|
View Poll Results: Who is the better wrestler? | |||
"Macho Man" Randy Savage | 24 | 55.81% | |
The Undertaker | 19 | 44.19% | |
Voters: 43. You must log in or register to vote on this poll. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-27-2017, 08:11 AM | #41 |
Reigning Tipsters Champ!
Posts: 2,087
|
I feel like it needs mentioned that Taker without the Deadman gimmick was a bit of a joke. Sure Big Red or whatever was tolerable at best. But Rollin' phase was a joke.
No way a wrestler coming in with either of those gimmicks would have become a main eventer. (See DOA, Chuck Palombo etc...) They were tolerated because he was Taker of Deadman fame. Reinventing himself is a stretch. He needed to be the Deadman |
01-27-2017, 09:55 AM | #42 | |
( ._.)
Posts: 13,896
|
Quote:
|
|
01-27-2017, 10:07 AM | #43 |
MVP Mark
Posts: 16,447
|
Leaning more and more to Taker. Just his longevity and huge Mania matches are making me want to go with him.
|
01-27-2017, 10:08 AM | #44 |
Reigning Tipsters Champ!
Posts: 2,087
|
I feel like I have posted way too much in this thread, but I really think Savage deserves this.
Undertaker had great matches against the right opponent, but Savage was a true innovator. The stuff he was doing in the 80's would still hold up today. The same can't be said for constant choke spot Taker of the early 90's. By the time he was having continually great matches and had a true streak, he was wrestling once a year! Savage was better in the ring, a better "actor", a better promo, had more iconic moments and has been more influential stylistically. Takers longevity is overstated when his matches were mostly stinkers in the 90's and once a year for the last decade. Savage is the perfect candidate to go in first this time. A true trailblazer and absolutely iconic in every sense of the word! Vote Savage! |
01-27-2017, 10:11 AM | #45 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
I'm actually leaning more toward Savage because all those awful Taker matches from the first half+ of his career are coming to mind. There's definitely a "what have you done for me lately?" bias when it comes to Taker.
|
01-27-2017, 10:17 AM | #46 |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,427
|
Savage also had longevity. I mean he was wrestling in the 70s and was pretty damned good until around early-mid 1998. There wasn't much of a dip in quality in between.
Gotta love Taker but I had to go with Savage, he is one of the godfathers of wrestling. |
01-27-2017, 10:24 AM | #47 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
Tied poll, if savage goes in at least he earned it.
|
01-27-2017, 10:39 AM | #48 |
( ._.)
Posts: 13,896
|
Dunno how Taker has 'refreshed' himself, he has had pretty much the same promo for the past 10 years.
|
01-27-2017, 10:51 AM | #49 |
Let me talk to ya
Posts: 11,749
|
He added a growl to it recently. I had to go with Savage. I like Taker but was more of a fan of Daedman Inc. Undertaker. They are both two of the better characters wrestling has created but Savage just stood out more to me.
|
01-27-2017, 11:04 AM | #50 |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,427
|
tbh I'd choose Savage over even Hogan. I'd be wrong, but I'd still do it.
I honestly believe Savage as a character was so much more interesting than pretty much everyone. Now as a commentator... that's a whole different story, although he was fucking hilarious |
01-27-2017, 12:35 PM | #51 |
Large Marge sent me
Posts: 32,245
|
Are you sure those weren't Kevin Nash matches? Hard to tell the difference.
|
01-27-2017, 12:43 PM | #52 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 51,037
|
|
01-27-2017, 12:47 PM | #53 |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,427
|
his WCW work really fell off after 1998. However, his work with DDP was amazing.
|
01-27-2017, 12:48 PM | #54 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
Savage vs Crush at WrestleMania 10 was probably better than most of Taker's WrestleMania matches.
|
01-27-2017, 12:53 PM | #55 |
President of Freedonia
Posts: 58,167
|
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH YEEEEEEEEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
|
01-27-2017, 12:54 PM | #56 | |
Reigning Tipsters Champ!
Posts: 2,087
|
Quote:
He debuted in 1973 and his work didn't drop off until later WCW, by which time he was 45 and had been wrestling full time for 25 years. Taker doesn't even win the longevity battle when you consider how many of his years have been one and done. People havent even mentioned his territory days. Granted I haven't seen much, but Gertner or Seth might be able to say more about his time in Memphis, for example. |
|
01-27-2017, 12:58 PM | #57 |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,427
|
Yeah. I mean it was a clunky match but it was still half decent. The gimmick was fucking ludicrous. If it was just a street fight without that assinine "1 minute to get back to the ring" gimmick it could have been a pretty good match.
|
01-27-2017, 01:01 PM | #58 |
( ._.)
Posts: 13,896
|
After Savage wins rollermacka should be next.
|
01-27-2017, 01:06 PM | #59 |
Posts: 3,664
|
Both are Awesome!
I'll go with Savage though. |
01-27-2017, 03:33 PM | #60 | |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,427
|
Quote:
Taker's bad mania matches are usually due to the fact that he was wrestling complete duds. Savage after mid 1998 (and yes some rough patches in between) was certainly washed up as fuck, and he kept showing up all roided and desperate. Taker however has the benefit of working whatever schedule he pleases. Savage didn't, and he was completely unhinged. Fact is, he was excellent from 1975-1997 (yeah with some dross along the way and the same could be said for Taker's run) with lots of iconic moments and matches. He was performing year round in those times as well. Taker even since 2004 or 2005 kind of just shows up when he wants. Before the one and done mania gigs it's not like he was a full timer. I just don't think longevity comes into play. But to say people don't care about Taker is a bit nuts (which we both agree on). He is the "phenom" through and through. This is a very interesting/awesome poll. Very difficult decision. It's unfortunate that while their paths did cross, they never got to work with one another in their primes. Fuck me that would have been electic. |
|
01-27-2017, 06:54 PM | #61 |
Spammy Certified
Posts: 46,084
|
Can I vote? sock votes count right?
|
01-27-2017, 09:38 PM | #62 |
Quark is Less Impressed.
