Undertaker, WCW, Loyalty and his gimmick

[Guest Jim Ross]

Im sorry to bother you guys again. But ive been having a debate with a friend over the Undertaker.

 

Opinions on Taker himself aside.. My friend believes that Taker should get another run with the title, if for no other reason than his loyalty to vince when there was mass exodus to WCW.

 

My argument to that is the Loyalty thing means nothing because Taker would have been worthless to WCW without his gimmick and thus is the only reason he stayed with Vince.

 

Being as you guys are in the know.. do you have any good info for me to shut my friend up and prove to him that Taker only stayed because he couldnt take his gimmick with him? Has he said anything in interviews about it? or has anyone else?

 

Or am i talking out of my ass and my friend is right.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated

 

Thanks for your time

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

You act as if you're not allowed to post, J.R.

 

As far as WCW goes... I think that his gimmick and his loyalty played a part, which really doesn't help you.

 

As far as another title run... Well, he deserves it, no doubt, but I don't want squash championship matches with the current SmackDown!, and I don't want the American Deadman running with the ball.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I've always believed your argument. The only reason WCW would have been interested in him would be to have him continue w/ the Undertaker gimmick, or at least the name. Sure, he did well w/ the "Bikertaker" gimmick these last few years, but at the time WCW would have been interested in him, "regular wrestler" Mark Callous (sp?) would have been a serious gamble on their part, especially for the money Taker would have been asking.

 

There's reports that Taker told Vince WCW was seriously interested in him, but the general feeling on that was that Taker was just blowing smoke up Vince's ass to get more money. If WCW was interested, they would have offered him less than he would have wanted (because he couldn't bring the gimmick). Taker turns it down, and thus can look loyal to Vince. I would find it hard to believe, however, that if WCW offered him more than Vince did/could that he would have stayed w/ WWF.

 

As for another title run, I'd say no. He's got the WM win streak, and he has Vince in his pocket. What more else should we give the guy? The only way I'd give him another title run would be if he agreed to job it to someone at WM, and then retire.

[Guest Trivia247]

the thing is though gimmicks can be tweaked. Names can be changed. if the WCW really wanted the Undertaker they would have developed a similar style gimmick in the WCW which Taker would fit into. Depending on how deep in development we are talking about in the Undertaker's career in the WWF/E

 

There is something to loyality, and there maybe something to Taker trying to manipulate Vince for more money, but who doesn't do that? It shouldn't be described that ONLY the Undertaker been known to extort Vince by saying... "Yanno Vince, Turner was offering me about 1/4 more than you are but im...loyal...what do you think I should do?"

 

Taker should get a title run if he gets into a position where a title run is called for. And this is coming from a Fan of the Undertaker. I am not wanting Taker to instantly grab a title everytime he doesn't have one. There has to be reasoning for the Undertaker to win the belt. And if they are playing Undertaker as face or at least a tweener they probably won't be throwing him against Eddie Guerrero. (Especially since the contrast of styles between Guerrero and the Undertaker now playing more of his older role)Might be different if we are talking a Booker T or a JBL somehow wins the belt. Even then I don't see the Undertaker even in a position to even challenge. Wheither its because of him nursing his old injuries, or wheither or not they are doing any more modification to Taker's image since this Return of the Undertaker with the Gong and still dressed as a biker with a bandana is just not working.

All the time away from the TV at least in my mind puts someone out of the title hunt.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

the thing is though gimmicks can be tweaked. Names can be changed. if the WCW really wanted the Undertaker they would have developed a similar style gimmick in the WCW which Taker would fit into. Depending on how deep in development we are talking about in the Undertaker's career in the WWF/E

It's a tough gimmick to tweak. I'm not sure how you could make it similar to the original, but different enough to not get sued. And you know Vince would be watching it closely, just itching to sue WCW if it was too close to the original. Any interest would have been around the height of the nWo angle.

 

There is something to loyality, and there maybe something to Taker trying to manipulate Vince for more money, but who doesn't do that? It shouldn't be described that ONLY the Undertaker been known to extort Vince by saying... "Yanno Vince, Turner was offering me about 1/4 more than you are but im...loyal...what do you think I should do?"

I'm not saying Taker was wrong to do that. In fact, he *should* have done it. At the height of the WCW/WWF "war", he could have made big bucks playing 1 side against the other, and would have been stupid not to do so. I was just pointing out that it's very unlikely that Taker turned down a lot more money from WCW just to stay in the WWF, so to play the loyalty card is really overstating it.

[haVoc 0]

Bret Hart did the same. He turned down a ton of money to stay with Vince and doing so made himself a little more and got the rights to the "Hitman" name.

 

Taker did the same to make more money and pretty sure HBK did it, maybe a few times, even though he down played it and used it against Bret.

[cabbageboy 0]

UT's last title run in 2002 to me was his "loyalty title win." There was no particular reason to put the title on him then either, but oddly enough his title run was probably the best of that abysmal year (Jericho's botched run, HHH's 1 month run, Hogan's 1 month run, Rock's 1 month run, Brock's monster push that wasn't entirely working, Big Show's one month run, etc).

