Undertaker On Mick Foley & Kane's Next Level Commitment #3 

The most underrated rivalry. People say 1994-96 was a bad year for WWE, and in many ways it was, but there were some awesome rivalries and matches. Bret Hart and Austin, Taker vs Mankind, Diesel vs Taker, Diesel vs Shawn, Bret vs Shawn, Shawn vs Owen, Razor Ramon vs Shawn, Razor Ramon vs 1-2-3 kid and so on, I can't think of everything off the top of my head, but there were.

Everyone who had a rivalry with Foley it was the bet rivalry they ever had.

@@alphanerd7221 Honestly Foley was the MVP of the whole Attitude Era. Aside from the insane bumps he took weekly almost, he rejuvenated Taker in 96, first opponent of Austin when he was champ for a few months, when Rock and HHH both needed someone to legitimize them, make them look tougher etc, Foley again made them. Hell, into the RA era he did the same for Orton and Edge. The guy was the man.

@@Devypocalypse Foley is in my top 3 favorite singles matches of all time.

You and me both.

BROWN MANKIND was the Best!!! Very Real!!!

I was like it’s finally a guy the undertaker can’t beat

That feud in ‘96 was very interesting, it was wrestlings version of Batman vs Joker.

Purple Gloved TAKER and Brown MANKIND were to this Day my Favorite feud!!!

OOO Yesss! Oooo yessss! Ooo my uundertakerrr knew 12 year old you were afraidd! Hee could smell your fearrr OOOO Yessss!!!

Imagine how hot it was in the ring! And then wearing full body black outfit and full red tights with a mask! And add to that the match was actually pretty good! Possibly better than their Mania bout. And that's how good Taker and Kane are.

I like that summer 98 to turn slowly and turn on Kane and beginning of ministry era

​@@Thurs1t0 As someone who's 44, the ministry era definitely wasn't peak Taker. A lot of my peers couldn't stand that time, but it was cool to me, someone who's a bit darker than most...but certainly wasn't the ultimate mini-gimmick.

I feel like Taker never really peaked due to booking! In the 90s at his physical prime didn’t get too much main event spot! During 00s-10s finally got the world title but he passed his physical prime ~

Ministry Taker era, American Badass Taker era, Big Evil Taker era and 2004-2013 Undertaker were the best versions of the Undertaker imo

@@TheJoker12323 For me, it was '97/'98 Taker. Well, at least his look at the time. Ministry Taker did play the part of a sadistic cult leader to perfection though.

I feel ya man. I was 17 in '97, back when I heavily got back into wrestling. It was Taker through and through, until Kane stepped on the scene. I mean I freakin' grew my hair out and dyed it black (still have long hair to this day) 'cause of Taker...but Kane quickly became the favourite. From the mystique, the walk, the mannerisms, the mega powerhouse that Glenn was; for a few years he shined brighter than Undertaker ever did. And that's not any diss towards Taker, it's the supernatural phenomenon that Kane was just burned even brighter.

Kane was extremely over when he debuted. I remember seeing non-wrestljng fans comment on him in various places and say how he was even more interesting and powerful than Taker... it probably helped that Taker was very banged up in that period so his matches were not his best, making Kane seem fresher and more exciting. In ring Kane is solid. He's not S-Tier or maybe A-Tier. He's B-Tier in that he's never bad, never, and his timing is great, but he never could innovate or wow like some of his peers (except his lovely top rope clothesline which unfortunately we saw too much of). But before anybody thinks that's disrespectful... who else ALWAYS has a solid match? Almost nobody. But Kane was always solid. Always. I agree though inasmuch that he stayed over far longer than his botched handling would account for and it was only towards the end of the 2010's that people really got tired of him once and for all. Kane was great. Nothing like him will be done again. Glen Jacobs deserves a Hall of Fame spot deservedly.

Wrong Taker would always be better that Kane

@@Jesse-sk1xn You made some good points to validate your viewpoints.

