What stars has Undertaker made?

jaykhunter · 13-03-2011 4:16pm #1

Taker has one of the longest, most successful careers in wrestling history. He's also been expertly booked, to keep such a gimmick-heavy character fresh, special and relevant. But over more than a 20-year career, what other wrestlers has he made? (i.e. what wrestlers were big stars after beating the undertaker/elevated much more)

GTR63 · 13-03-2011 4:22pm

Mankind comes to mind when he entered wwe under the new gimmick. He has lost clean to some duds Kozlov,Khali & infamously Maven.

bradlente · 13-03-2011 4:25pm

Had a great program with Kennedy.

bradlente · 13-03-2011 4:27pm

Giant Gonzales?

soz

osullic · 13-03-2011 4:27pm

Kane?

bradlente · 13-03-2011 4:34pm

I'd have to say Brock Lesnar as well.I think that fued brought him up to the real main event level.

Rjd2 · 13-03-2011 4:35pm

GTR63 wrote: »

He has lost clean to some duds Kozlov,Khali & infamously Maven.

He always got his wins back though.

parker kent · 13-03-2011 4:49pm

Mick Foley and Kane are the two obvious. Foley and Taker were great for each other in 1996. And obviously Kane got over primarily because of The Undertaker's brother angle.

Then as is mentioned above he has always worked with feuds with all sorts. Sure he traded wins with Kozloz, Kennedy and Khali, but that is irrelevant. Being involved in a feud with Taker and getting a clean win is massive. He did his best to help them out.

It definitely elevated Lesnar having him beat The Undertaker in HIAC. Ditto Randy Orton. The WM between them helped Orton become a main eventer. Twinned with his Foley feud, Orton actually seemed like a believable headliner in those feuds.

Then Taker has also been booked in a massive list of rotten feuds with terrible workers ranging from Heidenreich, Nathan Jones, A-Train (although he has sicne proved himself in Japan), Bossman, Mark Henry, King Kong Bundy etc. All were attempts to get those seen as main eventers. But like Kozlov and Khali, they were just too shít or not ready to succeed as main eventers.

You could mention Bradshaw/JBL as the Ministry helped rescue the Acolytes from the abyss. So that kept him on TV in a prominent role. And the Taker feuded with JBL on Smackdown when Bradshaw took on the JBL persona.

johnn · 13-03-2011 4:49pm

He let Lesnar batter him in one on one in a HIAC, his own match, and never got the win back.....although he may have wanted it back at this years mania if he had his way.

Mr. Guappa · 13-03-2011 4:51pm

He has been saddled with more than his fair share of dud opponents throughout his career. He helped get Kane and Mankind over. I remember a great ladder match he had with Jeff Hardy on Raw. That match helped identify Hardy as a potential main-eventer.

Charisteas · 13-03-2011 5:16pm

GTR63 wrote: »

Mankind comes to mind when he entered wwe under the new gimmick. He has lost clean to some duds Kozlov,Khali & infamously Maven.

Yep and he was also eliminated from a Rumble by Shaven Maven.

chopperbyrne · 13-03-2011 9:52pm

Henry Godwinn. He was just a throwaway gimmick before this match, but got a nice little push out of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kYGjHZiRp0

flahavaj · 13-03-2011 10:00pm

In fairness its kinda hard to make anyone when your gimick is that you're an invincible zombie who has come back from the dead more times than I've had a bellyful of porter.

ricero · 13-03-2011 10:53pm

steve austin ? well i know he kinda made himself well him and vince but i remember foundly austin getting the better of undertaker on most occasions

parker kent · 13-03-2011 10:55pm

flahavaj wrote: »

In fairness its kinda hard to make anyone when your gimick is that you're an invincible zombie who has come back from the dead more times than I've had a bellyful of porter.

Yet oddly he has. He hasn't really been that "invincible" since 96 and the Mankind feud anyway. Well not any more so than any other top guy. Plus when somebody has a competitive match against him, it means more because of his gimmick. If you are competitive against Taker, you will be against anybody.

Foley, Orton, Kane and Lesnar all benefited hugely from programmes with Taker.

So you're right in a way in what you say, but his gimmick has also helped anybody who did look good against him. They just haven't used that wisely enough, letting goons like Mark Henry, Heidenreich etc get the rub.

SlickRic · 14-03-2011 12:51pm

in my humble opinion, the definitive answer is Brock Lesnar.

he made a lot of people look competitive in his time due to his gimmick; but his programme with Lesnar put Lesnar well and truly through the glass ceiling for me.

The likes of Foley, Kane, Kennedy and Khali all benefitted from him, but they were never made by him IMO.

in fact, in the case of Foley, Undertaker arguably benefitted more from that than Mick.

