The Undertaker's Cemetery

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

actually I think that the dvd should just have matches that arent avaible elsewhere on dvd. and it would be cool to see a few wcw matches on it

What WCW matches could you put on it other than Mean Mark Callous vs. Lex Luger?

[The Buzz 0]

Well considering the lack of great taker matches. I just thought I'd suggest the Big Show vs Taker. *hands you your puke bucket*

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

Big Show/Taker at NWO '03 is a pretty good showcase of the "new" Taker (leaner, more MMA, more cerebral). It didn't really mean anything though.

 

Angle/Taker 2003 was the best free match of that year with the possible exception of HHH/HBK 12/29/03.

[The Buzz 0]

well no doubt that Angle vs Taker is loads better. I just figured I'd try to show Paul Wight some love.

[Jericholic82 0]

Big Show/Taker at NWO '03 is a pretty good showcase of the "new" Taker (leaner, more MMA, more cerebral). It didn't really mean anything though.

 

Angle/Taker 2003 was the best free match of that year with the possible exception of HHH/HBK 12/29/03.

i thought the nwo m atch was boring

[Dark Age 0]

Big Show/Taker at NWO '03 is a pretty good showcase of the "new" Taker (leaner, more MMA, more cerebral). It didn't really mean anything though.

 

Angle/Taker 2003 was the best free match of that year with the possible exception of HHH/HBK 12/29/03.

Benoit/Lesnar.

 

Also, why would you put OJ/Taker on it? Those matches were terrible.

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

Big Show/Taker at NWO '03 is a pretty good showcase of the "new" Taker (leaner, more MMA, more cerebral). It didn't really mean anything though.

 

Angle/Taker 2003 was the best free match of that year with the possible exception of HHH/HBK 12/29/03.

Benoit/Lesnar.

 

Also, why would you put OJ/Taker on it? Those matches were terrible.

Benoit/Lesnar was 2004. At least I think it was, it was after HHH/HBK 12/29.

 

Oh and I was just naming good Taker matches post-Attitude. I didn't say I'd put it on there. The Taker/OJ matches were just good TV bouts where Taker got a guy like Cena to work with and there is a lot of solid stuff to be found in those bouts. One of them was even named Match of the Week by DVDVR which was a pretty big deal.

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

And yes, if you do the math, Benoit/Lesnar aired in 2004 on New Year's Day.

[Dark Age 0]

No it didn't.

[Jericholic82 0]

Benoit-Lesnar aired on December 4, 2003. I have the tape and just checked it out ok.

[Dark Age 0]

Benoit/Lesnar was 2004. At least I think it was, it was after HHH/HBK 12/29.

 

Oh and I was just naming good Taker matches post-Attitude. I didn't say I'd put it on there. The Taker/OJ matches were just good TV bouts where Taker got a guy like Cena to work with and there is a lot of solid stuff to be found in those bouts. One of them was even named Match of the Week by DVDVR which was a pretty big deal.

 

Its funny. Like, very very funny. I was just about to make a post asking if you come from DVDVR. The Taker/OJ matches were just NOTHING matches. Match of the week from DVDVR? And? That means WHAT exactly? DVDVR? The same guys who, at one point, declared that Mark Henry, Garrison Cade and Steven Richards were the three best "workers" (as they like to say) on Raw. I'm supposed to take them seriously because.....?

[Guest Lawlerm]

Silver Vision normally have things up for pre-order 2-3 months before release and they've nothing on this so i'd think it'll be at least July/August before this is out.

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

Benoit/Lesnar was 2004. At least I think it was, it was after HHH/HBK 12/29.

 

Oh and I was just naming good Taker matches post-Attitude. I didn't say I'd put it on there. The Taker/OJ matches were just good TV bouts where Taker got a guy like Cena to work with and there is a lot of solid stuff to be found in those bouts. One of them was even named Match of the Week by DVDVR which was a pretty big deal.

