Undertaker

[Grimmas]

Discuss here.

[Timbo Slice]

I'm pretty sure that the only way he gets on the Top 100 for most people is if you like his late career stuff. I don't think there's much of anything he did for the first five or so years of his career other than having a good gimmick that made him stand out. And while I do like some of his epics, I don't think they're all-time great matches like some people. He's an interesting candidate.

[BigBadMick]

His 1997, 2002 and 2003 are really solid full years. I think the Mania streak 2007-14 could be a big bone of contention on how he's rated.

[Grimmas]

A very interesting case. His gimmick hampered him for the first part of his career. In 96/97 he showed that he could have some great matches and performances. From there, he would have great runs and horrible runs. Those seem to depend on how supernatural his gimmick got.

 

He could get on my list or not, I need to re-watch his 2000-2007 run.

[Matt D]

For many years, he did what he was supposed to, did it well, and had effective results in achieving what he was trying to do. There's something to that certainly. I think he also did it soundly for the most part. His matches are internally consistent. Some of them (vs Hogan, vs Berzerker, vs Yoko) can be pretty good, but maybe someone else could have found a far more interesting way to achieve the same results.

[goodhelmet]

Has anyone's character been more protected than Taker's ever? I wouldn't argue with someone who put them on their list because he sort of an iconic figure but I don't know if he would make it in my Top 300.

[BillThompson]

Nope, he had great stretches, but so much of his career was spent in terrible matches and terrible feuds.

[DR Ackermann]

People forget that he debuted in 1984. When you realize that he had a 30 year career with so little meat, there's no reason he should make anyone's list.

[Stiva]

Taker is a guy that I love. I love the crazy production-heavy entrances, I love the sit-up, I love the chokeslam, the tombstone, I have a soft spot for the first HBK/Taker match because I watched it live and completely lost my mind at it but man, what does Taker actually have match wise to warrant a place on this list? I think 98 WWF is one of his strongest years due to his matches with Foley and Austin but I have no idea how they stand up and I'm assuming not very well. For me, his place on this falls on things like the Batista matches and the latter day Mania matches and I don't think they're good enough to warrant a spot.

[BigBadMick]

I really enjoyed the spectacle of late era 'Taker (2007-15). The part time schedule added to the aura.

[Parties]

I don't say this to troll - by all means, vote for him if you wish and have fun doing so - but he might not even make a top 500 for me. He has only a handful of matches I like and they aren't even the pimped ones. Massively over character who soundly makes the argument that being a popular wrestler has very little to do with in-ring skill.

[BigBadMick]

Parties - no offence taken, I assure you.

 

What are the handful of matches you do like?

[JerryvonKramer]

Zero chance for me.

[Parties]

Really liked the Festus match, as it felt like a rookie-vet war of hosses, a la something you could have seen in World Class/UWF Watts/80s Japan. Thought it showed signs of them striking the right balance with him, where he was still a gothic character yet also one who could serve as credible and renowned babyface champ for Smackdown.

 

There's also the Summerslam '99 tag of Taker/Show vs. Kane/X-Pac that is way better than it should be. And I liked the HITC with Brock much more than the one with HBK. And he's good for his half of the Cell match with Foley. I'm sure there were others. It's not even that he's bad by any means: there's just so many guys that I enjoy more who didn't reach anything close to his status as a star.

[Slasher]

It is tough because the first 5 or so years of his run as the Undertaker his gimmick and the people he was programmed against really limited what he could do in the ring. It is not like he could have lifted Giant Gonzales often or King Kong Bundy or etc. And going to the mat would have run counteractively to his character. He was really shoehorned into that really limited spot. He showed more of his ability later on but he ate up his opponents as the Biker and as a result he was still not putting on good matches. It seemed that when they started booking him as a part timer who would be up against his peers (main eventers and legends) he started putting out decent matches in the whole "epic" style that is so revered around here (yes that was sarcasm) but I think it was just too late. Not gonna be on my hypothetical list.

