alexxx
Superstar
Joined on: Dec 27, 2008 15:54:38 GMT -5
Posts: 788
|
Post by alexxx on Jun 9, 2012 17:35:53 GMT -5
Why Did Undertaker have to Wait Until WM 13 To Win WWF Title?
I know he won the belt at Survivor Series 91 but than lost few days later which was not fair he been able hold a bit longer than that
He should able to get the belt a lot earlier than waiting close to 6 years and fighting other wrestlers and in bewteen that he never to got hold IC or Tag team tiles belts
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 19:26:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2012 18:03:32 GMT -5
Because guys like Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Ultimate Warrior, HBK, Diesel and those guys were always holding the belt would be my guess. I don't know. Maybe he just didn't want it or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by done on Jun 9, 2012 18:06:47 GMT -5
I don't think there were guys that were like him to put in a tag team until 1997 onwards, maybe Big Bossman?
-He should of held the IC Title at some point, maybe around the time he faced HHH in 1996 I think it was.
|
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Jun 9, 2012 18:51:01 GMT -5
Its a good question. I think part of the answer is that the company started putting the belt on smaller people after the steroids probe (Flair, Hart, HBK). I think another part is that for a good part of the early part of the Taker years, WWF creative was in the toilet. Instead of having him in high level feuds, he was going at it with an "8 foot" man in a hair costume, feuding with Kama over a necklace, and fighting a bad look alike. But it is also a testament to how good he plays the role, which should have come off as cartoonish and failed, but didnt.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 19:26:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2012 18:58:12 GMT -5
Its a good question. I think part of the answer is that the company started putting the belt on smaller people after the steroids probe (Flair, Hart, HBK). I think another part is that for a good part of the early part of the Taker years, WWF creative was in the toilet. Instead of having him in high level feuds, he was going at it with an "8 foot" man in a hair costume, feuding with Kama over a necklace, and fighting a bad look alike. But it is also a testament to how good he plays the role, which should have come off as cartoonish and failed, but didnt. If you think about it he is easily the best and most successful "gimmick wrestler." Now I'm not talking about guys characters that have the gimmicky undertones like Jerry Lawler's whole king schtick or Hulk Hogan's American hero routine or anything like that. I'm talking about guys like Taker, or Kamala, or some of those guys. I mean clearly he isn't an old western undertaker and you're right, it should have come of as cartoonish and if you see it on paper without knowing about him then you'd probably laugh at the idea but he pulled it off a million times better than it should have been. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 19:26:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2012 19:41:10 GMT -5
He was in and out for a few years (injuries, vacation, etc.) along with being stuck in crappy feuds with mid-carders.
|
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Jun 9, 2012 20:27:26 GMT -5
I couldn't tell you
|
|
|
|
Post by specterkev on Jun 9, 2012 20:36:15 GMT -5
Ask Kane...
|
|
|
|
Post by pxkgotosleep on Jun 9, 2012 20:55:55 GMT -5
Simply put, he didn't need it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jammer311 on Jun 9, 2012 21:08:59 GMT -5
Simply put, he didn't need it. This ^^^^^ I think at that time in wrestling too, the Undertaker was perceived more as a 'dead man' and couldn't be hurt. So if that was the case, theory is if you put the belt on him, nobody could take it off of him. It made much more sense in 1997 when he won it, because he was more of the Undertaker: I am a man, but I can scare the hell out of you, type character. So when Bret won the belt from Taker at SummerSlam with the chair shot by HBK, it made more sense for Taker to lay down and lose the belt because he wasn't some super natural demon like we were to believe he was from his debut until around 1996, when his feud with Mankind started. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 19:26:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2012 5:31:23 GMT -5
Probably because title's weren't passed around so much around this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jun 10, 2012 10:03:35 GMT -5
Like others have said he simply didn't need it. He was so over that he didn't need the title like others did for the boost.
