Guest El Psycho Diablo Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Well..I'll say this. 'Taker is no Rock. He's not on the level of guys like Austin, Rock, or even Angle..no matter what he or the WWE says.
Guest BionicRedneck Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 ts not like he Clutching the World Championship and begging and pleading not to lose it. In 11 years he only had 4 world championship runs, as oppose to Rock's what 6 or 7 since his appearance in late 96? The difference is Rocky is one of the legitimate biggest stars in wrestling history, and a big draw. Taker isn't. I would say Taker is selfish, he rarely makes his opponents look good, and I can't think of anyone he has really put over.
Guest HossSauce Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Don't get sucked into their line of thinking, Trivia. Just like they want everybody to wrestle like the Vanilla Midgets, they also want everybody to have the same threshold of pain as the Vanilla Midgets...which is pretty much zero. In Vanilla Midget Land, it's all suplexes and submissions and dives, and everybody taps out nice and quick. They can't handle the idea that there are certain athletes out there who are bigger, badder, and tougher than their Vanilla Midgets. I thought Taker made Chris Benoit look pretty decent, considering that Benoit is a 5'10", 225-pound midget that Taker would dismantle in about 10 seconds if the match were "realistic".
Guest BionicRedneck Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Don't get sucked into their line of thinking, Trivia. Just like they want everybody to wrestle like the Vanilla Midgets, they also want everybody to have the same threshold of pain as the Vanilla Midgets...which is pretty much zero. In Vanilla Midget Land, it's all suplexes and submissions and dives, and everybody taps out nice and quick. They can't handle the idea that there are certain athletes out there who are bigger, badder, and tougher than their Vanilla Midgets. OK... Dude, wrestling isn't real
Guest HossSauce Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 I was talking in kayfabe terms. Because, you know, Benoit isn't REALLY applying the Crippler Crossface to Taker...
Guest Trivia247 Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 heh and Rocky is technically no better....Unless you MARK out for those Over head Armpit suplexes or the Lazy Samoan Backdrop. But its pointless to argue
Guest El Psycho Diablo Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Allright, Hoss Sauce. Here's the simple little thing. Submissions hurt. Legitimately. There's no way in hell a guy would last three minutes in a painful submission. Now, you and I both know the WWE versions are pulled..but still. Hell, even Kane tapped out to the anklelock, and SOLD it. The very next week, Taker sat in it for twice as long as Kane did, then no-sold it (and I believe, won the match with an Ankle Lock of his own. I don't remember). Size dosen't really matter. Why do you think somebody like Kurt Angle would be able to legitimately beat the Big Show?
Guest Brian Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Don't get sucked into their line of thinking, Trivia. Just like they want everybody to wrestle like the Vanilla Midgets, they also want everybody to have the same threshold of pain as the Vanilla Midgets...which is pretty much zero. In Vanilla Midget Land, it's all suplexes and submissions and dives, and everybody taps out nice and quick. They can't handle the idea that there are certain athletes out there who are bigger, badder, and tougher than their Vanilla Midgets. I thought Taker made Chris Benoit look pretty decent, considering that Benoit is a 5'10", 225-pound midget that Taker would dismantle in about 10 seconds if the match were "realistic". Taker is tougher than Benoit? He couldn't take two minutes of regal stiffing him in the ring.
Guest Trivia247 Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 The Fact Remains.... HAKU CAN LEGITLY KICK ALL THEIR ASSES HAKU MANIA RUNNING WILD!!!!! Ha Didn't see that one coming did ya!
Guest El Psycho Diablo Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 The difference? Rock sold millions of dollars in merchandise, and is popular enough to go to Hollywood with just his name. He's sold out arenas all over the world. Sure, he isn't the best wrestler. But he's still on a level Taker can't reach.
Guest HossSauce Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Whenever I watch RAW or Smackdown! with a group of marks, the first thing that they want to know is how the little Vanilla Midget (Benoit) is going to beat up a 6'10" bad-ass biker (Taker). That's the kind of shit that makes them say "wrestling is stupid". They don't care how many suplex variations Benoit has or how INTENSE~! his stomps and chops are. If Taker tapped out to Benoit's Crossface like most people, they would never buy it. When Benoit is fighting an uphill battle, sometimes they buy it. If Benoit were to dominate Taker or make him tap...no f'n way. They'd never buy it.
Guest HossSauce Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Taker is tougher than Benoit? He couldn't take two minutes of regal stiffing him in the ring. I said The Undertaker is tougher than Chris Benoit...not Mark Calloway. And from what I hear, yeah, Mark is pretty tough legit.
Guest CanadianChick Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Well, in real life, Angle could do that to Taker, so why not Benoit?
Guest Trivia247 Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 the other difference is that the Rock is Back out in the Movies... and Undertaker is still doing what he's been doing for nearly 20 years...Wrestling.
