Old Lives Matter

[Keith Houchen]

15 minutes ago, FelatioLips said:

No matter how good Undertaker is or was, the fact is his career became all about The Streak and despite it being the only thing keeping him relevant for over 10 years the second his boss asked him to lose he did it without asking because he's a bitch. 

Or because he’s a professional and not SO far up his own arse he thought it would hurt Texas if he lost. 
 

To be honest, I don’t care about Mark Calloway or his opinions, I don’t care how much Undertaker drew or affected business. I only give a shit about performance. And I really liked the Undertaker, loved it in places. 

I’m not saying it makes it ok but compared to other wrestlers and their shady shenanigans he isn’t one of the worst. But I respect that it affects people differently. I mean I hate Steve Austin and can’t separate Stone Cold from a domestic abuser but if someone else loves his matches and character then good luck to them. 
 

[danlewis]

2 hours ago, FlushFunk said:

I believe it’s universally accepted that nobody could have played or made the Undertaker work as MC did.

Not one reply so far has changed my opinion that this is just a bunch of pissed of gamers offended by the truth.

How the fuck can we know if anyone could’ve?

if your child gets you a ‘Best Dad in the World’ mug you have to accept that they have a limited frame of reference.

And I’m not into games, I just think he’s a silly old cunt who I’ve never enjoyed.

[Cannibal Man]

Imagine him as Doink instead, still would have worked, guarantee

[DavidB6937]

11 minutes ago, danlewis said:

if your child gets you a ‘Best Dad in the World’ mug you have to accept that they have a limited frame of reference.

Fuck off. I've got that mug. It's official. Literally says it on the mug. I'm not having anyone take that away from me.

[Jackpot]

1 hour ago, Liam O'Rourke said:

This is the argument I want someone to make - and not for me to shit on it, but hear it out. Looking objectively, he drew well with Warrior in 91, did well at Summerslam 98 (a good opponent for a real star in Austin), did a couple of massive ratings (also with Austin) in 99, then really wasn't a big difference maker until he had success in the match with Shane at Mania 32 (which was honestly more about Shane and the cell). He wasn't a consistent house show draw above the norm for all those years by any stretch. He also has many bad numbers to his name as well as good ones in the headline position. But when you break down averages, while he had successes for sure, its situational like anybody else, not some Andre-like consistency that deserves this mythical special attraction title. 

Taker was great at being a number 2 or 3 guy you can cycle in to a top program on occasion, and depending on circumstance, it might draw well, or it might not. 

Again, what period can you say that if Taker wasn't there, the WWF/E would be noticably different in terms of success?

Truthfully I couldn't give a toss about what people draw or what they're like as people. I watch wrestling to be entertained, the same way I do with all entertainment avenues. But when you talk about house show numbers and buy rates and all the other business side of things, are you comparing that to people at the time (Hogan then Austin then Rock) or is it in a whole scale comparison against everybody they've had as champion?

Because if his numbers don't stack up against the likes of Hogan/Austin/Rock - is that really a surprise given they're probably three of the biggest names they've ever had? And when compared to others, are his numbers aren't that much worse or better? For example, I've read and heard many times that Diesel didn't draw anything. How are Taker's numbers in comparison to him?

I don't know one way or the other. Like I said, I genuinely don't care about the finances of any wrestling company and probably never will. I'm just trying to look at the argument in a balanced way.

[Perry]

3 hours ago, The King Of Swing said:

Caught the episode where they were on a train with the actor from the Terminator series. 

Cringe. 

Well yeah it was meant to be cringe, that's the way geeks tend to approach celebs.  We've all heard the about stalking shit that some of the wrestling fans get up to when they find out which hotel the WWE roster stays at during their UK tours.  Could you imagine if some of those fuckers bumped into Alexa Bliss on a train? 

[gmoney]

They'd be trying to take pictures of sideboob and all sorts.

[Lenin]

14 hours ago, Mr Butternut Squash said:

If anything, it's really shitty how somebody that's looked up to and revered like The Undertaker has taken this opportunity to dump on the locker room. Instead of using his influence to question Vince and his shitty product he takes the easy way out and shits on the talent (and fans) like every other dumb fuck. I remember thinking it would be cool for Taker to have his own podcast, thinking about the wealth of knowledge and experience he'd share. How wrong that's proved to be. Dull bastard.

