5 things that suck about The Undertaker
 

i used to be a big-time Undertaker mark. i started watching wrestling in 1990-because of the Undertaker. i thought the guy was just awesome. and he was. i am not even saying that Mark Calloway is the reason the Undertaker sucks, but anyway

1. the gimmick: that gimmick is just WAAAAYYYY out of place in today's wrestling environment. it may have been a bad idea to totally transform the phenom into a biker back in 2000, but it was an even worse idea to totally change him back to his old gimmick in 2004. i was shit'n' on it then, and im shit'n' on it now. see, the way it worked in the 90's was that if you fueded with the Undertaker, and invariably, lost, you were'nt seen again for six months because he killed you and burried you and took your soul, or something. these days, the roster is not deep enough for that. that's why there is very little for Phenom 2005 to do. that's why we haven't seen his face since Wrestlemainia. that, or he's injured. either way.......

2. his work rate: he is not only prone to injury, but his character does not fit today's wrestling environment, so programs probably dont come easy. When all those guys (JBL, Big Show, Booker T.........) came down to proclaim themselves #1 contender, i expected Taker to be one of them. no Taker. then the next week they were in Houston, Taker's home town. no Taker

3. his entrance: ooooh, scary stuff! wait, no. TOO MUCH stuff. yeah, that's it. way too much theatrical b.s. goin' on for an entry. the black lighting, the lightning, and most especially the mist. and the theme music sucks. basically, it's the 'PURPLE GLOVE' era entrance, which was by far the worst era and the worst entrance. it's over the top.

4. that he is a habitual babyface: Undertaker as a heel = :yes: i thought it was pretty cool when Undertaker went and beat up Ric Flair's son. Undertaker is getting up there in age. He aint a phenom anymore. mean ass redneck who aint been gettin' enough respect, that was a cool gimmick. but then, just when i'm starting to enjoy that gimmick, Undertaker as a face = :nono: always the victim and constantly getting screwed. who didnt know that Heidenreich would end up costing Taker the match vs. JBL for the title. however, simple logic does dictate that the 7 ft. satan worshiper be a babyface, right??

5. his fueds: again, this is due to the phenom 2004 switch. his fueds with Kane, and Booker T were just embarassing to watch. i mean, we know wrestling is not for real, but no need to insult us.

i would love to see Undertaker traded to RAW and go right back to heel bikertaker. i think that character could be an asset on RAW (or Smackdown), but not this side show circus that is Deadman '05.

In terms of the second one, his workrate, he also doesn't put people over, instead frequently making them look sloppy.

Just be glad he is only in about 3 fueds a year.

That's the only positive thing.

He's so out of place it's ridiculous. Then again, bikertaker sucked ass too.

There's not much to do with Calloway. He's injury prone, slow, and actually manages to outdo Hogan in terms of out of place...

Now he looks like a joke, too. The aging face, the mascara, the difficulty lifting people. He's not a young man, and can't keep up with even oldschool taker (Who wasn't exactly known for fast paced matches and exerting moves). The Deadman has been worn out by time, and a new direction for the business.

I'm going to try and approach these questions as more of a booker and less of a fan. Now i'm not Takers biggest fan, but there's no deneying his overall popularity


1. the gimmick: that gimmick is just WAAAAYYYY out of place in today's wrestling environment.

What about Hogan's or JBL's Millilon Dollar man?
It's marketing, Taker was a recognisable face back in the day and regular fans know him, it's a good way to re generate interest in fans that may have lost touch

2. his work rate: he is not only prone to injury, but his character does not fit today's wrestling environment

To be fair I can't really think of a stand out bad match that he's had since his return of the dead man, there's alot of people out on that roster that are far worse.

3. his entrance: ooooh, scary stuff! wait, no. TOO MUCH stuff.

