[BORT]

would he still be considered the legend he is today? I dont think anyone thought the Undertaker would have gone on another 10 years. Its pretty impressive considering all the top notch matches he had after 2000. And then to top it all of almost 20 years into his career He has some of the 2 greatest matches we've seen in a long time with Shawn Michaels.

I guess this thread is also meant to be an appreciation thread. It would also be cool to hear what you guys feel his better decade was.

thoughts?

 

[That Guy]

He probably would still get the HoF induction sometime down the road and would be recognized just not as much, he still had a great decade in the 90's but the fact that he is still around in the 10's shows everyone what a phenom he realyl is.

 

[Repaint]

I think half of Taker's career is still awesome compared to many others. I think it's only due to his continued service, they're keeping Survivor Series for at least one more year. I'd be happy if there was no main event and just closed the show to celebrate 20 years of him being in the WWE. How often do you see things like this?

 

[Rawlin]

he would definitely still be a legend, yes. he had enough from 1990-2000 to have that caliber. however, not to the level he's at now. it's almost impossible to dispute now that he is one of the best they've ever had.

plus, he wouldn't have had such a tremendous wrestlemania streak. but still, he would have been on some legendary status.

 

[Vic Capri]

It's a good thing he didn't. We wouldn't have gotten his heel run in 2002, his ladder match against Jeff Hardy, his triple threat title defense against Rock and Angle, his feud with Angle, his WM classics against Batista Edge or Michaels.

- Vic

 

[GodsgomchUniversal]

He was already a legend in 1996. Everything since has only added to it, and summed up into an unparalleled legacy. Speaking of his retirement, anytime soon won't be a bad idea.