timeline series, you can see how Hogan has set up both Sting and Goldberg to fail. I don't think Taker was as Machiavellian as that, but you can certainly see moments in Taker's career, especially when it comes to who he jobs to, where one possible interpretation is that he's lost to this guy because he knows they're not going anywhere, so there's no long-term threat of a spot being taken from him.

08-23-2016, 03:58 AM	#1
hb2k Do Unto Others... Posts: 2,086	The Trial of The Undertaker So, for this week's podcast, we're returning to our "Court Case" format to debate the career of the Undertaker on the charge of misrepresentation of stature and level of contribution to WWE's success. We'd like your feedback to the question: When you examine Undertaker's body of work on and off screen from 1990 to today, did he deserve the career and legacy WWE bestowed upon him, and do you feel he's been as important to WWE's success as they imply? As always the best contributions will be read on the show during the debate and you'll be credited accordingly. So what do you think, guilty or not guilty, and why? EDIT - Our show titled "The Trial of The Undertaker, featuring many of your contributions, is now online and available to listen to at the following link: http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean....Undertaker.mp3 Crazy Like A Fox - The Definitive Chronicle of Brian Pillman 20 Years Later Featuring interviews with members of the Pillman family, Dave Meltzer, Kim Wood, Raven, Jim Cornette, Mark Madden, Shane Douglas, Mark Coleman, Alex Marvez, Les Thatcher and many more close friends and colleagues Available on Amazon now: http://amzn.to/2h93SxL Last edited by hb2k; 08-28-2016 at 07:06 AM.

08-28-2016, 07:06 AM	#13
hb2k Do Unto Others... Posts: 2,086	I want to thank everybody for the contributions, we got to read many of them on the show, which is now available at the following link: http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean....Undertaker.mp3 Join us for The Trial of The Undertaker! Both Taker and WWE are up on the charge of Misrepresentation of Stature, and Fraud in overstating Taker's success in and impact on WWE. We take your "witness statements" on the charge, and debate the first Decade of Destruction, the Biker/Deadman Part Deux years, as well as his time as a Special Attraction with his famed WrestleMania streak. A debate that covers every facet of Undertaker's WWE career, this was a tremendously spirited Trial, covering backstage politics, what his role in the company really was in the 90s, his importance as WWE's fortunes changed, loyalty, preferencial treatment and more. Check it out and let us know what you think! Crazy Like A Fox - The Definitive Chronicle of Brian Pillman 20 Years Later Featuring interviews with members of the Pillman family, Dave Meltzer, Kim Wood, Raven, Jim Cornette, Mark Madden, Shane Douglas, Mark Coleman, Alex Marvez, Les Thatcher and many more close friends and colleagues Available on Amazon now: http://amzn.to/2h93SxL

08-23-2016, 06:04 AM	#2
Maluco Reigning Tipsters Champ! Posts: 2,087	I wrote this thread a while back about him and seems like a good place to start of this discussion...with an extreme viewpoint... I was thinking about this while listening to wrestling themes at the gym, and the more I thought about it, the more I was convinced. The reason it came into my head were the different versions of his themes. It's incredible how many times he has changed it up and reimagined the character to keep it fresh. This is the only guy who mixed it up with Hogan's generation at a main event level and continues to do so in today's 'legend' form. Survivor Series will be 25 years and The Undertaker has been at the top that whole time. He has carried feuds with lumbering giants and monsters and retained fans interest in his battles when the match quality was poor and he has also triumphed at the other end of the scale, having some fantastic matches with an array of opponents, including some of the best matches ever with HBK. He has also sat at the top of the tree as a heel and a face character, whether that was as a heel with Hogan in the beginning or as the sinister Ministry character. He has also had entire crowds behind him at the very biggest events as a face. He is not a devisive character like a John Cena might be defined. Crowds fully bought him as a face and as a heel across eras and feuds and different landscapes. He was also a guy who paid his dues early on. Legend has it that Vince wasn't sold on him as a performer and given one opportunity, he turned the Undertaker into the greatest gimmick of all time. People can say it was a winner from the start but it really wasn't. It could have been cartoonish or downright laughable, but he played it so well and constantly updated it and redefined it. The streak stands as a testament to, who I believe is, the greatest of all time, someone who stood tall across a variety of feuds, opponents, generations, eras and landscapes. He consistently made the very most of what was given to him and managed to stay at the very top for a very long time, through not just the strengths of his character, but because of his performance and vision, constantly changing and adapting to his environment. He has so many unique qualities and has so many unique attributes and achievements that I believe he stands alone as the very best of all time.

08-23-2016, 12:03 PM	#3
Stickman Stickman Posts: 15,119	I think he may be a little over rated. I am not sure how many butts he put into seats. I think he had a great supporting cast but he was never the guy.

