Wrestling Forum banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Would he still be considered as great as he is now, have the same mythical status and be the bedrock of modern wrestling that he has become over the last 14/15 years?

I personally don't think so, he would always have been a legend but in the 90s, he was never THE GUY or anywhere near THE GUYS, the early 90s still had Hogan, Savage, then there was Bret and HBK, Flair intermittently, Yokozuna and so on. By the late 90s, Taker was completely overshadowed by Rock/Austin and later HHH. His WM streak was still a big deal but not the show stealer it became in recent years and his matches weren't yet classics.

However, as Rock/Austin faded and left, as HHHs workload increased and there were new stars to build, Taker took on a whole new form, he came one of THE GUYS and by working with guys like Angle, Lesnar, Orton, HBK, put on some of the best PPV matches of the modern era. I think it's this, his post peak but some how better years in the new millennium that have turned him into a true icon.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,451 Posts
He would forver be the Lord of Darkness.

I liked Undertaker more in the late 90s than his 2000 persona.

I could never buy back into the Undertaker after he did that American Badass and Big Evil gimmick. The return of the deadman just wasn't the same.



But that's just me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,706 Posts
People would still remember him because of how freaky he is/was and his gimmick was completely different at the time but he would be nowhere near the icon that he is today.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Taker needed the Streak blowing up like it did to really put him over as a great. At the end of the 90's he was only active in WWE for 8 or 9 years. He def went to the next level with his 2000s performances.
Pretty much this.

I dunno you could almost say he got better with age.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,291 Posts
His matches with HBK at Hell In the Cell 1997 and the matches with Mankind were legendary too.

Taker as a performer was always super over, go back and look at the pops his entrances got even back in the horrible 1993--1996 period, the only problem was he was given crappy opponent after crappy opponent from 1992 to 1996.

I mean Giant Gonzalez, Kamala, Yokozuna, King Kong Bundy, Kama (Godfather) etc etc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
If he retired in late 99 after the Ministry gimmick he would still be considered a legend. He was hyped as a legend and phenom of the industry as early as 1997. His gimmick was unique and over, he would've been 3 time WWF Champion, went over Hogan, lost only handfull of matches, mainevented Mania, had a 5star match with Shawn, had one of the best fueds of all time with Kane.

Undertaker was a legend before the year 2000. What he did after 2000. (winning titles, Rumble, maineventing Mania, the streak) was just further cementing his legacy as one of the greatest of all time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,106 Posts
Taker and HBK both followed very similar career paths.

Both in the 90s were great amd paved a great career.

But both took it to yet another level in the 2000s that truly cemented them among the best ever
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
It's a crazy thought to think that when most wrestlers stay on as long as he has, they'd just be tarnishing their legacy. With Undertaker, it's definitely helped it.
 

·
The Fresh Prince Is Back On His Throne!
Joined
·
11,553 Posts
He had legendary matches during the 90's and had such a unique character. Yes he would be remembered but maybe not with as much fondness as he is now.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
He had legendary matches during the 90's and had such a unique character. Yes he would be remembered but maybe not with as much fondness as he is now.
He had a handful of good matches and maybe a couple of great ones, but he spent too long fighting the various giants in the business in slow, plodding, boring affairs.

In the 00s, he got a chance to work with the more athletic talent in teh WWE and that allowed him to be elevated to a whole new level.

I'm glad most people seem to agree with that.
 

·
Men with Ven
Joined
·
4,280 Posts
Still a legend, what he did pre 2000 was still something remarkably different to what anyone had ever seen. But not the GOD like status that he has now. What really grew the legend IMO, as well as longevity was his commitment to kayfabe as it began to die in the "reality era".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,649 Posts
He would forver be the Lord of Darkness.

I liked Undertaker more in the late 90s than his 2000 persona.

I could never buy back into the Undertaker after he did that American Badass and Big Evil gimmick. The return of the deadman just wasn't the same.



But that's just me.
I agree. Biker taker should have been the end of the Undertaker. He should have retired a few months into that second gimmick. He has been around so long now that his star has tarnished quite badly. He could weather it better than most who hang on too long, because 90% of his appeal is his gimmick and entrance. He never had to be a good wrestler in the ring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,320 Posts
He would have still been a legend even if he did retire in 2000. People remember his legacy with the streak, but he's more than just 22 matches in his career. He took a gimmick that would have failed in today's WWE, and turned it into a success.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,245 Posts
He would still be considered a legend but not nearly as big as he is today. Personally the End Of An Era match should have been the last one IMO. I mean WTF was the point in calling it the End Of An Era if both Taker and Triple H still wrestle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,879 Posts
Kane might've been a bigger star instead of how he's perceived now.
 

·
Feed Your Head
Joined
·
415 Posts
If Taker had retired at the end of the 90s, he would be undefeated at WM and Lesnar would not be the 1 in 21-1.
IMO, he would still be a legend....
.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top