 

Its funny. Like, very very funny. I was just about to make a post asking if you come from DVDVR. The Taker/OJ matches were just NOTHING matches. Match of the week from DVDVR? And? That means WHAT exactly? DVDVR? The same guys who, at one point, declared that Mark Henry, Garrison Cade and Steven Richards were the three best "workers" (as they like to say) on Raw. I'm supposed to take them seriously because.....?

DVDVR is a much more knowledgable and open-minded board than this one (usually). This board kinda has the guys it pulls for, and the guys it doesn't, and knows what style it likes, and that's fine.

 

DVDVR does something a little bit different. They actually analyze the matches. So if Mark Henry pulls a few decent matches out of his ass (as he was beginning to at the end there) they catch on and start to root for him. It's fun to see a guy like that try to improve (like the Big Show did, and this place finally caught on to him).

 

Why is The Undertaker so well liked there? I can't answer that, because I can't speak for a whole board. But I can tell you why *I* like him, and I know some of my reasons match up with the consensus:

 

1. The Undertaker's strikes are great. In wrestling today very few wrestlers in the big leagues have punches that you can FEEL. The Undertaker does; his strikes are crisp and they look good. If you book a guy so strong that one punch could be a transition spot, the guy better throw punches that make you believe it; he does.

 

2. The Undertaker changed his style to adapt to SD! instead of telling the agents to tell Angle and Benoit to "tone it down". He went out and learned some submission stuff and by and large it's pretty cool and it adds a lot to the matches. It shows that even as an older wrestler he's still willing to shake things up a bit.

 

3. The Undertaker does not wrestle in a vacuum. What do I mean by that? He references previous matches with his opponant with his moves which is something you usually only see in japan. The best example of this is using the move that made him tap out in 2002 to Kurt Angle (triangle choke) on Kurt in 2003 to get out of the ankle lock. It said "I remembered our earlier match, and have improved."

 

4. The Undertaker ALWAYS works a body part; even if it doesn't play into the finish I appreciate this. And he doesn't just do arm wringers and the like he uses short arm scissors and fujiwara armbars. It's obvious to me that the guy knows how to wrestle a technical match.

 

 

The difference in philosophy between the way you're thinking and I'm thinking is kinda like this:

 

You: "Damn it! The Undertaker isn't selling for those punches."

 

Me: "The Undertaker isn't really acting hurt yet. That means when he DOES sell it will mean more to the match."

 

That's not to say you are wrong and I am right. It just seems like you value the athletic side more, and I'm all about telling a story in the ring.

 

Peace, man.

[IWD 0]

I can't immediately think of any strong Undertaker matches since the end of the attitude era.

 

Cheers.

 

You put two on your DVD.

Sorry, my fault, I meant after the change from WWF to WWE.

[Dark Age 0]

DVDVR is a much more knowledgable and open-minded board than this one (usually). This board kinda has the guys it pulls for, and the guys it doesn't, and knows what style it likes, and that's fine.

 

That means nothing. DVDVR may very well be more knowledgeable than this board, but there are plenty more knowledgeable than DVDVR. You argue that this board has bias? Sure, it does. But... so does DVDVR. AND, also, it'd be better if you didn't group everyone together. I know that I don't want to be cast as the same of the rest of the guys around here, and I'm sure most feel the same.

 

DVDVR does something a little bit different. They actually analyze the matches. So if Mark Henry pulls a few decent matches out of his ass (as he was beginning to at the end there) they catch on and start to root for him. It's fun to see a guy like that try to improve (like the Big Show did, and this place finally caught on to him).

 

Seriously, don't patronize me. DVDVR aren't the only "smarks" to analyse matches. Do a search, and you'll find a pretty in-depth review I recently produced on a Paul London/Akio match. You seem to believe that, because I said the Taker/OJ matches in question sucked, I'm a mindless sheep who has his likes and dislikes already decided for. Not true. Trust me when I tell you, if I see a good match, I'll recognize it. Whether it involves Chris Benoit, Undertaker, John Cena, Mark Henry or Eddie Guerrero. Whether it is a cruiserweight match, a heavyweight match, a hard hitting brawl, a technical exhibition. If it's good, I'll give it the credit that it's due. If it sucks, I'm going to tell you it sucks.