It gives us a possible insight/reason that explains why Vince is the way he is and why it's constant dross served up even after 13 on the day re-writes. 

It's was well documented recently that several "stars" were unceremoniously bumped back to NXT with (no regard for the continuity of their characters and angles) because Vince didn't think they had "it". 

Now your so-called locker-room leader is on the biggest podcast in the world and he takes a cheap shot at the current talent. He just so happens to say that they're too soft and don't have "it" because they haven't clawed their way into a spot. They've been scouted, signed, trained, looked after by nutritionists and doctors and taught by some of the wrestling world's best talent ever. 

The problem is either:

1) He is just another "Yes Man" and is, even now, sticking up for Good Ol' Vinnie Mac. In which case it makes no difference whether or not he's a locker-room leader because he's not approaching things from the appropriate starting point i.e. helping to develop band sell the WWE and it's talent roster. 

2) He does in fact believe that they're not good enough. In which case he's potentially cost the company millions of dollars/viewers by using the biggest/most streamed podcast ever to tell the world "Don't watch they're not very good, it was better ten years ago."

Which highlights again something I touched on earlier - he's so preoccupied with getting himself over and making sure we all think he's a legit bad ass that he's spouting out opinions that he doesn't consider the consequences. Viewers may stop watching. People who would maybe tune in off the back of his appearance on the podcast night not bother. Free agents and talent whose contracts are due to expire from other promotions might refrain from negotiating with/signing for WWE. Talent already with the WWE might take the hump and sign "for the competition" because the locker-room leader, and by extension Vince, think they're a bunch of big jessies. 

He should be setting an example and supporting the WWE and it's talent. Throwing the talent under the bus for not being like the good ol' days could have a detrimental impact on mental health. It's such a lazy and counterproductive way of trying to get himself over. Utterly pointless. I thought that 'The Last Ride' documentary (he event went out of his way to say that he had the idea first and MJ and the Chicago Bulls had no influence over his own creative direction or title) a bit self-indulgent and contrived. The podcast was worse. 

[BomberPat]

Something else on the "No Stars" point is the question of whether WWE even want "stars". 

Wrestling always used to be a star-driven business, but Vince has said for years that WWE should be the draw. By not having a figurehead "star", you avoid the risk of Hulk Hogan leaving and going to the competition, The Rock going to Hollywood, or Brock Lesnar jumping to UFC. 

It's similar to what's happened in Hollywood over the last decade - brands are bigger than "stars". People are more invested in a new Marvel or Star Wars movie more than in a new Chris Hemsworth or John Boyega movie - the brand is the draw. Where "stars" are relevant to that set-up, it's only those who lend credibility and continuity to the brand - Robert Downey Jr. in Marvel, or Mark Hammill and Harrison Ford in Star Wars, and so on. In WWE terms, someone like The Undertaker is Harrison Ford to the Force Awakens cast of the current roster.

On the other hand, some people might that's all bollocks and that "WWE is the draw" is the excuse for not having stars, not the reason. But then again you get into @Suplex Sinner's points about what The Undertaker achieves by calling them out on that in the way he has.

 

It's not really surprising to see old right wingers like The Undertaker blaming the roster rather than management for not creating stars. Because if your world-view is that you've worked for everything you ever had without a helping hand from anyone else, you're going to look at the next generation and ask why they can't do the same, not ask why they're not getting all the special treatment that made you a star in the first place.

[Perry]

8 hours ago, gmoney said:

They'd be trying to take pictures of sideboob and all sorts.

Could you imagine if it was that indian bird from Emmerdale? 

[LaGoosh]

The problem with the whole "the WWE brand is the draw" philosophy is that when the brand is tarnished, irrelevant and shite (as it currently is) where do you go from there? At least when you have proper stars people are attracted to the product to see them regardless of what else is happening on the shows.

