Wrestling unpopular opinions

[IronSheik]

I think Undertaker could really go in the ring.

 

I remember during his American Bad Ass run in the late 90s early 00s he was carrying a bit of timbre and the smart fan message boards were a wash with people saying he was a terrible overpushed wrestler and should retire. But he went on to have some of the most fantastic matches with HBK and Triple H etc and creating some incredible moments match wise.

[King Mal the Glorious]

I don't think there are many people that would say he couldn't go. For a lot of his career he was saddled with either poor opponents or a restrictive gimmick, it was only really in the later years he could show what he could do.

[Donald J Trump]

The Undertaker will tell you that his run as the American Bad Ass allowed him to work differently than he had been able to up to that point. You could see why going from being ostensibly dead to a brawling, arse kicking biker would bring about a change of style, but he'd already lost some of the zombie like rigidity by that point. 

I think the Undertaker as a character is more of a risky proposition creatively than some people allow. Obviously his positioning helped but I don't think immediately catapulting a big guy to the top of the promotion and presenting him as impervious to most attacks is necessarily a guaranteed home run. Audiences were more easily manipulated back then, but you can't brainwash people, they'll either like it or they don't. When you look at how much effort the guy put into "protecting his gimmick" over the years, it speaks to a guy who's a little bit more than just lucky, and I've never had any reason to doubt his professionalism. There's also an element of that intangible, indescribable magic that brought the act to life and gave it legs over the years. Juxtapose how seriously the guy approached his work, then look at Paul Bearers face during some of the promos. This was some out-there hokey shit at times and I don't think you can easily manufacture something like that. I even find meaning in how it ended, in that father time caught up with the Undertaker before audiences got fed up with him. Sure, there were voices to the contrary, but for me it was more a case of "I wonder if Undertakers got one more Wrestlemania in him" than "give it up, Mark". 

When he first took that call from Vince he was in a better position than most are at that stage of their career, but there were no guarantees. 

[LaGoosh]

10 hours ago, Donald J Trump said:

I think the Undertaker as a character is more of a risky proposition creatively than some people allow. Obviously his positioning helped but I don't think immediately catapulting a big guy to the top of the promotion

I'm not so sure. Back in that time period it was pretty standard practice to throw a monster heel to the top of the card to sink or swim against the top babyfaces. As for the character itself, they were throwing any old mad shit at the walls back then - I don't think an undead zombie stood out particularly as a creative risk.

[air_raid]

1 hour ago, LaGoosh said:

I'm not so sure. Back in that time period it was pretty standard practice to throw a monster heel to the top of the card to sink or swim against the top babyfaces.

This is literally what happened. Following on from Boss Man and Earthquake, the acquisition of Mean Mark was "here's another big guy we can build up to lose to Hogan."

[Donald J Trump]

3 hours ago, LaGoosh said:

I'm not so sure. Back in that time period it was pretty standard practice to throw a monster heel to the top of the card to sink or swim against the top babyfaces. As for the character itself, they were throwing any old mad shit at the walls back then - I don't think an undead zombie stood out particularly as a creative risk.

I agree with much of that but I didn't suggest it wasn't common, or indeed that it doesn't work. As air_raid said that is what happened with Undertaker and it's happened many times before and since. My interest lies in the long stretch between being brought in as convincing foil for Hogan and going on to have the career that he's had. If you're looking at it as being just one in a long line of monsters appearing there's little remarkable about it, or the character. When you look at the entire career of the individual, spanning from the "size of that ham hough" through to being the icing on a very satisfactory cake at Wrestlemania 40, that's where I think it's a bit more than business as usual. 

[Roy]

I don't know if this opinion will be unpopular, but:

I think AEW should use a smaller ring that is closer to the size of the one used by WCW.

I think it would differentiate them from WWE in terms of visual presentation, whilst enhancing the physical stature of their performers. There would be the drawback of having to adjust to a smaller ring but most performers would start in a smaller ring anyway.

[air_raid]

2 hours ago, Donald J Trump said:

 "size of that ham hough" 

Ham hock. We'd call it pork knuckle.

[Donald J Trump]

45 minutes ago, air_raid said:

Ham hock. We'd call it pork knuckle.

Now we're talking. Ive always been under the impression that Ham Hock and Ham Hough were the same thing, but I'm definitely not going to die on that hill. I think it's always said "Hough" at the butchers. It's either a Scottish thing, or I've been buying something else entirely. This isn't my picture, but I did have some Potted Hough yesterday. 

[wandshogun09]

19 hours ago, IronSheik said:

I think Undertaker could really go in the ring.

I remember during his American Bad Ass run in the late 90s early 00s he was carrying a bit of timbre and the smart fan message boards were a wash with people saying he was a terrible overpushed wrestler and should retire. But he went on to have some of the most fantastic matches with HBK and Triple H etc and creating some incredible moments match wise.

To be fair though, he was absolutely rotten for a good chunk of that American Bad Ass run. I think a lot of the criticism he got and calls for him to retire were valid at that time. You’d be hard pressed to find a worse 3 PPV run of consecutive shite matches from a top name as Taker’s Backlash (vs Austin), Judgement Day (vs Hogan) and King Of The Ring (vs Triple H) in 2002. Just awful stuff. He did have some good matches even in that period but on the whole I thought he was pretty shit for a good bit of 2002 to about 2006ish. Fans back then weren’t to know he was gonna have those WrestleMania classics with Shawn and Hunter so it’s easy to look back with the benefit of hindsight and say the criticisms were unfounded or unfair. At the time though, I found myself often wishing he’d just piss off. Honestly, the Deadman suddenly becoming this wannabe Hell’s Angel all felt a bit midlife crisis as well.

Also, this…

This is unforgivable. 

[TheScarlettChad]

What made Undertaker decide to go full IWC workrate? Was it switching to the tights? Were the leather pants hard to wrestle in?

[Merzbow]

Taker was only ever as good as his opponent and even then he could drag a great right down, never raised the level of a bad worker. The complete opposite of "could work with a broom".

[Donald J Trump]

I feel like the Snakeskin trousers should have been on this figure - 

[wandshogun09]

“Booger Red”. 

[Pinc]

15 hours ago, TheScarlettChad said:

What made Undertaker decide to go full IWC workrate? Was it switching to the tights? Were the leather pants hard to wrestle in?

Its funny that all the ostensibly anti-workrate guys seem to be full on workrate pervs underneath it all.

Its only really Rock and Austin who never had a Cena does a canadian destroyer moment. And probably just because they left before they had the chance. That Guerrero feud Austin was lobbying for when he shit the bed might have been his.