[peachchaos]

There isn't much about the gimmick or the worker I enjoy out of a 20 year run, outside of his matches with Bret, Shawn, and Foley.

 

Not a chance.

[Jimmy Redman]

For me the case for Taker is simply the strength of his best performances. I'm a huge fan of the Mania matches, and there are also other strong runs during recent years like 2007.

 

But more than just matches, I feel like the things he does, he does so well in a way that nobody else could manage. We joke about him being a Zombie MMA Biker, but it's a credit to him that he is able to combine all of those disparate elements into something that not only works but has credibility, which isn't easy for a supernatural gimmick in the 21st century.

 

Also, I think he is far better at things like selling than he's usually given credit for. I remember back in 2010 during the "Vegetative State/Kane stole my powers via urn" thing, and he had a match on SD where he looked off his game, tired and old. People were talking about how he was too old and he should retire already. Then weeks later, he got his powers back in the storyline, had a rematch with this guy and worked out his skin looking like his usual self, and I realised that all of that weak looking stuff we saw...people thought he was legit too old to work, but it was just him selling the shit out of the angle. I loved that and I came away super impressed with his ability to sell even with such a no-selling character.

[InYourCase]

Very slim shot of him making my list, despite the fact that he's had a few matches I really enjoy. His match with Kurt Angle from February 2006 adds to both of their cases. Excellent work in a really underrated match. Still haven't seen the Shawn matches from Wrestlemania. I like both guys just fine, just have no motivation to watch those. If I get around to it and he impresses me I could see him sneaking onto my list.

[Danish Dynamite]

Full of respect for his career, his impact and the brand "The Undertaker". But it's still the kind of character and type of storytelling where I'm never completely lost in it. I'm constantly aware of what I'm watching, when I'm watching him, if that makes any sense :-)

[Jimmy Redman]

Summerslam is basically Exhibit A for why Taker is going on my list. Dude hasn't been off the couch in months, he's a 187 year old invalid, but he goes "Fuck it, I ain't leaving things like that" and comes out here and just fucking brings it. He took some unbelievable bombs from Brock - he fucking ATE that announce table - and dished it out as well and looked great going toe to toe with Brock Lesnar. That sit up-ROFLcopter spot was amazing and hilarious and badass all at the same time. By the end of the match I seriously would have 100% bought Taker going over clean as a sheet. I was that convinced.

 

The man is a force of nature.

[GOTNW]

I like Taker fine but it took him more than 20 years to get it and I actively dislike most of his stuff beforehand. No chance.

[Robert S]

Much of his big matches in the last 5 years or so is built on real physical punishment, something you can only do every now and then. To me this is the opposite of what a good worker should (be able to) do.

[Wade Garrett]

No way.

[fxnj]

People are really underselling Taker's resume. Sure, his gimmick often did limit him early on, but when matched with a capable worker such as Bret, Hogan, or Yokozuna, he showed quite a bit of the potential that he would get the chance to use later on. Besides that, given the emphasis that's been placed on separating great performances from great matches, I'm not sure why people give him such a hard for the period when he was able to achieve a memorable aura and get over doing things that seem ridiculous on paper. Ditto with things like inferno matches and the American Badass character. I think his ability to take that would kill plenty of other guys and turn them into these great spectacles is a big reason why Vince loves him so much.

 

Besides the streak and the obvious big matches against Brock and Batista, it should also be pointed out that he had possibly the best resume of hoss fights out there. The Festus match mentioned is worth watching, but it's far from an outlier when you consider things like the Kozlov matches, the house show stuff with Umaga, and an awesome 2006 Smackdown Mark Henry match I just watched. The guy's greatest strength to me is in how he can sell just enough to where something like a flash pin from Kozlov would seem credible while still being able project himself as superhuman.

[BigBadMick]

How does 2016-20 help or hurt him?

 

Only positives that come to mind for me are vs Reigns and vs Styles at WrestleMania, and a tag match in a July 2019 PPV...