WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Pro Wrestling > Who Was Better - Terry Funk vs The Undertaker

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Who Was Better - Terry Funk vs The Undertaker  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2018 03:31 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
srossi
HALL OF FAMER
 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 61563
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Kriss wrote: One thing about taker, he was always over. That's the thing when people say that wins and losses in wrestling don't matter (looking at you, Brian James), Undertaker, Goldberg, the Road Warriors, Hulk Hogan. None of these guys would have got where they did with 50-50 booking.
It definitely depends on the guy, and WWE knows this even if they won't admit it.  You can look no further than Cena to see a guy who never would've been where he was without almost always winning (until the last couple of years). 

Everyone mentioned needed to win to get over.  You can't have guys with looks like theirs who don't almost always win.  If that happens you immediately see a guy who looks like a monster but fights like a pussy and it kills him. 

That's why Reigns is so difficult to book.  He has the look of a guy who needs to usually win because when he doesn't he's just this huge bad-ass monster who can't put guys away, but he's not over so if you push him too hard the fans revolt anyway.  It's tough.  It hurt The Big Show too because a guy his size needs to almost always win, but that gets boring quickly in an age where everyone is on TV twice a week for 10 years straight and there are no other territories to go to in order to freshen up.  So Show wound up in these feuds with guys like Jeff Hardy where they're doing the 50-50 booking and it just looks ridiculous.  Hardy beating Show once out of a 100 times should be a huge deal, but it's 50-50 and no one gets over.  It's the unsolvable problem for WWE in an age of too much content and no breaks except for injury.

Then you have guys like Flair and Angle, just such incredible natural talents, you could book them as chicken-shit heels or have them almost never win and they'll always be over.  Flair is always used as the shining example of wins not mattering since Flair almost never won even as champion, but Flair is also a once-in-a-lifetime talent.  When you book fucking Dean Ambrose like that, he dies on the vine.

Last edited on Fri Jul 27th, 2018 03:34 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2018 03:36 am
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cincy, Ohio
Posts: 5871
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I don’t understand how the E can’t see that.

Once WCW died the big show should have been an attraction used sparingly. Even as good as Jake the snake was Andre always kicked his ass and that’s how it should have been.


Flair was able to keep his status because he could talk everyone into the building and then hang on and on and on. Flair didn’t win a lot but he won enough and when he lost it was usually non title, in a tag or by DQ during the 80’s and early 90’s. Hogan steam rolled him in WCW but his program with Savage brought him back and by 97 he was falling apart but he had so much cred it was hard to totally count him out (to me at least)


Angle was so good so fast that it was hard to really hate him.


I don’t think anyone could get as over working 50/50 as they could working 95/5 or 90/10 (wins/loses)


I think wrestlers should lose but their has to be tiers to clearly define the talent but that doesn’t mean that people can’t move up and down over time. Funk couldn’t beat flair in 89 but I don’t think anyone thought he wasn’t capable or crazy as fuck.

If they are going to book 50/50 or close to it I think they should do a top 10 or do some round robin tournaments to at least give direction to the wins and loses. 

Last edited on Sat Jul 28th, 2018 03:41 am by Franchise



____________________
"Beginning this week, Nitro is going head-to-head with Thunder in Australia" - The Wrestling Observer Newsletter: January 22, 2001
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2018 02:50 am
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
BitterOldMan



Joined: Thu Jun 30th, 2016
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 1052
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I don't think UT could have worked as an NWA World Champ. I think he lacked the versatility in the ring to work with a territory talent to make them look good while keeping his
own credibility. UT was one of the most heavily protected characters in all of wrestling for most of his career and didn't have to deal with all the bs that goes with keeping your spot, nor did he have to concern himself with working with legit shooters who had grudges with the Funk family (Brisco's).

UT was a great character but Funk wins this in a walkover IMHO



____________________
Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative. - John Stuart Mill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2018 03:13 am
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
The Ultimate Sin
HALL OF FAMER


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, Sri Lanka
Posts: 11109
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
I got bored with the UT fairly quickly, but I enjoyed his biker reincarnation.

I never really got Funk. I always thought he was good, but he never interested me enough to want to see him.

To me these are two guys who I respect as talents but don't really give a flying fuck about.



____________________
May I offer you some salt and vinegar chips?
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 04:56 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2     
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Pro Wrestling > Who Was Better - Terry Funk vs The Undertaker Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems