Thread: Do you want to see Undertaker wrestle again?
View Single Post
Old 11-29-2017, 04:56 PM   #82
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 60,919
Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dastardly Dale Newstead View Post
I meant more about his previous accomplishments as opposed to now. He needs to stay out of the ring.
I agree. Like, wrestling is supposed to be a work, and in that work Taker is one of the greatest of all-time. And you're not supposed to be offended if he is called the greatest of all-time. WrestleMania is the show of shows, and Taker is supposed to be the guy at the show of shows. And that's generally accepted by the fans, the company, the talent, etc.

That being said, my point is just that I wonder how effective that branding is to the layperson. Coca-Cola could release another new flavored Coke and get everybody in house to talk about how delicious it is and keep it on the market for years and years and years and talk about what a staple of everybody's diet it should be, but at the end of the day they don't really get to dictate its success to the market.

That's a really weird example, because Coke would very quickly do what they did with New Coke and scrap it. But that's sort of what I am getting at: Maybe Taker should have been scrapped like New Coke, but no one really talks about that because we all sort of buy into the in-house propaganda too much.

First ballot Hall of Famer in a legit sense all the way, don't get me wrong. His longevity, significance (like Triple H, he's got to be considered significant even if you don't consider him effective) and the fact that his name is attached to some classic matches and moments will see to that. I'm just playing devil's advocate and looking at the case against Taker, which is a lot stronger than a lot of people around wrestling -- both inside the business and out -- really consider.
Mr. Nerfect is offline   Reply With Quote