See Point 1

4. that he is a habitual babyface: Undertaker as a heel = :yes: i thought it was pretty cool when Undertaker went and beat up Ric Flair's son. Undertaker is getting up there in age. He aint a phenom anymore. mean ass redneck who aint been gettin' enough respect, that was a cool gimmick. but then, just when i'm starting to enjoy that gimmick, Undertaker as a face = :nono: always the victim and constantly getting screwed. who didnt know that Heidenreich would end up costing Taker the match vs. JBL for the title. however, simple logic does dictate that the 7 ft. satan worshiper be a babyface, right??

At what point in this new gimmick has he claimed to be a Satan worshiper? And how can he not be a face right now? Honestly. How would you turn him heel? he's the most over guy on both rosters! Also see point 1

5. his fueds: again, this is due to the phenom 2004 switch. his fueds with Kane, and Booker T were just embarassing to watch. i mean, we know wrestling is not for real, but no need to insult us.

Personally i really enjoyed his feud with Kane, granted his booker Feud was a waste of time, but Book was a quick replacement for Brock. His Orton Feud was awesome, his JBL stuff was decent, not great, but then JBL is 90% gimmick 10% wrestler.

The one thing I'll agree with is thi:The character is supposed to be nigh-invulnerable and a big part of what draws the fan in is the (no-sell) sit-up and the fact that he destroys everything in his path, etc..So The Undertaker character is really only good for getting over the Undertaker character. Especially as a fan, eventually the Deadman wins ALL his feuds.

So, basically, unless you want him to squash someone, he's not going to even make sense on TV. He ends up in feuds with people like Heidenreich and the next time we see him he'll probably be squashing Matt Morgan. At this point, he's like the 'Shriff Austin' character. The fans love him, but long-term he's not even good for the one thing an aging superstar should really be good for: putting over your next crop of workers.

The Biker Undertaker was awesome. The music hits, that means someone's getting their ass kicked. I even styled my hair and facial hair after him, as well as my clothing. Yeah, I'm a mark.

Then came this one. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING gimmick used to feed some redundant nastalgia which pretty much puts me to sleep. I wasn't a fan of the deadman undertaker, even in his prime, so to see it after I had completely marked out for the Badass made me sick.

*Ignores what you say and plays with undertaker action figures*

Seriously though, Taker is here for the marks and bitching about his gimmick, his not jobbing and his slowness seems futile.

undertaker is the man :(

Undertaker mark 4 life :y: :yes:

His entrance still generates a good pop whenever it hits, and people respect the guy. Not to mention he's not trying to hog the title scene.

I mean, would you rater see the likes of Heidenrich or Hardcore Holly over the Undertaker?

Maybe what you're saying is true, although I would agree with Youell when he said that there haven't really been any matches that were bad becasue of Taker. But the fact is that he gets a better reaction when his music hits than most of Smackdown so they are doing something right.

lies.

Indestructable and Baby-Face should not be in the same sentence ever. If the face is suppose to win, there is no drama.

Yeah cos Hulk Hogan never got over, neither did Goldberg, same goes for Bruno Sammertino really when you consider his winning streak.

There's always been a guy like that, always.

I take exception to your first point. The depth pool is much greater today then it was then. It was not as if every wrestler Taker faced was gone for 6 months after he defeated them anyways.
For a big man the guy is one of the best ever, if not the best ever, and when only wrestling a few shows here and there, he is able to maintain pretty steady matches and work solidly enough.
He's still one of the most over faces in the company, thus proving his "gimmick" is not stale or doesnt fit into this age. Kane in fact is more hindered by his gimmick as he will forever now be known as just Taker's younger brother.

Hogan was made to look weak against his opponents unlike Taker. He was cast as an underdog in many of his matches (Bundy, Yoko, Andre). He won all the time granted, but his character was different in that he needed to rise to the challenge. Goldberg is the only one who was characterized as unbeatable, and it was successful. His career was not very long so I am unsure whether the fans would tire of the routine. I know I got tired of it pretty quick.