 

Mark Henry pulling a "few decent matches out of his ass" doesn't make him the best "worker" now, does it? Argue all you want that Henry had improved. To that I will agree. But best "worker" on Raw? Don't make me laugh.

 

Why is The Undertaker so well liked there? I can't answer that, because I can't speak for a whole board. But I can tell you why *I* like him, and I know some of my reasons match up with the consensus:

 

If you hadn't lumped me in with the whole TSM board, this would be ok.

 

1. The Undertaker's strikes are great. In wrestling today very few wrestlers in the big leagues have punches that you can FEEL. The Undertaker does; his strikes are crisp and they look good. If you book a guy so strong that one punch could be a transition spot, the guy better throw punches that make you believe it; he does.

 

Fair point. I agree.

 

2. The Undertaker changed his style to adapt to SD! instead of telling the agents to tell Angle and Benoit to "tone it down". He went out and learned some submission stuff and by and large it's pretty cool and it adds a lot to the matches. It shows that even as an older wrestler he's still willing to shake things up a bit.

 

Again, by all means, I agree. I don't know what, exactly, you are arguing here. I never said that the Undertaker sucked. I said Taker/OJ sucked.

 

3. The Undertaker does not wrestle in a vacuum. What do I mean by that? He references previous matches with his opponant with his moves which is something you usually only see in japan. The best example of this is using the move that made him tap out in 2002 to Kurt Angle (triangle choke) on Kurt in 2003 to get out of the ankle lock. It said "I remembered our earlier match, and have improved."

 

You are so stuck up here it's sickening. Please, don't patronize me. Your point is valid, but, for an even better example of this "learnt psychology", see Eddie Vs. Angle at SummerSlam 2004. Heck, go watch the Eddie/Angle match from a couple of weeks ago, when there was all kinds of throwbacks to their past bouts, like Kurt kicking out of the small package that Eddie used at WM04, and Kurt pulling Eddie's tights, just as Eddie did with Kurt's straps in their 2/3 Falls match.

 

4. The Undertaker ALWAYS works a body part; even if it doesn't play into the finish I appreciate this. And he doesn't just do arm wringers and the like he uses short arm scissors and fujiwara armbars. It's obvious to me that the guy knows how to wrestle a technical match.

 

So, as long as somebody works a body part, it's a good match? Gotcha. Angle never works the ankle, which, I guess, is bad? Working over a body part just for THE SAKE of working over a body part means nothing. If you have no particular idea what to DO with said body part, what is the point in focusing on it? There are better ways to show "in-ring psychology" than to simply work over someone's arm for 10 minutes, simply because you can.

 

The difference in philosophy between the way you're thinking and I'm thinking is kinda like this:

 

You: "Damn it! The Undertaker isn't selling for those punches."

 

Me: "The Undertaker isn't really acting hurt yet. That means when he DOES sell it will mean more to the match."

 

DO NOT put words into my mouth. You are making all these bizarre assumptions, and it's annoying me. Do not look down on me, as if you are some kind of superior wrestling fan because you understand a damn Undertaker match. Don't try to teach me about selling, and psychology, and "working" when you really don't have a clue.

 

That's not to say you are wrong and I am right. It just seems like you value the athletic side more, and I'm all about telling a story in the ring.

 

Peace, man.

 

Where have I said this? Where? Point me to it. Because I said Benoit/Lesnar was better? Again, do a search for some past posts of mine, and you'll notice that I value in-ring storytelling more than anything. Better stories = better matches.

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

DVDVR is a much more knowledgable and open-minded board than this one (usually). This board kinda has the guys it pulls for, and the guys it doesn't, and knows what style it likes, and that's fine.

 

That means nothing. DVDVR may very well be more knowledgeable than this board, but there are plenty more knowledgeable than DVDVR. You argue that this board has biased? Sure, it does. But... so does DVDVR. AND, also, it'd be better if you didn't group everyone together. I know that I don't want to be cast as the same of the rest of the guys around here, and I'm sure most feel the same.