Guest Brian Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 And show them Benoit against Regal, Eddie, or Finlay (or in Japan) and they'd totally change their mind. It's all a matter of perception and the WWE doesn't want the marks to perceive little guys as actual threats or else they'd have little to push the untalented big men on.
Guest Brian Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 the other difference is that the Rock is Back out in the Movies... and Undertaker is still doing what he's been doing for nearly 20 years...Wrestling. Not drawing? Wrestling bad?
Guest BionicRedneck Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 I wouldn't mind pushing Taker if he was a draw, but he isn't (I'm not saying Benoit is). His time has past and he needs to start putting over younger guys for the good of the companies future.
Guest HossSauce Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Benoit is not an Olympic gold medalist. And unless they know that Kurt is a legit bad-ass, they don't buy him as a threat either. I have to let these people know Kurt's background. And even then, they're like, "Well...he's still kinda small..."
Guest Trivia247 Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 SO If People Come to See the Undertaker No matter what Number You Don't care Because To you he doesn't draw even though he's drawing them... SO I guess those people cheering in the Audience was Planted or Maybe its Canned Cheering No One cheers when he comes down...or leaves..or does a Finisher... Its just Dead QUIET Right? because that would be the defintion of Not drawing....Right?
Guest HossSauce Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Speaking as somebody who actually attends a ton of live events as opposed to sitting on my couch and bitching about the product, I can tell you that I see A TON of Taker fans at every live event that I go to.
Guest El Psycho Diablo Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Trivia..use your brain. Hogan got MASSIVE pops. Remember that? Yeeeeah.. When they put the belt on him, the ratings tanked. Why? He's an attraction. Not a draw. People like to SEE him, but they don't want him as the focus of the damn company. Same with Taker.
Guest Trivia247 Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Oh and I forgot you have the EXACT figures of Merchandise Sales to Prove anything that is Hocked representing the Undertaker doesn't sell...you have the figures in front of you...with the WWE logo...Right?
Guest El Psycho Diablo Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 I don't have the exact figures. But remember those little things called..oh.."buyrates" and "ratings"? Those would show. Maybe I've tried to make a mistake here, using Logic in a WWE folder. Oops. How do you explain the ratings drops? The lame buyrates? The crap-tastic main events? (Taker/Hogan, Taker/HHH). How do you explain the fact the best main event this year was one where Taker wasn't largely involved? (Angle/Rock/UT). Granted, I like Taker some. But I'm not gonna cook up theories. He's an attraction. Just like Hogan was. People popped like mad, but didn't really buy PPV's he headlined. Oops. People didn't really watch shows where he headlined? Why? Nostalgia. Same with Taker. He's a relic of a different WWF. People cheer, people buy stuff, but people don't necessarily want to see him main event.
Guest Trivia247 Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 And Hogan Does Draw. and So does Taker..... BUT to you... evidently they don't draw... not about using brains its using common freaken sense
Guest BionicRedneck Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 look at Hogan. The fans in the arenas go nuts for him, but, if you are flicking the channels are you gonna stop and watch him? nope. Are you gonna order a PPV because of him? nope. Many of the Taker headlined PPVs haven't drawn well. Just because the fans who are already there cheer him, doesn't mean he is a draw
Guest Trivia247 Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Oh So you got the Buyrates in front of you.... Ok Cut n paste the Exerpt that says Because the Undertaker was In the Building MILLIONS of People decided not to Order.... I'll wait
Guest CanadianChick Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Didn't the ratings and buyrates go down when Taker was champ? I honestly don't really know, so can someone clarify this?
Guest HossSauce Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 Buyrates and TV ratings have nothing to do with someone's power as a draw. It's based purely on gates. So yeah, how many Taker fans are in the audience is a better indication of his drawing power than ratings and buyrates. Buyrates and TV ratings show how good of a "box-office attraction" you are...not a draw. Unless by being a good draw, you draw people to their couchs.
Guest Brian Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 There's two key points that's flawed with your argument. First is that unless you draw people is significant numbers, who come out primarily to wathc you, you're not drawing. Undertaker has been a poor pay per view draw, his name as the major headliner has never drawn, his title reigns have all been weak. He's always been a sideshow at best; the secondary attraction. He's always been overshadowed by the Harts, the Michaels, the Austins, and the Rocks. He's never ever drawn in a mian feud other than against Austin when Austin was red-hot. The second point is cheers do not equal drawing ability. Lots of people get big pops but are unproven as draws, or just plain shit. Too Cool and Rikishi anyone?
Guest Spaceman Spiff Posted September 2, 2002 Report Posted September 2, 2002 People cheering does not equal drawing. Bubba, Spike, Bradshaw all get cheers, but they're in no way considered draws. People go to the shows because it's the WWE, not because UT is in town. Sure, some people do, but not enough to consider UT a serious draw.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now