[cobra_gordo]

After Hogan initially drew me in, Taker was the first wrestler that I ever said was my favourite. It's undeniable that there was something special there but it was the act as a whole that got me. The giant ginger lad in his grey boots and gloves wouldn't have been half as magical to me without the music, the entrance and Paul Bearer. 7 year old me was captivated though, Summerslam 92 was worn out from me rewatching his match with Kamala, the slow stalking with a few flashes of flamboyance.

When I got back in to wresting as a teenager after a few years off it was Taker that I wanted to see. I loved Biker Taker. Again, it was as much about the music and riding down to the ring on a fucking motorbike as smashing people with chokeslams and the last ride. And that's where I think his appeal to me starts and ends, a couple of minutes of highlights a match to put a smile on my face. But do I want 20 minutes of it? Not so much. I've watched a lot of his matches back and, other than the three matches with Michaels, I do tend to find myself zoning out. He's nowhere near the top in terms of wrestling ability but he knew how to work the character as far as those highlights are concerned.

I don't think I've ever viewed him as The Top Guy though, even as a wide-eyed kid or as an angry teen. He was the guy I'd pop like mad for when the gong rang, when it was time to kick the shit out of Scotty 2 Hotty or I wanted to listen to 30 seconds of Limp Bizkit. Even back then then I always knew that he was playing third or fourth fiddle to the likes of Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Rock, Triple H and Stone Cold. He was the equivalent of being at my nans and her getting the cheese and crackers out of an afternoon, always a welcome sight but it wasn't going to top the chippy tea that came later in the day.

I've soured on him a lot in recent years, I have with a lot of my old favourites. The more these rose-tinted glasses-wearing tough guys of old talk and the more you look beneath the surface you end up finding they're all mad old racist, delusional, bag shitting, dog murdering, wife beating, bullying, child murderers. Taker is no exception, it's just that him maintaining the mystique for so long has meant it's taken us more time than others to find out what a nutter he is.

 

[The Gaffer]

To be fair to the old bastard, I'm sure he done plenty of house show business during the mid 90s swamp and has sold plenty of Network subs. The kind of people who are hooked on the Network are hooked on it for characters like him, which is backed up by how many compilations of the guy they constantly ape. It'd be like selling Disney+ without maybe the older Star Wars on it. Or selling the game pass without, I dunno, if Austin is Halo then surely 'Taker is Forza Motorsport or something. 

It's always going to be harder to quantify his worth to business because he wasn't one of the guy that popped metrics, he was one of the guys who held that baseline underneath it all. We don't really know what WWE's gates would have been like long term without him back then. He was part of the identity of what going to see WWE would have been, when you got a ticket months in advance not knowing who'd be appearing. 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Gay as FOOK

[LaGoosh]

7 hours ago, Gay as FOOK said:

It'd be like selling Disney+ without maybe the older Star Wars

That's a good comparison actually. If WWE is Star Wars - Stone Cold, The Rock and John Cena are Luke, Han and Leia. The Undertaker is probably Chewbacca. 

[tiger_rick]

On 24/01/2021 at 2:36 PM, Liam O'Rourke said:

The biggest thing to say about Taker being an all-time great goes back to a question I'd love somebody to answer in a way that pushes the Taker side of things, not to challenge it, but because I legit want to see the case for it - does the trajectory of the WWF at any point change if Undertaker isn't there? And if not, how many tippy-top all-time greats can you say that for?

Been thinking about this. Firstly, from the POV of what I'd miss. The Hell In A Cell concept and that first match are things wrestling would be poorer without. Also his great comeback in 2000 with that monster pop. The summer of 1998? I'm struggling beyond that with much more that I'd really miss. And I say that as someone who has been a fan for most of the last 30 years.

From a business viewpoint, its a really hard one to judge precisely because he's never been the most important person in the company at any point but has always been crucial support. I've always thought he was most important during the dark days of the mid 90s when anyone who was a name was valuable and he was a name who'd always been protected and was still young. However, the fact that he buggered off for most of 1994 and it didn't harm them hurts that argument. In fact, none of his absences ever did them any harm. He was a full part of both post-boom periods. Not his fault but further evidence that he didn't matter individually to their health.

Honestly, if he doesn't appear in 1990, I don't think it makes a jot of difference. Maybe someone like Sid becomes more important a year later? Someone else would always fill that spot.