 

DVDVR does something a little bit different. They actually analyze the matches. So if Mark Henry pulls a few decent matches out of his ass (as he was beginning to at the end there) they catch on and start to root for him. It's fun to see a guy like that try to improve (like the Big Show did, and this place finally caught on to him).

 

Seriously, don't patronize me. DVDVR aren't the only "smarks" to analyse matches. Do a search, and you'll find a pretty in-depth review I recently produced on a Paul London/Akio match. You seem to believe that, because I said the Taker/OJ matches in question sucked, I'm a mindless sheep who has his likes and dislikes already decided for. Not true. Trust me when I tell you, if I see a good match, I'll recognize it. Whether it involves Chris Benoit, Undertaker, John Cena, Mark Henry or Eddie Guerrero. Whether it is a cruiserweight mtach, a heavyweight match, a hard hitting brawl, a technical exhibition. If it's good, I'll give it the credit that it's due. If it sucks, I'm going to tell you it sucks.

 

Mark Henry pulling a "few decent matches out of his ass" doesn't make him the best "worker" now, does it? Argue all you want that Henry had improved. To that I will agree. But best "worker" on Raw? Don't make me laugh.

 

Why is The Undertaker so well liked there? I can't answer that, because I can't speak for a whole board. But I can tell you why *I* like him, and I know some of my reasons match up with the consensus:

 

If you didn't lump me in with the whole TSM board, and this would be ok.

 

 

1. The Undertaker's strikes are great. In wrestling today very few wrestlers in the big leagues have punches that you can FEEL. The Undertaker does; his strikes are crisp and they look good. If you book a guy so strong that one punch could be a transition spot, the guy better throw punches that make you believe it; he does.

 

Fair point. I agree.

 

2. The Undertaker changed his style to adapt to SD! instead of telling the agents to tell Angle and Benoit to "tone it down". He went out and learned some submission stuff and by and large it's pretty cool and it adds a lot to the matches. It shows that even as an older wrestler he's still willing to shake things up a bit.

 

Again, by all means, I agree. I don't know what, exactly, you are arguing here. I never said that the Undertaker sucked. I said Taker/OJ sucked.

 

3. The Undertaker does not wrestle in a vacuum. What do I mean by that? He references previous matches with his opponant with his moves which is something you usually only see in japan. The best example of this is using the move that made him tap out in 2002 to Kurt Angle (triangle choke) on Kurt in 2003 to get out of the ankle lock. It said "I remembered our earlier match, and have improved."

 

You are so stuck up here it's sickening. Please, don't patronize me. Your point is valid, but, for an even better example of this "learnt psychology", see Eddie Vs. Angle at SummerSlam 2004. Heck, go watch the Eddie/Angle match from a couple of weeks ago, when there was all kinds of throwbacks to their past bouts, like Kurt kicking out of the small package that Eddie used at WM04, and Kurt pulling Eddie's tights, just as Eddie did with Kurt's straps in their 2/3 Falls match.

 

4. The Undertaker ALWAYS works a body part; even if it doesn't play into the finish I appreciate this. And he doesn't just do arm wringers and the like he uses short arm scissors and fujiwara armbars. It's obvious to me that the guy knows how to wrestle a technical match.

 

So, as long as somebody works a body part, it's a good match? Gotcha. Angle never works the ankle, which, I guess, is bad? Working over a body part just for THE SAKE of working over a body part means nothing. If you have no particular idea what to DO with said body part, what is the point in focusing on it? There are better ways to show "in-ring psychology" than to simply work over someone's arm for 10 minutes, simply because you can.

 

The difference in philosophy between the way you're thinking and I'm thinking is kinda like this:

 

You: "Damn it! The Undertaker isn't selling for those punches."

 

Me: "The Undertaker isn't really acting hurt yet. That means when he DOES sell it will mean more to the match."

 

DO NOT put words into my mouth. You are making all these bizarre assumptions, and it's annoying me. Do not look down on me, as if you are some kind of superior wrestling fan because you understand a damn Undertaker match. Don't try to teach me about selling, and psychology, and "working" when you really don't have a clue.

