Potential spoiler - don't come in here if you haven't seen Wrestlemania

[JamieStevenson]

If people could stop making Undertaker tribute videos with "See You Again" playing over it that would be most appreciated.

[TheGoon]

18 minutes ago, JamieStevenson said:

If people could stop making Undertaker tribute videos with "See You Again" playing over it that would be most appreciated.

Least it ain't My Sacrifice.

[Dindeleux]

Don't think his body of work is that much better than the likes of Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Ricky Steamboat, Ric Flair, Barry Windham, Mick Foley, Kenta Kobashi, Mitsuharu Misawa, Jushin Liger, Dean Malenko, Rey Mysterio Jr. And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I were to actually look, I could find shitloads more guys who I'd see as having a better load of matches.
It's all down to opinion of course, so quite why there's a need for the "pipe down" comment, I have no idea.

Better matches possibly, but better careers?

Rey above the Undertaker? Not for me but it's all about opinions as you've rightly said.

[Dindeleux]

Was having stellar matches in AJPW and WCW for about 15 years solid, and had a great start to his WWE run before getting punted to Heat. I don't see what's wrong with that suggestion. His only problem was that he had f**k all charisma.

I just noticed this post after my previous reply. Wrestling is about drawing money, I would guess that Malenko didn't draw that much and certainly not at Taker levels.

This is probably similar to the Darren Fletcher argument that rears its head on here every now and again. A consistent player who deserves all the plaudits (Malenko) but without the stars like Ronaldo, Giggs etc around him pretty worthless. Ronaldo and Giggs are the Undertakers and Hogans who put the team on the map.

[Ludo*1]

Comparing Dean Malenko and Rey Mysterio to Undertaker is just laughable to be honest.

[Ira Gaines]

Depends what you're basing it on. I couldn't care less who draws what. I do care about who entertains me when they get in the ring.

[Dindeleux]

Depends what you're basing it on. I couldn't care less who draws what. I do care about who entertains me when they get in the ring.

^^^has Brie Bella in his all time top 10.

[Poet of the Macabre]

On 04/04/2017 at 09:24, Randy Giles said:

I wouldn't have him in my top 10 and probably not even my top 20. For years he was shite. And then he got slightly better with the biker thing, but improved year on year after that. By the time the late 2000s rolled in, he became a properly great wrestler. But you've got all sorts of guys all over the world who were better for longer who deserve the praise more. And yet people seem to forget how pish he was early on.

What an utterly terrible post.

[JamieStevenson]

^^^has Brie Bella in his all time top 10.

Bigger draw than Malenko surely.

[DA Baracus]

Wrestling isn’t just about the moves you do in the ring, or how many moves a guy knows and does and how well he does them.

 

Obviously you need to be competent in the ring, but you need to connect with the crowd or else all the technical moves mean nothing. You could be the best technical wrestler ever but if the crowd don’t care, then it means nothing.

 

To connect with a crowd you need to have a good character and be involved in good storylines and carry your part in them well, which means being good on the mic. You also need to adapt with the times, and reinvent yourself.

 

To me, Undertaker was sound in the ring, had a great character that was over with the crowd, was involved in good storylines that got his character over, as well as moved with the times. His original incarnation was perfect for the time, which was when big guys squashed smaller guys. He then needed to change it, to become more mobile and animated as the 90s wore on, which he did, allowing him to keep up with guys like Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart and Stone Cold. His original character wouldn’t have worked. He then showed he was good on the mic, as part of the change in the industry was driven by the personalities wrestlers got over via their promos.

 

He then gave us the American Badass, and whilst some of it was pretty silly, it was over pretty huge in America, and was pretty ideal for the period it lasted.

 

Reverting back to the Deadman was a good move, but he then updated the moveset and how he wrestled in general, during a time when more focus was shone upon the in ring stuff.

 

Add to this that he seemed to work well with almost everyone, and wasn’t afraid to put people over, meant he is definitely one of the best ever. His longevity is pretty astonishing as well.

 

To use the example of Dean Malenko, he was a very good wrestler between the ropes, but not enough people cared about that because he couldn’t match it with the mic and character skills.

 

 

Of course everyone has their favourites and different people will like different things and therefore different wrestlers. Some folk might not care about promos and only focus on the technical prowess of a wrestler, and some folk might be the opposite. For me it’s a mix of everything.

[Cardinal Richelieu]

Enjoy everyone! (except Randy)

edit: Giles, not Orton.

[John Lambies Doos]

The Undertaker is the best wrestling entertainer to ever be in the ring. The master... numero uno