LogFAQs > #979712272

I think his presence and character work elevated a career with a lot of meh ring work and promos, and some standout matches to firmly "good" even if yeah he had a lot of bad stuff there (even though I'd say most of the truly bad stuff was before the attitude era)

I think it's all under the same umbrella though. Taker having a compelling character MADE matches and promos better. I think it's dumbing down wrestling as an artform to just try and isolate the character from these things entirely.

Now if you hated the character it becomes harder to say this guy was good in the ring or on the mic but at that point you're not really trying to be objective about it and it's just your preferences. The character was legendary and his performance at it was legendary.

Which I mean you can absolutely say no in spite of this, this topic series has nothing to do with being objective. I'm just taking umbrage with him being called "bad in the ring"-- he probably shouldn't really be considered that by any objective measure that is taking the total package into play.