Posts: 38,371
|
Mach got great matches out of the Ultimate Warrior but Undertaker and Warrior was cut short because the matches were the drizzling shits. Complete dud should be the Warrior's nickname since he changed his name legally to Warrior before dying.
End of story ohhh yeahhhhhh dig it. |
01-28-2017, 01:12 AM | #63 |
Posts: 60,919
|
Undertaker is overrated as a performer, I'm going to say it. His longevity is amazing and he is a first-ballot Hall of Famer, no doubt, but Randy Savage is an icon that transcends. It's WWE canon that Taker is among the handful of the greatest ever.
|
01-28-2017, 01:25 AM | #64 | |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,427
|
Quote:
|
|
01-28-2017, 08:47 AM | #65 |
WOOOOOOOOO!
Posts: 12,227
|
Undertaker is one of my favourites, and so is Macho. I went with Taker, with the whole entrance and character thing. It could've been soooo stupid, yet Callaway managed to make it work.
|
01-28-2017, 04:54 PM | #66 | |
Celestia's Left Hand
Posts: 17,359
|
Quote:
|
|
01-28-2017, 04:57 PM | #67 |
Celestia's Left Hand
Posts: 17,359
|
You mean in the same way they prop up Triple H?
|
01-28-2017, 05:46 PM | #68 |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,427
|
-OOPS- edit
|
01-28-2017, 06:05 PM | #69 |
Reigning Tipsters Champ!
Posts: 2,087
|
I wasn't a fan, it made him "normal", nothing special or memorable about him in that mode.
His best quality IMO is his mystique and aura from his entrance and the theatrics. Big Evil took that was from him. Might as well have been Mean Mark.. In saying that, I love the Undertaker, just really wanted Savage to win this. I think Take is definitely the the conversation for GOAT. But Savage is Savage |
01-28-2017, 06:09 PM | #70 |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,427
|
I think he may have just needed a break from being the deadman. He was pretty fucking dire before he left and came back as biker taker. Face Biker taker was brutal though. Was a fan of Big Evil. He was still repping being the deadman so it was aiiite.
|
01-28-2017, 07:01 PM | #71 |
Posts: 60,919
|
Very similar, except I actually think Triple H is a better wrestler than Undertaker.
That it feels like blasphemy to critically examine the work of The Undertaker goes a long way to highlighting the mystique the company has managed to foster around him. But there were stretches of The Undertaker's career where he didn't draw and his work, frankly, fucking sucked. |
01-28-2017, 07:03 PM | #72 |
Posts: 60,919
|
The transformation in 2000 made sense because everything was more "real" at this point. Taker doing a zombie thing wouldn't have connected in the same way. It was a chance for Mark Callaway to be himself with the volume turned up -- the sort of thing that WWE constantly likes to credit Austin and Rock as being.
|
01-28-2017, 07:08 PM | #73 |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,427
|
He kind of lost his way from 1998-2001.
1998 he was injured, and life on the road was wearing him. 1999 was injury plagued and the ministry blew ass. When he came back as biker taker it SEEMED like he was way into himself as a performer... very, very Hulk Hogan circa 1990s selfish, and he just could not work a decent match or cut a decent promo barring HHH carrying his ass at WM X7. It was only in '02 when he turned heel he found something special and never really lost it. Sure there's the odd clunker with the likes of Big Show and Khali in between but it's pretty consistent from then on in. |
01-28-2017, 07:54 PM | #74 |
Posts: 60,919
|
Was it really? You mentioned Big Show, so I won't harp on about that, but remember how underwhelming his return was in 2004 when he just came back with a new hat? Was the Concrete Crypt Match really consistent? The Casket Match with Mark Henry? Beating Orton at WrestleMania 21? How about that fucking shit series with Orton on SmackDown? Ending CM Punk's awesome heel run on top?
There's a very selective memory applied to The Undertaker's catalogue. |
01-28-2017, 07:56 PM | #75 |
Posts: 60,919
|
And although this is pure speculation, I imagine he was very insecure about himself as a performer during the Invasion, because he knew how dependent his success was on being in the WWF given how much of his aesthetic and presentation was trademarked by Vince. Sure, Mark Callaway could have gone to WCW and tried his luck getting past Hogan, Nash, Goldberg, etc. He was big and he was good and a lot of the Dead Man stuff was pocketed by this point -- but he was in the thick of things when it looked like WCW was going to put his ass out of work. It would have been scary as hell, and I imagine he was a tiny little bit bitter.
|
01-28-2017, 07:58 PM | #76 |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,427
|
Fair enough, I think the good stands out more than the bad.
|
01-28-2017, 08:12 PM | #77 |
Reigning Tipsters Champ!
Posts: 2,087
|
It's just weird that they act nowadays like it never happened, like he was always the Deadman and the phenom and continues to be this mysterious character.
We remember when you came into Limp Bizkit Mark, we remember! |
01-28-2017, 08:17 PM | #78 |
LUV CABBAGE/H8 JEWS
Posts: 42,497
|
gonna go with macho man, solely because i wish undertaker just quit already.
|
01-28-2017, 08:18 PM | #79 |
Posts: 60,919
|
Yeah, people count the hits and not the misses. And in Taker's defense, the stuff that was good is classic. Some guys go their whole careers without being involved in a classic, and Taker had two at back-to-back WrestleMania events.
|
01-28-2017, 08:18 PM | #80 |
Posts: 60,919
|
It reminds me of how Rey Mysterio doesn't have a face.
|