At 8/4/09 10:42 PM, Assi9 wrote:
Him & Trips teamed up?
Case in point.
And yes, they did. This was after Wrestlemania...I want to say 17? Right? When they had Austin turn heel and join Vince. They then had him team with Triple H but the teaming was cut short by H tearing his quadricep the first time in a match they had with Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit.
By the way (slightly anebriated, may be why I ask) what the FUCK is up with Benoit apologists out there? Look, I get that the Benoit tragedy was crazy shit and it shocked us all and made us act in ways we never might have otherwise. Made some of us question our following of the business and all but...dude killed his family, this is fact. So why are there these people out there that seem to think what he did in the ring and shit absolves him of what he did? Seriously, why? Dude killed his wife and his 7 year old child. I wish it didn't happen, I was a fan of the man myself, but it did. He did it, it happened. So why the hell do people think we should be mentioning or venerating a murderer? Seriously. Can't we find somebody else to latch onto as what's good and correct about the business? How about Taker. Ok, I'll admit, I'm biased. I started watching wrestling when I was about 10, and unless I'm way off base on the development of most of us at that age, 10 is about when we all kind of thought that weird supernatural crap was the coolest shit ever. So yeah, you ask me and go "avie, who is the one wrestler who's entire body of work you're pretty much a mark for and you'd spend money on even their worst period as reported by 'smarks', who is that man?" Taker kids. Totally Taker. Man is my favorite of all time and a big reason why I'm a fan now. So yeah, that's my bias out the way. But seriously, why can't it be a guy like Taker? Best worker ever? No. But I think we can make a damn good case he's the best big man worker ever (I think Bigelow is a contender, but I disqualify him as going any higher then maybe second personally because I think one thing smarks tend to neglect when they look at "best ever" is the drawing power. Like it or lump it, you do not have to be a great worker to draw). Not to mention here's a guy who has actively MADE other people. Taker made Kane. Paul Bearer said in a recent interview if he and Taker hadn't pushed to get Glen Jacobs (that is Kane's real name) included into the act, he wouldn't have been. So simply put, Taker took a guy who had these shit gimmicks beforehand (like an evil dentist, the FUCK was Vince smoking there?) and made him a star who now has had well past a decade of bank and popularity. I think that should probably be the measure of a performer, the number of guys who he went out of his way to say "Look, I believe this guy can be something, let me have a chance to try and make him something" and then go out and prove it.
You know what? I'm calling it now. Let's go there, Taker as greatest performer of his generation. I'm asking you to agree or disagree based on the following criteria, so please agree or refute based on the following (so please include all in any rebuttal or agreeing):
Work: How well each Undertaker match has been. This does encompass each and every era of the character from his debut in 1990 to his (current) last match at Mania 25.
Promo: Well we all know what a promo is right? But here I guess you'd perhaps have to judge from when he went solo in 96 till now, did the man accomplish what he needed to when he had a mic in his hand? Did he sway you to pay for a match he'd be involved in? I think DVD should count too, but I'm willing to hear debate on that (since I understand some people might feel 'look avie, if I wasn't willing to pay full price, then the guy failed to really work as a promo', I can dig it, but I disagree. Anytime you spent money saying "I need to see this match based on how Taker presented it to me" should count).
Overall performance: This is promo, this is match quality, and this is character. So the total package. Did the fact that you would get The Undertaker in action make you say "I need this PPV/tape/ticket to a show" tip the scales for you?
Undertaker for greatest performer of his time (1990-2009) I'm putting it out there, and I'm willing to stand behind it when I sober up. Other guys drew more money, but Taker has been a constant as either a draw on his own, or as a foil for somebody who was drawing more money. Taker I think at times doesn't get the appreciation he should because he's just so goddamn good we take him for granted and we won't really and truly understand how much he gave us until he's gone.
Also, if you've never experienced that entrance live EVER, then the next time ANYTHING related to SD! ECW comes to your town and he's on that card, YOU MUST GO!!!! Seriously. There are exactly TWO performers I've ever seen who's entrance was so good it'd be BETTER then anything they'd do in a match could ever be (The other is The Sandman)...yeah, you owe it to yourself to be there for it. Undertaker is undisputably the greatest creation of Vince Mcmahon. Greatest performer of his time? (again, 1990-now) you tell me. Very interested in the answer.
Remember, if they came to prominence PRIOR to 1990, they don't count for this conversation. So it's total package, 1990-present. You got prominent before 1990? You don't count. You got prominent AFTER? You're in the conversation.
Really looking forward to hearing the answer since (no ass kissing or bullshitting involved) I think this is one of, if not the smartest group of fans I've ever run across anywhere.