@@Jesse-sk1xn "Always"? Hmm. Has Taker drawn more? Yes. Is he a better promo? Hmm. 50/50 as I think Kane is as good as Taker in general. Has Kane been written as well as Taker? Well Kane had Katie Vick and Taker spoke in Tongues so they've both had bad storylines. Work rate? Taker has one of the best matches ever... twice... with Shawn Michaels at Mania. I don't think Kane has ever had that calibre of a match but Kane has definitely delivered a more consistent performance throughout his whole career - Taker of the 00's-01's was pretty... not great. And Kane knew when to leave, whereas Taker sullied his legacy with matches such as Oldberg and the DX Saudi match (although... so did Kane). What about pop? Well Taker is in a league of his own as he isn't matchable based on protection and longevity alone. But Kane? I think you have to go back to 1998 for Kane. He was getting FAR louder pops in 1998-2000 than Taker. And yeah Taker was a heel but if you remember, Kane was a heel fighting face Taker then they more or less double turned. Even as Kane remained a heel with the Corporation, he was getting face cheers all of the time. Taker wasn't getting face cheers despite being a heel. He was just getting heel heat. And I suspect, although cannot prove, that Kane merch outsold Ministry Era Taker's for some years. Especially the masks. I don't think Kane has overall been better than Undertaker. No, sorry, it's not realistic to suggest he has. And it's not fair to say Glen Jacobs is a better wrestler than Taker as I think Taker is in a special category of his own. However... Kane IS a great wrestler and there was sincerely a three year period, before WWE booked him as a comedy act and the Katie Vick story, where I genuinely believe Kane was more over than Undertaker and was producing better matches in that period than Undertaker. There are numerous reasons why, I'm not going into them, but for a while, Kane WAS more over than Undertaker. Comparing the two overall? Undertaker is more over. Comparing the two from 1998-2001 perhaps? Kane was more over. But I don't believe even during that period that Kane was as over as Undertaker had been or would be. I don't know, does that sound fair?

Not gonna happen with this host … this guy don’t let taker even finish his own sentences let alone story… it’s sad the guy with the most stories can’t get em out due the host not understanding what he’s doing or how to format anything

@@deadbrothers8348 You understand that it's the host job to move the show along, right? You realize that Taker is trying to keep these episodes within an hour, right?

​@@deadbrothers8348 Yeah, this guy is genuinely awful. I get that there is some sort of rapport between them (which is baffling there's this friendship), but the host has this painful southern voice (and I'm a southerner) that's constantly quivering as if they're drastically sick and afraid. Between all that and the dude just doesn't have the personality I could deal with in long spans (they're blatantly generic/vapid), it's such a bad combination. Mark/Taker has more charisma in their left pinky finger than this man has in their entire body. And that's not biasness towards Taker, it's just a matter-of-fact observation.

​@@Chalor. I mean...who wouldn't be sick and afraid in the presence of the Deadman 😂😳

What an understatement! Kane was the absolute coolest character and jacked monster whose storytelling, in match form, could and should have been terrifying.

- His backflip over the top rope exit

Everything was right with Kane, it was Vince who screwed up this great character with horrible storylines and bookings.

@@-Aashish- I agree, they turned him into a joke in the end. But 1997 Kane was * chefs kiss *

@@theofficialgreenkane9645 I love the Kane/Big Show match on Raw with Jim Ross and I think it's either PS Hayes or Heyman comentating....and JR was loosing his shit over Kane casually putting Show on his shoulders while outside on the floor...lol

This is EXACTLY how I feel towards Taker. Sincerely, thank you for sharing this. 😢

Mick was the Gary Oldman of wrestling in the sense that he would disappear into his character.

@@grantoden8242 why are you talking about Mick Foley on a comment about the Undertaker?

@@KQ_T4I no problem sharing is always good

Couldnt write it better

Taker has always said that the Streak was made to be broken. If he retired, he didn't need it any more and it was a golden ticket to make someone. The issue was the person they chose to break it didn't need it and that it got taken away in a terrible match. And therefore it left a terrible taste in many people's mouthes. This is particularly galling now with recent possible allegations which I hope for Borck's sake are proven to be false. But if they're not, more evidence the Streak should not have gone to him.

@@JeremiahEcks777 Should have been Edge.

@@alphanerd7221 Edge would have kept his own streak going so, he works, yeah.

@@JeremiahEcks777 They offered it to him and he said no.

@@alphanerd7221 True, from what I hear. Everybody kept saying no. Except Brock. And it's arguable that's one of various reasons he shouldn't have had it.

96.