You are one person, not the mass fanbase and who do you think the business want to appeal to?

And as far as Hogan rising to the challege, take a look at the ratio win rate of Hogan compared to Taker and you tell me who comes across as being more unbeatable?

wow, only 5 things?

I liked the ministry Undertaker, that was awesome, this Undertaker... isn't that great.

I am not saying that I want the WWE to cater to me. I am just providing my opinion as to what I don't like about Taker's character. I believe his gimmick is better for a heel and not a face. As fans want to cheer him, perhaps the WWE should expose him a little.

Hogan had amazing win rate, but that is different from my issue. My issue is that Hogan often made you believe that his competitor had a chance. With face Taker, I am pretty sure he is gonna win unless there is interference or cheating.

Did he ever say Hogan was IN place?

JBL's actually works in the modern environment.

Fucking moron.

Where did he say he was the only one?

Because those are the only choices for the main event scene. I forgot.

No, i'm just giving another example of how just because the gimmick isn't with the current direction of the company as a whole it doesn't mean that it's not going to get over.

and there's no need for name calling

He didn't

But do you think there's more taker haters out there than taker lovers?

No need. It's just fun to call you a stupid fuck.

Especially when you give "examples" that don't stick out like a sore thumb (JBL) or ones that don't draw and more or less prove the point you're arguing against (Hogan).

I'm sure there are more Hogan lovers than htaers too.

Doesn't mean he should be on TV.

From a wrestling point of view no.

But for ratings yes, like it or not the Hogan's and Taker's of the world can still generate the interests of the casual fan and are still more over than the champs on both shows.

So your saying Hogan doesn't draw?

No they can't.

Neither has the drawing power they used to have. From a business/ratings perspective, it would make more sense to work on other people.

Honestly, Youell, your argument here is contrary to everyone with a clue who's spoken out on the subject. You're a fanboy. That's okay. We udnerstand.

VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERY GOOD.

They may not have the drawing power they used to granted, but they still can draw better than the majority of the current roster.

Call me a fan boy if you want, but i'm looking at this from a business point of view and draw the most money, not what's going to be the most entertaining

RIC FLAIR IS THE EBST DRAW IN SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT TODAY! I CAN PROVE IT! PEOPLE STILL WOOOO WHEN CHOPS ARE DELIVERED@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!111!1!11!!!1!!111oneoneoneoneoneoneone one

No, you're looking at it from a fanboy point of view. Hogan and Taker don't provide the ratings boosts you claim they do, so your argument is based less on facts and more on your love for them.

Hogan's not a draw anymore. He might spark interest for a show or two, but that's it.

Taker on the other hand can still draw good TV numbers. But it's miscontrued at times because he doesn't appear on every show and he's a big fish in a small pond on Smackdown right now.

He's a very popular wrestler, have you heard the crowd when he turns up. Anyway can anyone answer me this:

How much backstage say does Callaway get about his feuds?

Well I believe that he influenced them to scrap the original idea for him at WM, which would have been for him and Kane to face Snitsky and Heidenreich, although I would say that this was a very smart move.

I'll take a Taker who doesn't need to spend all his time chasing world title belts and wrestling here and there so as to avoid shitty matches, over the other guy on Raw who gets into plenty of shitty matches and hogs all the time in the ME scene.

*flops*

I personally thought him not wanting to do the match with Kane against Snitsky and Heidenrich at Wrestlemania was kinda dumb. It would have given closure to both programs and continued a potentially exciting rivalry. Marks everywhere wet themselves with glee when Kane came out of that casket in the match with Heidenrich. Why not continue? Also, i still love the deadman gimmick, but it's getting trite now. No one's scared of him, he beats them, the loser back on smackdown the next week fighting the Brooklyn Brawler or something. His characters been watered down by the lack of originality from the creative team. He needs to do something to refesh the gimmick and maybe Taker going heel is the way to go.