Take up thy wrestling boots and walk - Deadman in the Dock
Submitted by Pt2 on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 1:06 PM EST





Welcome once again to the column that even The Undertaker couldn’t make famous, Take Up thy Wrestling Boots and Walk. I’m the columnist that knows what Waylon Mercy meant, Pt2, back once again to examine the treasure of the Sierra Madre, known to most of us simply as professional wrestling.

This column was originally written just prior to the incident involving the Benoit family. I've decided to post it now. Since this isn't exactly a "current affairs" column, I doubt there will be any mistakes as a result, but if there are I ask you to excuse them.

It’s funny how inspiration can often just strike you. Sometimes the idea for a column can come from browsing through my DVD collection; or catching sight of a news headline on LOP. More often than not, inspiration comes from watching the shows themselves. In this case, the inspiration for this column came from reading an edition of “All About The Game”, by YourAyatollah, in the LOP columns forum, entitled “Queer Eye for the Dead Guy”. If you haven’t read it, I suggest you do, as it is almost certainly better than this column will be.

Witty pop culture reference aside, this column (as you have probably guessed, relating to The Undertaker) and the subsequent feedback got me thinking; exactly HOW accurate and fair is the criticism, or the praise, accorded the Undertaker? On the one hand, you can’t argue with the people who praise him - he’s been around for nearly twenty years (longer if you remember him in WCW or earlier), won multiple world titles and made himself something of a household name - and yet, at the same time, the criticisms made of him can’t be easily ignored.

It all got me thinking - how do you go about trying to appraise someone with 17 years WWE service behind them? When someone’s career has taken so many shifts and turns, in the way that Mark Calloway’s has, how do you go about trying to assess the value of their contribution? When people address the issue of how a worker is being handled, the question must be answered, but in a career so long and storied, how do you begin to suggest things should have been done differently?

In short - how do you go about putting the career of Mark Calloway, Main event talent since 1991, on trial?

It is certainly a daunting prospect; especially when you remember that all events are interconnected. There is absolutely no telling what changing the outcome of an event in 1994 would have on 1997, never mind 2007. If Undertaker had been completely jobbed out to Yokozuna, he may be retired now, and may not have the legendary Wrestlemania win streak behind him. Wrestling would be a very different place.

And let’s be frank. It isn’t just losses that could have had a negative effect on Big Evil. Suppose, for example, the decision had been taken to put the WWE title on Undertaker at the 1996 Royal Rumble. A realistic possibility, considering the circumstances a few months earlier - Michaels was an unproven commodity in World title terms and either a) was attacked and injured to the point where he couldn’t compete where advertised or b) as Shane Douglas has claimed, refused to put over a fellow worker. It would have been quite easy, with months in hand, to move across to a more proven star.

But what impact would that have had on 1996? Bearing in mind that the WWF nearly went under, how would they have coped without Michaels having great matches on the strap, and without Undertaker having a strong feud with Mankind? I’m not sure that in that situation, they could have held out against the nWo, and they could have been damaged irreparably.

Which could mean that Mark Calloway would now be working for WCW.

Obviously, that is just a hypothesis. My point is that there is no way to tell exactly how much the result of one high profile match from a decade ago can effect everything that comes afterward. So we must be careful and consider that when judging the Undertaker’s results. With that in mind, I think we have to try and consider trends, rather than individual occurrences. I may find myself giving out individual examples from time to time though, and when I do I hope you will indulge me.

If this were a real trial of The Undertaker’s career, I think I’d be able to guess the arguments of the prosecution fairly succinctly. First, they’d establish that The Undertaker has never been the major draw of the WWF. And I think, for the most part, they would be right.

Undertaker has done some good business for the WWE. There can be no denying that. But for the majority of his 17 years with the company, he has always been a sideshow; an added attraction, rather than the real deal. They’d point out that while he has appeared (and won) at 15 Wrestlemania’s, he has only been in the main event at one - Wrestlemania XIII, in March 1997. They’d also point out that title win would be his longest reign - both his longest reign and the occasion of his headlining the grand stage came at a point when WWE were losing the Monday Night War by some considerable margin.

They’d back this up by pointing to much more success to the company when Undertaker has played second fiddle to Hulk Hogan in the early nineties and Steve Austin later in the decade. November 1991 and August 1998 may be years apart chronologically, but in terms of appeal, they weren’t all that different as regards the respective roles of the Undertaker and his opponents.

Once they had established that Undertaker wasn’t a massive draw for the company, in the manner of a Hogan, Austin or Rock, they would go on to question the manner in which he has been depicted. The suggestion would be that he has been booked as a top star without the “asses in seats” record to back it up. And again, it is hard to disagree. There are few people that have been booked more strongly than The Undertaker. It is hard to remember feuds in which he has not, in the end, been victorious. From Batista recently, back through Randy Orton, Kane, Kevin Nash and Yokozuna, he has left a trail of opponents in his wake. Even when they may get an occasional win over him, it is usually a safe bet that The Undertaker will come out on top at the climax.