The sixth sense, Dead Man Walking, Tombstone..The T.V Show six feet under

Yeah, that would be great to hear about, but it's not this hosts objective to ask those kinds of questions...at least not anytime soon. It seems like everyone doesn't have a clue that this whole podcast was a pay to play thing, then recently that went away. Like all of this isn't brand new.

At my job we still have a rolodex. I was born in 1980, and that's still not super old school to me. But regardless, I still feel ya with that being an OG thing.

Hard to disagree in many ways but it misses out his matches with Foley and I think he did some career best storytelling vs. Mick.

He does really want to hurt him, apparently. In character.

Taker was really high on him and kept praising him to Vince and wanted to work a program with him but Vince wasn’t interested, unfortunately. Chris himself also said on an old interview that Taker really liked him and wanted him to be pushed.

I get the connection but Penance was a very gratuitous childish grasp at being 'mature' and changed what was a very positive character negative for naught more than shock value. Additionally throwing the New Warriors under a bus simply because they're weren't one of Bendis' favourites (Luke Cage and Iron Fist are never mysteriously as inept and yet the Warriors had been competent and legit for years - except when Millar and Bendis got to them...). Anyway my point is, I get your comparison but the difference for me is that Mick is great character work... Penance is an example of one of the multitude reasons why comics are dead as an art form.

@@JeremiahEcks777 True, I was merely referring to the basic idea of the Pain aspect of the characters, Mankind Mick Foley is an infinitely cooler character, just kind of a, "Huh, I think Marvel should take a few notes from WWE / Wrestling Sports Entertainment on Character",

@@nikolibarastov4487 You're completely right and I am completely ranting. 😆 Thanks sincerely for being patient with me. I agree, there is a lot in common between the two. I remember Foley making a promo about being hurt more and it feeling good. Robbie actually pretty much says "Good" to being told the armour hurts during Civil War. There's a lot of similarities. It also reminds me a bit of Hank Pym in that he has different identities but they pretty much amount to the same thing with a different flavour. Yellowjacket and Dude Love for example. 🤩

@@JeremiahEcks777 No Problem, I've gotten into too many Comment / Internet Spats recently, so your comment was a welcome change of pace.

You mean the unnecessary spot which added nothing to the sting retirement??

I thought it must have happened as Cactus Jack vs. Spike in ECW but apparently that wasn't a thing - I don't think Spike had started yet when Mick left for WWF, and when Spike came to WWF/E, Mick was retired/Commissioner Foley. They had some TV time together but never a match. Surprised me!

Those were the days when you had not just the Brothers, but old school Mankind and also the Brood.

​@@thestarseeker8196 Gangrel was so underutilized. David really has it all, but Vince in their oh-so-glorious wisdom didn't give him the push he deserved because he didn't have the face or physique that McMahon preferred. Obviously guys like Mick were the exception to the norm.

Walter?

​@@Chalor.I LOVE me some Gangrel and in ring, Heath is underrated... ... but he isn't a talker. He needed a mouthpiece or never to talk. Unfortunately you do need a voice occasionally to get your character over. What he could have used was Luna as his full-time valet and she would have been enough character for the both of them.

@@JeremiahEcks777 Oh man, the Luna idea would've been awesome! And same here man, I love Gangrel. He's a dude that was really underutilized once the Brood disbanded. His intro (dare I say) was cooler than 80% of Taker's. And yeah man, he's quite the Chatty Cathy. Imagine him as the host. Mark would definitely never get a word in lol.

​@@benneely5512 What?

Same here man! I *_can't stand_* the host. Glad to see more and more ppl vocalizing this lately, ever since the podcast stopped being behind a paywall. It's just gonna take 50x the amount of input like this for things to possibly change. I'm pretty much 100% sure they won't, since for every 1 person pointing out the obvious, they'll be 50 more totally fine with this guy.

@@Chalor.Actually he does let him speak

I dont like him either, dudes annoying.

Yall people are so rude

Terrible analogy. Farley wanted to be Belushi so bad but never came close. He was funny because he was overweight and that's it.

@@chadjustice8560 What you said about Farley wanting to be Belushi was really stupid. Belushi never saw the success that Farley did. Farley had the ability to make other comedians laugh out loud,and was regularly the center of attention where ever he was. I won't use this to put down Belushi,though.