 

That's not to say you are wrong and I am right. It just seems like you value the athletic side more, and I'm all about telling a story in the ring.

 

Peace, man.

 

Where have I said this? Where? Point me to it. Because I said Benoit/Lesnar was better? Again, do a search for some past posts of mine, and you'll notice that I value in-ring storytelling more than anything. Better stories = better matches.

To your first point: Sure there are boards more knowledgable than DVDVR... but guys like DEAN and PAS are as respected as anyone on the wrestling message boards.

 

To your second: Well, you've missed quite a few good matches. Because the UT/Jordan ones were quite good, and you didn't see 'em.

 

And I never said Mark Henry was the best "worker." No one said that. I've tried to be civil with you, but if you're gonna put workds into my mouth it's going to make me get nasty. Some guys on DVDVR like Henry a little while back, the same way a few people here have taken a liking to Christian. I don't know why you'd blow it out of proportion the way you have except that you are TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS regarding DVDVR.

 

Why is Eddie/Angle a better example? Because you like Eddie more than Undertaker? I don't really see what you're driving at. Taker just works smarter matches than most of the workers on the roster.

 

The UT/OJ match that was really good was 8/26. I haven't seen it since it aired but I remember loving it, and the real old schoolfeel it had going on. Again, it was on the "Best of SD" list they did at the end of the year, and it was all in all a good bout.

 

Good. Solid. Not great. Certainly not terrible as you say.

 

But then, you don't miss good matches, do you?

[Dark Age 0]

I love how you skip most of what I said, in contrast to how I argued every one of your points.

 

To your first point: Sure there are boards more knowledgable than DVDVR... but guys like DEAN and PAS are as respected as anyone on the wrestling message boards.

 

I don't care how respected they are. DEAN is great, that I will give ya, and Phil has some decent thoughts from time to time. However, it was he who declared Mark Henry as the best "worker" on Raw. With nutjob opinions like that, I can't take him too seriously. And no, they aren't. I can name you plenty of guys whose opinion I would trust A LOT more than PS, on this board alone. I know plenty of others would agree, because it's true. There are guys A LOT more respected than PS too. (BTW, don't take this as an attack on him. I enjoy reading what he has to say, but being respected means nothing)

 

To your second: Well, you've missed quite a few good matches. Because the UT/Jordan ones were quite good, and you didn't see 'em.

 

No I haven't. Taker/Jordan had two matches. Both were pretty bad. Maybe not as bad as I orginally made them out to be, but they don't stand out - at all - and to suggest they do is silly.

 

And I never said Mark Henry was the best "worker." No one said that. I've tried to be civil with you, but if you're gonna put workds into my mouth it's going to make me get nasty. Some guys on DVDVR like Henry a little while back, the same way a few people here have taken a liking to Christian. I don't know why you'd blow it out of proportion the way you have except that you are TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS regarding DVDVR.

 

I didn't say that you said Mark Henry was the best "worker" on Raw. Perhaps it seems like that is what I implied. If so, then no, it isn't. If you are offended, I apologize. BUT..... someone DID say that. And that was a well respected name at DVDVR. Many people followed in calling Henry the best on Raw.

 

I can't believe you accuse me of putting words in your mouth after I gave you a few examples of you doing just that to me.

 

How am I talking out of my ass? I said that Henry was called the best worker on Raw by people on DVDVR. This is fact. Go search up the workrate reports for Raws in Nov2003, and you will see what I'm talking about.

 

Why is Eddie/Angle a better example? Because you like Eddie more than Undertaker? I don't really see what you're driving at. Taker just works smarter matches than most of the workers on the roster.

 

It is a better example because I gave MORE instances of "learnt psychology" than you did. Maybe there are more in the Taker/Angle match, I don't know due to the fact that I haven't seen Taker/Angle in a while. If there are, feel free to comment further.

 

What am I driving at? Nothing. You're making an argument out of absolutely NOTHING. I have not once said Taker was a bad wrestler. I have not denied that he CAN work smart matches. You seem to think I have, despite me making it clear in numerous posts that I haven't.

 

But then, you don't miss good matches, do you?[/quote

 

No, I don't. I should just stop arguing with you now, because it's late and I'm tired of bothering with your idiocy.

[Guest LooneyTune]

Dark Age just totally owned this topic... and the DVD will suck knowing how WWE handles DVD's of their current stars. Sure, the matches Shawn Michaels' DVD were "great", but most (if not all) was recycled. How bout something rare, like Undertaker jobbing to Tito Santana in Spain?

[Secret Agent 0]

Speaking of Kurt Angle; I think he's due a new, updated DVD.

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

I think the points made 'For' taker were good. His matches for the most part are too long and he's too far up the card, but as a big draw to get the crowd going in shorter affairs, he's got life in him yet.

[res37618 0]

Speaking of Kurt Angle; I think he's due a new, updated DVD.

I agree completely, but sadly enough, a lot of his matches fell in that '99 to '02 window of WWF "Attitude" - henceforth, the blurring and stuff would have to be done to make his matches ready for DVD. I feel like they will do it, but I guess it just takes a little time to make sure everything is ready. There's plenty of matches from '02 'til now that could be put on for an awesome set; but, it seems a shame to do a career retrospective and not be able to put his debut match, first WWF title, the three-way from WM16, and so forth.

 

One thing I wondered, did NBC carry the '96 Atlanta Olympics? If so, and with WWE's new-found deal with them, I wonder how hard it would be to get the complete gold-medal match/ceremony to put on an Angle career retrospective DVD set? I personally think that would rock, but I would imagine the Olympics would frown on such a thing being put on a Pro Wrestling DVD.

 

And BTW, I had no idea that starting this topic would lead to all the fighting it has in here!! Sorry guys, I'll try to make my topics more tame and agreeable.

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

I had no idea that starting this topic would lead to all the fighting it has in here!! Sorry guys, I'll try to make my topics more tame and agreeable.

Many have tried...

[Jericholic82 0]

Speaking of Kurt Angle; I think he's due a new, updated DVD.

I agree completely, but sadly enough, a lot of his matches fell in that '99 to '02 window of WWF "Attitude" - henceforth, the blurring and stuff would have to be done to make his matches ready for DVD. I feel like they will do it, but I guess it just takes a little time to make sure everything is ready. There's plenty of matches from '02 'til now that could be put on for an awesome set; but, it seems a shame to do a career retrospective and not be able to put his debut match, first WWF title, the three-way from WM16, and so forth.

 

One thing I wondered, did NBC carry the '96 Atlanta Olympics? If so, and with WWE's new-found deal with them, I wonder how hard it would be to get the complete gold-medal match/ceremony to put on an Angle career retrospective DVD set? I personally think that would rock, but I would imagine the Olympics would frown on such a thing being put on a Pro Wrestling DVD.

 

And BTW, I had no idea that starting this topic would lead to all the fighting it has in here!! Sorry guys, I'll try to make my topics more tame and agreeable.

well the blurring hasnt stopped us from buying other dvds so this would be no prob.

 

actually I think vince needs to talk to that other WWF and compromise(ie hand them large amounts of cash), and allow him to not have to blur the old logo, just not be able to use it on the dvd cover is all. and alos not have to edit the wwf initials except on the cover. hey its not like theyd be using wwf name to sell it so.....

 

 

back to the topic, it would also be cool to have on it, maybe some footage of when he was briefly called kane the undertaker, plus the brother love show when he introd Paul Bearer.

[Jericholic82 0]

nbc indeed aired the 96 olympics so who knows.

[Guest Shadow]

NBC Has granted WWE to use the footage before, I cant see why they wouldn't grant them that once again.

[Secret Agent 0]

Didn't Foley and HHH show a clip of Angle crying during the medal presentation of his 96 Olympic Win just shortly after he won the World Title - which he cried after winning?

[King Cucaracha 0]

Yeah, they did. There was some footage played in his debut and/or entrance videos too.