Thread Tools

xdoomsayerx · 10-10-2012, 09:41 PM

Would it have lasted? He was getting stale in 97 before kane came. Im sure it would probably be around but would he be as big as he is today? I truly think kane made taker bigger and helped his career a lot.

JAROTO · 10-10-2012, 09:44 PM

I think he helped, but not that much as you are saying.

**JOAL.com** · 10-10-2012, 09:44 PM

More or less the same place id imagine

Kane's entire existence is defined by Undertaker. Its the entire reason Kane lasted so long despite being just a monster like gonzales or sid or bundy. on the other hand, Kane is merely an undertaker side character

That being said, the kane vs Taker feud and later brothers of destruction runs were huge at the time. Major part of the attitude era.

But Undertaker was an established main eventer, major draw and guaranteed to have been a major part of future as a star and legend, with or without Kane. However would he have been as big of a star? I dont know, as im not fucking psychic

xdoomsayerx · 10-10-2012, 09:47 PM

im not saying kane,is better I think taker would still be a hof, he's the greatest big man of all time, but I think taker would have been ALOT more stale if not for kane.

rockymark94 · 10-10-2012, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redead

More or less the same place id imagine

Kane's entire existence is defined by Undertaker. Its the entire reason Kane lasted so long despite being just a monster like gonzales or sid or bundy. on the other hand, Kane is merely an undertaker side character

That being said, the kane vs Taker feud and later brothers of destruction runs were huge at the time. Major part of the attitude era.

But Undertaker was an established main eventer, major draw and guaranteed to have been a major part of future as a star and legend, with or without Kane. However would he have been as big of a star? I dont know, as im not fucking psychic

Lies

**JOAL.com** · 10-10-2012, 09:51 PM

Perhaps

Like I said, the Kane feud was one of the biggest ever and a personal favourite despite how batshit ridiculous it was. But its epic nature could not be denied. Even later the brothers of destruction were a major draw and force in wrestling. Kane definitely added to the appeal of Undertaker overall. Personally I became a fan of wrestling BECAUSE of the brothers of destruction. And I became a bigger fan when kane buried Taker in 2003. I believe those two are absolutely connected

All we can say for sure, is that Kane could not have worked as well if not for being Taker's brother. Now, would Taker be as popular without Kane? I dont know. But im going to assume, no. Kane definitely adds to the mystique and depth of Undertaker. Otherwise Undertaker might have been in danger of wearing thin after all these years.

Its actually more of a testament to how well Undertaker endured. He began as nothing more than a monster, but somehow became one of the most endearing and immortal characters in wrestling history

Mike Zybyszko · 10-10-2012, 09:53 PM

The real question is where would Kane be without the Undertaker.

**King Bebe** · 10-10-2012, 10:10 PM

Kane is Robin to The Undertaker's Batman. He is merely a supporting act to Undertaker, but WWE trusted Glen Jacobs enough to make him Undertaker's on-screen brother, so you can tell that he was special.

As for where Taker would be, the exact same place.

Camp Cornette · 10-10-2012, 10:48 PM

The exact same place.

American Badass still would have occurred.
Ministry of Darkness still would have happened.

While Kane has made some parts of the Undertaker a lot more intriguing and fun (Like the BoD) he didn't excel Undertaker at all, he was already a huge star. If anything, Kane probably prevented Taker from getting a title reign throughout late 97 & 98.

BadManDudley · 10-10-2012, 11:21 PM

WWE gave Jacobs number of chances they knew he just needed to right character Undertaker been helped by Kane Kane was made through undertaker and it's a easy feud or teamup