 

Right now there really isn't anything for him to do on SMDN, much less challenge for the title. They need to trade Kane to SMDN or something, give him some big heel to deal with. Maybe Big Show once he returns. But the title? Why? Eddie is doing fine and has better potential opponents if WWE ever realizes it.

[Guest Jim Ross]

You act as if you're not allowed to post, J.R.

Its not that my friend. I'm a regular reader but I only seem to post here when I want some info and thus dont really contribute much to these boards.

 

 

Thanks for everyones help guys. There are some pretty valid arguments for both sides. Im still a firm believer that Taker would have jumped on the next boat to WCW if the money was right and he could have taken his gimmick with him. Its a shame theres nothing really solid out there like an interview or something that I can throw in my friends face.

 

 

Thanks again.

[haVoc 0]

I doubt you'll find a interview with Taker, but Bischoff has discussed it in a few interviews. Search Bischoff and Taker's names together or something...

[Guest Jim Ross]

Well Fear Havoc, so far Ive got the following:

 

 

Taker always told Vince McMahon that he had gotten offers from WCW, forcing McMahon to increase his offers. It is thought by many that WCW never really made any offers to 'Taker since they would not be able to use the gimmick in WCW

 

Credit: pwtorch

http://www.impactwrestling.com/content.aspx?snum=1444

 

 

 

 

With all the talk about the Undertaker's loyalty to WWE and Vince McMahon, there are some interesting details about some possible dealings between Taker and Eric Bischoff in 1996.

 

Around the time when Kevin Nash and Scott Hall jumped to WCW, Mark Calloway aka The Undertaker sent feelers to WCW to see about possible interest.

 

Bischoff reportedly declined to deal with Taker, feeling that much of his draw was his gimmick

 

Credit: Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter

http://411mania.com/wrestling/news/newsboa...hp?news_id=4458

 

 

 

 

If i cant find any more info.. I'll have to use these when things get desperate!

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I think UT had a great 2003, and a title run isn't out of the question. But not right now.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Before they throw the belt at him, maybe they should, you know, PUT HIM ON TV.

 

I don't think a title run is necessary for Taker, he's had a fantastic career and no quickie title run is going to change that. I think he should get back in the ring, have a few feuds with some of the Smackdown! guys then hang his boots up at the end of the year, as many believe he will do.

 

UYI

[TheBigSwigg 0]

the thing is though gimmicks can be tweaked. Names can be changed. if the WCW really wanted the Undertaker they would have developed a similar style gimmick in the WCW which Taker would fit into. Depending on how deep in development we are talking about in the Undertaker's career in the WWF/E

Yeah, Mike Wallstreet was a great way to tweak IRS' gimmick. And Remember Billionare Ted Dibiase? And how about ALL of John Tenta's crappy gimmicks that were knockoff's of Earthquake.

 

I don't mean to bash your idea (which is fairly good), but gimmick tweaks weren't exactly WCW's strong point. Which is funny, because that seems to be WWE's problem now. It's like they inherited a bad wrestling disease from WCW.

[Guest wrestlingbs]

the thing is though gimmicks can be tweaked. Names can be changed. if the WCW really wanted the Undertaker they would have developed a similar style gimmick in the WCW which Taker would fit into. Depending on how deep in development we are talking about in the Undertaker's career in the WWF/E

Yeah, Mike Wallstreet was a great way to tweak IRS' gimmick. And Remember Billionare Ted Dibiase? And how about ALL of John Tenta's crappy gimmicks that were knockoff's of Earthquake.

 

I don't mean to bash your idea (which is fairly good), but gimmick tweaks weren't exactly WCW's strong point. Which is funny, because that seems to be WWE's problem now. It's like they inherited a bad wrestling disease from WCW.

Remember Saphire, WCW's aborted gimmick for Dustin Runnels in 2001? I was actually interested to see how'd that work out. It would've been better than Dustin Rhodes: Cowboy.

 

getting back on topic, I think that while WCW's gimmick problem was the main reason he didn't jump ship, I think his loyalty to the company kept him there. Taker seems to be one of the few wrestlers who actually cares about the Mcmahon family and their business. But as for the title, hell no. I don't care how loyal somebody is, they at least have to show some kind of drawing power. Ignore that and you get Bob Holly challenging for the belt.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Saphire? Do you mean his gimmick Seven, which was 1999 not 2001?

 

If not, could you shed some light on Saphire? I was quite the avid WCW fan and, for some reason, I cannot recall that gimmick/angle.

 

UYI

[Guest Jim Ross]

Saphire? Do you mean his gimmick Seven, which was 1999 not 2001?

 

If not, could you shed some light on Saphire? I was quite the avid WCW fan and, for some reason, I cannot recall that gimmick/angle.

 

UYI

The only Sapphire I know was that large black woman who was supposed to be an avid Dusty fan and would turn up at all the shows to see him.. eventually she became his manager. Circa 1990 if i remember. although that was in WWF

[Guest Your Olympic Hero]

He should squash jobbers to get a pop out of the crowd. The pops or buyrates won't be any bigger if he has the belt. They would actually get smaller in my opinion.