|
|
Daniel F'n Bryan
Main Eventer
Joined on: Oct 24, 2011 0:33:48 GMT -5
Posts: 2,929
|
Post by Daniel F'n Bryan on Jun 10, 2012 15:49:24 GMT -5
I never understood why he went so long in between reigns either. Throughout his whole career he had this huge periods of time where he was in big fueds but never once even came close to the title and I never understood why. Taker didnt need the title bit there were plenty of times where he should have been the champion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Jun 10, 2012 16:02:48 GMT -5
I never really saw Taker as being that big of a star until about 96/97. I mean, think of his feuds/matches after Hogan and before Sid. Vs. King Mable (who was a mid carder), Vs. King Kong Bundy (who was a mid carder by then). Vs. Yokozuna (His 1 main event feud which he was destroyed in), Vs. Giant Gonzales (mid carder), Jake Roberts (Mid carder/on his way out)....Just nothing was really impressive about him IMO until he got the belt again in 96 and then went on into feuds with Austin, Hart, Michaels, Kane etc.
|
|
| NLS™ |
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Buy My Figures!
Joined on: Jun 7, 2012 3:24:41 GMT -5
Posts: 3,538
|
Post by | NLS™ | on Jun 10, 2012 16:31:36 GMT -5
Well during that time Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair,Macho Man, Bret Hart, Yokozuna, Diesel, Shawn Michaels, Sycho Sid before him...
Now that i think about it, If I were the booker, i would have given UT the title before ever giving it to Sid Vicious... hell I'd even give it to him before giving it to HBK!
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 19:26:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2012 16:34:03 GMT -5
I never really saw Taker as being that big of a star until about 96/97. I mean, think of his feuds/matches after Hogan and before Sid. Vs. King Mable (who was a mid carder), Vs. King Kong Bundy (who was a mid carder by then). Vs. Yokozuna (His 1 main event feud which he was destroyed in), Vs. Giant Gonzales (mid carder), Jake Roberts (Mid carder/on his way out)....Just nothing was really impressive about him IMO until he got the belt again in 96 and then went on into feuds with Austin, Hart, Michaels, Kane etc. I think it had to do more with the whole "monster of the month" thing he seemed to get startled with facing this monster type wrestlers for a majority, although with wins against established names like Jake The Snake and Snuka at Wrestlemania it certainly helped establish himself as a credible threat. As many mention between 91-97 he didn't really need the title as he was over and drawing without it, mix that in with him being stuck in limbo with whatever monster he was feuding with at time it explains his absence from the title picture. Plus by 97 Taker was already an establsihed name which helped guys like Austin, Kane and The Rock in those feuds. |
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jun 11, 2012 8:52:11 GMT -5
Simply put, he didn't need it. This ^^^^^ I think at that time in wrestling too, the Undertaker was perceived more as a 'dead man' and couldn't be hurt. So if that was the case, theory is if you put the belt on him, nobody could take it off of him. It made much more sense in 1997 when he won it, because he was more of the Undertaker: I am a man, but I can scare the hell out of you, type character. So when Bret won the belt from Taker at SummerSlam with the chair shot by HBK, it made more sense for Taker to lay down and lose the belt because he wasn't some super natural demon like we were to believe he was from his debut until around 1996, when his feud with Mankind started.That is the exact moment in time when I felt like Undertaker was actually a title contender. To some degree, I agree he didn't need it prior to that point, but I don't think that was the case when New Gen transitioned to Attitude Era in 97. I also think that summer, and really the period between IYH14 and Royal Rumble 98, I started thinking he was way better as a worker than I had ever noticed. His IYH Badd Blood match with HBK still stands as one of my top 3 favorite matches of all time, and probably my very favorite depending on the day of the week. It's funny because Taker wouldn't have even been champion at WM13 if HBK would have been "healthy," both mentally and physically, because we were supposed to get Bret vs Shawn for the title. If that were the case then it's possible Taker might not have been champion again until 99ish. |
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Jun 11, 2012 13:47:27 GMT -5
Simply put, he didn't need it. this. he,and his gimmick,were SO over,that Vince felt he didn't need the title,and tried giving it to others to help get them to the elite level. Taker was already there. |
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jun 11, 2012 20:18:10 GMT -5
Maybe but Bret did go down w/ a legit knee injury not long after WM13, so even if he didn't win the title at WM13, Taker might have taken it off Bret later that year, only to drop it back to him at SummerSlam.
|
|