These are actually pretty fair arguments, but I think it is the fact that they are reasonable arguments rather than nonsensical Undertaker bashing that spurs on the second half of this column. See, as I write this column and consider the arguments I find myself wanting to defend The Undertaker. Not that you need defending when you are that big, but still.

While Undertaker has never been “THE” draw for the WWE in the same way that Hogan or The Rock has, he has drawn a substantial sum. Feuds with Yokozuna, the Million Dollar Corporation’s Undertaker (effectively dubbed The Underfaker), Diesel, Kane and others, while failing to achieve massive success, have provided hours of popular programming that has strengthened countless cards. The Undertaker’s marquee value, without ever reaching top draw level, has helped the company, ESPECIALLY in those instances when there isn’t a Rock or Austin to bring in the mainstream fans en masse.

That marquee value that assisted the company when his back was to the wall comes from his gimmick. He is without a doubt, the most successful gimmick wrestler in modern history. Since his gimmick is of a supernatural being of some kind, one that can defeat the odds and has uncanny powers, it is imperative for that gimmick that he remains on top, in the majority of his feuds, to maintain the aura surrounding him and the success of his gimmick. As long as The Undertaker has anything more to offer than simply a rub to the next generation, it is vital that he keeps on top most of the time.

As one example, think how little it matters when someone beats Ric Flair these days. Ric Flair was a bigger star than Undertaker in his heyday, and a much better wrestler and interview. Interest in the Undertaker would subside quickly without the aura that surrounds him, and without the aura and his marquee value, he can offer the company about as much as Flair can - he’d quickly become a nostalgic mid card babyface.

I’ll also go on the record and say something that may prove slightly controversial to some. I don’t believe that he’s actually been booked as a top, top star anyway.

Now, I now that some of the haters have spit their coffee all over the screen after that. Clean it up, and then read on for an explanation.

I know he’s got wins over virtually everyone - from Jimmy Snuka, through Jake Roberts, Hulk Hogan, Giant Gonzales, Kevin Nash, Ric Flair, Big Show, Booker T and a host of others. But if you examine the feuds he’s had closely, you’ll notice a fine divide.

The Undertaker only beats talent that are up to and including his own level - while he may win matches against those people that outdraw him, he loses the feud. When he feuded with Hogan, it ended as something of a clusterfuck, with Tunney holding up the belt and all; but Hogan went on to be one of the last three at the Rumble, and went on to headline Wrestlemania, while Undertaker was much higher up the card wrestling something of a nothing match with Jake Roberts, before going on a year of midcard duty with Kamala. Hogan got the last win and stuck around in the main event, Undertaker got a dirty win and six day title reign and was bumped down to the midcard.

Then comes 1998, and the first person to REALLY outdraw the Undertaker since Hulk Hogan. Taker hadn’t lost clean in years, but when the time came, both in the 1998 and 1999 instalments of the Undertaker and Austin rivalry, it was Austin who came out on top. In recent years, when Brock Lesnar looked like he may go on to be the future of the company, Undertaker lost a feud to him. That didn’t work out particularly well, but there is no doubt who came out the best for that feud, at least from a booking perspective.

Other than those three examples, it is hard to find people that have definitively “beat” the Undertaker over a prolonged feud, but equally it is hard to find people that you can say were definitively bigger stars than him at the time. Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, his fellow top tier talent throughout the mid nineties, are both also criticized for lacking the star power of earlier and later talent, and as a result their records against each other are all mixed. I don’t think anyone will try and argue that Mabel, Kevin Nash, Yokozuna or Giant Gonzales were bigger stars than The Undertaker, or argue that they should have ultimately defeated him.

I’m sure I won’t get a flood of e-mails rushing to the defence of HHH either. More recently, I think crowd reaction can tell you all you need to know about whether Batista has the necessary star-power to unseat Big Evil.

Undertaker then, has a track record of beating those who offer no more than him, and being an obstacle to overcome (successfully) for those who can offer more. I put it to you that you could deduce from that, he has been occupying his rightful place on the card.

Since I’m writing this defence, only you can be the judge and jury - in that case, I respectfully ask that you acquit The Undertaker.

If you’d like to comment on this column, I can be reached at takeupthywrestlingboots@gmail.com, and I make every effort to reply to all mail received.

Thankyou for reading, and I'll be back again soon with the 150th Take up thy wrestling boots and walk.

Pt2








*NEW GALLERY* Go Directly to a RANDOM HOT BABE & DIVAS GALLERY! Check It Out!

• Quick Links -
  [Back to LOP] [News Archives] [Results] [Columns] [Forums]