08-23-2016, 01:26 PM	#4
KIRA Celestia's Left Hand Posts: 17,359	To me there will always be a next John Cena or a next HBK(Dolph Ziggler seems to be gunning for that) but I don't think we will ever get another Undertaker he was lighting in a bottle the right man the right gimmick(which could've fallen flat due to its goofy nature but it didn't because the man playing the part was so damn good at it) the right presentation all of these things just came together and its just not something that you can readily duplicate. When you add to that his backstage reputation and yea I think he deserves every bit of his status in pro wrestling. He actually does not have that many title reigins at all but he kind of transcended the need to even have a belt.

08-23-2016, 02:28 PM	#5
The Condor Re-Branded Posts: 3,992	UT was always restricted by the gimmick in the beginning, as far as in-ring work is concerned, but he was so good in the part that it didn't matter. I think when he was able to work with competent workers (Bret, Shawn, Austin, Brock, Kurt) he was able to rise to their level, and that is a complement for a guy who is 6'10, 300+ pounds. He has transitioned from workhorse, and top 3 face or heel, into an attraction, with great success. He is a legend and deserves his place in WWE lore. However, there is a back mark, for me, on his career, and that is his backstage politicking and lack of effort from his return in 2000 through the Invasion. It is fairly well documented that he pushed his weight around a bit, and it's not hard to watch some of those shows back and see an unmotivated, sloppy, and out of shape UT. Fortunately, it was a drop in the ocean of time when you take into account his nearly 30 year career.

08-23-2016, 04:57 PM	#9
Anybody Thrilla Cranky Kong Posts: 78,671	The Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak was pretty laughable up until the point where they started making a deal out of it. He was in some of the shittiest and corniest Wrestlemania matches of all time. In fairness though, I'm not sure who made the ultimate call for him to go over as many times as he did.

08-30-2016, 07:09 AM	#15
Mr. Nerfect Posts: 60,919	I'm listening to this now. I threw some of my streak opinions into the "Against the Grain" stuff, but I really wish I could have thrown some support your way, Liam and Karl. The rose-colored glasses people view Taker through irks me. * A point brought up was that Taker would even lie down occasionally. Yeah, for lugs he knows aren't going to be around in a few years. He also gets to say "See what happens when I lose to guys, Vince?" The guy was notorious for protecting his spot in the late 90's/early 00's. His entrance at WrestleMania alone keeps four guys off the card and winning money for their families. And I'm not saying that's necessarily bad (Taker protecting his spot; not families starving). I actually think more people in the business need to protect their shit and go to fend for themselves, so we get some actual stars. * I get the idea that his stature and ability is kind of self-evident. I mean, wrestling is a work, so if Taker is presented as the greatest of all-time and people eat it up, then he is a legend. With that being said, when people were told he was the WWF World Champion, people didn't eat it up -- people went without dessert. It's only retroactively that those droll years of Taker's gain any semblance of significance. * One testament to some measure of charisma he must have is that he managed to turn being a veteran into that kind of revisionist history of greatness. I mean, Hardcore Holly was pushed as a veteran and that didn't really pan out, did it? That being said, I guess some of that is probably being pushed on top, given the World Title, given WrestleMania main events, talked about as if you were a top guy for many years, and THEN get that sort of mileage without leaving for WCW because you don't own your own gimmick. * At some point, people stop forgetting you were horrible if you become so familiar to them. Mark Henry is an example of this. Yeah, he got somewhat interesting in 2011 with a heel push. He had received the same heel push as ECW Champion. He received the same heel push when he was putting guys out on "sabbaticals." He was also Sexual Chocolate. I respect Mark Henry's hard work over the years to get himself better, but was he really worth those millions sunk into him over the first portion of his career, speaking objectively? I feel like it's a similar thing with Taker. His critically panned years are swept over because he manages to spike in certain points. * If you take those early years of Taker as a house show draw, his later 1997-1998 stint, we'll condense his American Bad-Ass run down to one year of quality stuff, then his feud with Edge into another, and we'll count his stuff with Shawn Michaels as two years worth of value, you still get a really low "Fresh Rating" for Taker, even if you round up. He's sitting at about 33%. * I also feel that the streak was, overall, bad for business. It was shoe-horned into being an attraction, but I think it came at the expense of a lot of other money that could have been made. It also got in the way of certain stars being made. It's like a business plan making $1,000,000 being called a success, but left on the drawing room floor are $100,000,000 worth of ideas. He's a legend in the business, that's for sure -- but it's a work and a lot of people buy into it these days that wouldn't have even a decade ago.

08-30-2016, 07:14 AM	#16
Mr. Nerfect Posts: 60,919	A weird thing about Taker: Jim Cornette was once asked on his podcast about The Undertaker's rise to power. Corny's answer was kind of interesting, because he kind of marks out for the guy too, and just says "It's The Undertaker and he was a legend in the business." He'd be in the WWF for less than a decade at this point. The Miz has a twelve year association with the WWE. R-Truth showed up sixteen years ago. Dolph Ziggler first showed up as Chavo Guerrero's caddy in 2005. These guys don't have the "stature" of The Undertaker. I love Cornette, but I found his glossing over The Undertaker's rise to power in WWF fascinating, because even he seems to get a bit revisionist with it. It may have been that close working association they had for a while, guys who love the business respecting each other or simply that Taker is a natural leader (wrestling needs more of those), but it seems that Taker years are longer than normal people years.