Kane, being Undertaker's brother, was seen as a legit threat as a result, but he wasn't really 'made' by a programme with him...if that makes sense.

Undertaker was in a perfect position at one stage to 'make' Orton at Wrestlemania, but didn't. i still, to this day, believe that to be one of the great missed opportunities. i know we wouldn't then have the Streak today, and would have probably missed on two Taker/HBK classics, but i still believe Orton should've gone over there.

Rjd2 · 14-03-2011 1:01pm

SlickRic wrote: »

Undertaker was in a perfect position at one stage to 'make' Orton at Wrestlemania, but didn't. i still, to this day, believe that to be one of the great missed opportunities. i know we wouldn't then have the Streak today, and would have probably missed on two Taker/HBK classics, but i still believe Orton should've gone over there.

Yeah it would have been monumental for Orton to go over, however that feud done wonders for his cred after Hunter had buried him the previous year.

In the last few years he hasn't really helped many people. He utterly killed Punk's momentum and then their is the Kane issue. Why O why did he work so hard to get the big red retard over? The bum can't work, can't draw and was a waste of Taker's time. I wish he had put that much effort into someone younger who wasn't as wretched as Kane.

bradlente · 14-03-2011 1:21pm

I think it's a shame now that whenever we see him it's a big marquee match against an established performer,he should be spending the energy he has left on younger and less proven talent imo.Swagger Sheamus Del Rio just a few that he could have a good angle with.

Smoshi · 14-03-2011 3:39pm

I honestly cant think of any stars Undertaker has "made".

Anybody who has eaten him was already a headliner, or if they werent, they bombed (Khali, Kozlov) thus they werent "made".

He DID make Brock Lesner look amazing. But thats a long time ago now.

He also made Kane look really good over the summer/autumn, but Kane wasn't really an up & comer.

In contrast, i think he ruined CM Punk after Punk's series with Hardy. And i think (in general) Taker has deminished more stars than he's made.

Just my opinion

GTR63 · 14-03-2011 3:49pm

Bit off topic but why does Undertaker wear Mascara ?

Smoshi · 14-03-2011 3:51pm

I think it was just to add dark circles around his eyes to help the "dead" effect.

But he just looks likes he's a fibbers girl

Hercule · 14-03-2011 5:31pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBPsWarWRb4

First name that came to mind is Nathan Jones and his training

"gee thanks taker - thanks for following through with your promise after i got out of prison"

"I will do it"

Ill advised push number 48

Riddle101 · 14-03-2011 8:53pm

In fairness to Undertaker, his gimmick pretty much get's in the way of him putting over talent. WWE insist on booking him strongly, and because of this it's hard for them to go over.

But even so as said before he put over Mankind and Kane during their debuts. Brock Lesnar pretty much cemented his status with the Undertaker fued. He put over Big Show when he debuted in WWE, remember when he got chokeslammed through the ring. Randy Orton and mr Kennedy are arguable, but I think their fueds with Undertaker put them over in a big way, so I count them as well.

Then you have the failed experiments, Heideinreich and Koslov.

Great Khali was put over just by destorying Undertaker, and dominating him during their fueds.

the groutch · 15-03-2011 12:38am

the problem with taker was that he was never great at cutting promos, which is just as much part of putting over a fellow wrestler as the match results.

Riddle101 · 15-03-2011 1:19am

the groutch wrote: »

the problem with taker was that he was never great at cutting promos, which is just as much part of putting over a fellow wrestler as the match results.

During his American Badass/Big Red days, Undertaker showed that he was awesome on the mic. His mic skills are pretty underrated tbh. As far as putting people over in promos goes, i've yet to see a wrestler who really does do that. The Rock, Steve Austin and Chris Jericho always put themselves over, never their opponents in promos. Same with Triple H and Shawn Micheals in the 90's. Most wrestlers just use promos to get themselves over as mic work is essential for getting a wrestler over and become a big star in wrestling.

Exclamation Marc · 15-03-2011 1:23am

I think he made Mankind.

I remember that boiler room brawl so vividly and that match really made Foley in my eyes.

Foley certainly went on to make himself the star he was, but Taker really made him main event.

Charisteas · 15-03-2011 5:54am

The Undertaker is so great, that he is making stars in other companies!

Well, one could argue that the reason for Sting's 2011 push and title run is due to the fact that he was rumored to be facing Taker at Mania and was a big-deal on the Internet for a few weeks, thus TNA feeling like they re-acquired a huge star when he returned to TNA, and slapping the belt on him on his returning night.

Ok so Sting has been a star for 20 years, put he has achieved more these past 2 weeks since the WrestleMania rumour-mill than he did in all of 2010.

What stars has Undertaker made?

Comments