[Guest Jim Ross]

He should squash jobbers to get a pop out of the crowd.  The pops or buyrates won't be any bigger if he has the belt.  They would actually get smaller in my opinion.

Well if Taker is as loyal as people say he is.. surely he wont mind putting some young guys over in the interests of the company's future?

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Saphire? Do you mean his gimmick Seven, which was 1999 not 2001?

 

If not, could you shed some light on Saphire? I was quite the avid WCW fan and, for some reason, I cannot recall that gimmick/angle.

 

UYI

The only Sapphire I know was that large black woman who was supposed to be an avid Dusty fan and would turn up at all the shows to see him.. eventually she became his manager. Circa 1990 if i remember. although that was in WWF

That's exactly who I thought it was, too.

 

Back on topic, Taker is *very* proud and protective of his gimmick, so when it comes to putting guys over, it usually has to fit his circumstances.

 

However, it's customary for the old guy going out to put over someone, so Taker shouldn't be an exception.

 

We'll see.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

If 'Taker is so protective of his gimmick, then why did he let it be brought back the way it was?

[Guest Trivia247]

If 'Taker is so protective of his gimmick, then why did he let it be brought back the way it was?

pure and simply Taker disliked the original gimmick probably on how it was so overplayed and overblown. I think down deep he knows he can't physically pull off the no sells as crisp as he could in the 91-93 era before the gimmick went through its first change

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

fuck that noise. Taker doesn't give a shit. He wants to do what will make him the most money and get him the most esposure.

 

Taker should never ever be allowed to get within 50 feet of any title belt again. He's done. He's got nothing left to offer aside from a few cheap "Hey that guy used to be cool" pops.

 

Either make him job to Eddie or Booker or fire him. He's useless. Let NwaTna deal with his no selling ass.

[Guest Trivia247]

fuck that noise. Taker doesn't give a shit. He wants to do what will make him the most money and get him the most esposure.

 

Taker should never ever be allowed to get within 50 feet of any title belt again. He's done. He's got nothing left to offer aside from a few cheap "Hey that guy used to be cool" pops.

 

Either make him job to Eddie or Booker or fire him. He's useless. Let NwaTna deal with his no selling ass.

ahhhh was waiting for the mindless Taker Hate to come out.

 

fuck that noise Taker sucks blah blah blah

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

bah bah. fuck off.

 

I'm not mindlessly hating the TaKer.

 

He sucks. His matches are abortions. He hasn't worked a good match in fucking ages. His "attempts" at using a UFC style offence are laughable because he doesn't even come close to making them work right.

 

He won't sell properly for his opponents unless they're his friends and even then not much COUGHkronikfeudCOUGH.

 

The whole Undertaker gimmick should have died after the Minsitry. It's worthless dated garbage that no one buys anymore.

 

I have friends who make fun of wrestling souly from seeing his lame early 90's act.

 

He fucks his moves up, he can't sell, he's death on the mic, and he won't put anyone over unless forced to.

 

By god he sounds like someone you all hate...HHH

[Use Your Illusion 0]

'Lame early 90's act'

 

Your friends are cocks.

 

That character gave my 10 year old cousin nightmares when he first saw it. It was brilliantly done and performed by Taker and was a phenominal success.

 

And enough with the Triple H generalisations.

 

UYI

[Guest Jim Ross]

bah bah. fuck off.

 

I'm not mindlessly hating the TaKer.

 

He sucks. His matches are abortions. He hasn't worked a good match in fucking ages. His "attempts" at using a UFC style offence are laughable because he doesn't even come close to making them work right.

 

He won't sell properly for his opponents unless they're his friends and even then not much COUGHkronikfeudCOUGH.

 

The whole Undertaker gimmick should have died after the Minsitry. It's worthless dated garbage that no one buys anymore.

 

I have friends who make fun of wrestling souly from seeing his lame early 90's act.

 

He fucks his moves up, he can't sell, he's death on the mic, and he won't put anyone over unless forced to.

 

By god he sounds like someone you all hate...HHH

But He is a HOSS!

 

Personally ive never really minded Taker and to me he seemed to be putting alot more effort into his matches last year than he has done in a while.

 

Different strokes for different folks i guess.

[griffinmills 0]

'Lame early 90's act'

 

Your friends are cocks.

I can second that. I have experienced the reverse of the argument. I have friends who were specifically intrigued by the Undertaker character. Unfortunately he was fueding with Yokozuna at the time so those weren't the hottest matches to reel them in with.

Although I'm sure my friends aren't as cool as everyone elses.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

He's a hoss, but he's a good hoss.

 

Seriously, keeping his appearances special is just a bullshit excuse for there being nothing for him.

 

That will only escalate if he doesn't get to run with the ball again, and will degrade him, the gimmick and the company.

[deancoles 0]

I liked his act best in early 97, all his feuds were based around the WWF title, there was no supernatural crap and his selling was real good at the time.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

Supernaturalism and no-selling work with his gimmick though, even if one of those doesn't really belong in professional wrestling.