08-30-2016, 08:17 AM	#17
hb2k Do Unto Others... Posts: 2,086	Trust me Noid, we could have done with the support too - almost every response we got for the show was pro-Taker in the "how can you look at it that way?" vibe. Now the Trial is done, I don't know where I legitimately sit on the charge, but the fact I think the case against him is actually fairly strong when you lay it out does adjust your perspective of Taker in a funny way. One of the things that never came up that I meant to raise was to challenge the common consensus that the Undertaker is the best gimmick ever. WWE says it, fans say it, everyone says it. But it's not one gimmick. It's several. It's actually a ridiculous premise when you think about it. A character that changed drastically and was redefined several times to stay relevant or reinvigorate his purpose when he stopped being as effective, is considered one gimmick and the greatest ever. Which one are people saying is the best creation? All of them with him playing them? Again, no single incarnation was as effective as several other creations throughout history, it's the cumulative effect that people are judging. Taker won "Best Gimmick" in the Observer awards (not that this is the all-encompassing barometer, but bear with me) from 1990 to 1994. As we said on the show, he stopped being a house show draw in 1994. After 94, he never won Best Gimmick a single time for the rest of his career. Food for thought, I suppose.

09-01-2016, 05:09 AM	#18
Mr. Nerfect Posts: 60,919	Most of what I rambled about was covered and covered well. Great podcast -- my favorite of the trials I have listened to. The gimmick angle is an interesting one. When people think of "wrestling gimmicks," it might be one of the more obvious ones, but just what constitutes a gimmick? Do you consider "bad-ass beer-drinking redneck" to be a gimmick? What about cocky jock with $500 shirts that talks in the third person? What about party animal that rides in limousines with beautiful women and has a hard time keeping his alligators down? The Undertaker might be the best "unrealistic" gimmick of all-time. But even then, how many people were turned away from the product because of things like him ascending to heaven? It's hard to quantify these hypothetical situations, but it isn't insane to speculate that many people might have been turned away by The Undertaker gimmick -- whether it be because they don't buy it or little kids were too scared of it or whatever. I think Taker was WWF World Champion during a time period where it did matter who the champion was, and I don't think he should be exempted from those metrics. They needed a top guy, they chose Undertaker, business went down. It really is that simple. That's not to say that the guy isn't a legend or that he's even bad. He is a legend, and good and bad are subjective to a large degree. Most will tell you that he is good, I guess. But what we can measure his effects on business, and there were periods where that really wasn't good, and ultimately, wrestling is a business. That being said, he now builds off the mythic constructions around him and probably does draw now. You guys mentioned Hell in a Cell against Shane this year, but there's also the Mexico tour he was called in for. I'm not sure how those shows ended up doing, but I remember reading something about him saving their ass. I think the loyalty aspect is a bigger debate than is often given credit too. When would Taker have left WWF? When he was pushed to the World Title after just a year of being there? It's not like he was jobbed out or anything like that. He was put in the chief positions while other guys were fed up and walking out the door. Maybe he would have jumped sometime in the late 90's, but the window where WCW was kicking their ass was a window where he was being treated as a big player, and after that was when Austin had turned the WWF around. And what would he have done in WCW? Gone and taken Nash's spot? He couldn't just walk out "Cadaver" and expect people to take him seriously. It was Vince's gimmick and Mark Callaway knew he had to stay there to make it work. It's a symbiotic relationship where Undertaker needs the WWF and the WWF can count on Undertaker. But I do not equate that to loyalty. In fact, I think that when the Invasion angle started, Undertaker's bully stage might have been a response to genuine dislike for WCW because he was so attached to the WWF out of necessity, and he knows how close they were to going out. I'm sure he was just as elated as Vince was when things turned around for the WWF. The politics of wrestling is very interesting and could make a good podcast at some point, whether it's looking at specific relationships between owners/promoters and certain stars, or just some of the weirder dick-bag moves certain guys make. I was listening to Kevin Sullivan on his podcast talk about how Hogan would try to play Savage. I might be taking things out of context a little and paraphrasing, but Hogan would do things like agree to drop the belt to Savage when he knew business would be getting tough over the next few weeks, so the stank of being a failure as champ would be on Savage and not him. Going back to your timeline series, you can see how Hogan has set up both Sting and Goldberg to fail. I don't think Taker was as Machiavellian as that, but you can certainly see moments in Taker's career, especially when it comes to who he jobs to, where one possible interpretation is that he's lost to this guy because he knows they're not going anywhere, so there's no long-term threat of a spot being taken from him.