So much of our opinions are based on our perception of a single moment in time. That moment can be a movie, an article, a social media post, a conversation or even a wrestling match. It can be forgotten by the one who created it, while still living on for years in the mind of someone else. It can be the thing used to define someone, the memory that acts as the speck of grit which eventually begets the pearl of opinion.

One of the bigger problems with modern discourse is the assumption that one moment is enough to judge something. The idea that this one moment represents how something is, was and ever will be. There is no room for change, both for the person being judged and person doing the judging.

Some opinions are held for lifetimes, treated as holy scripture and used to define someone’s personality. For many people, being able to reassess opinions allows you to grow or understand your own tastes.

Context is often crucial when reassessing your opinions. A good example was when I was recording an episode of the Must See Matches podcast. The subject was The Undertaker vs Mankind at King of the Ring 1998. I watched the match for the first time and formed a negative opinion of The Undertaker’s performance. During the recording, I found out that The Undertaker had a fractured ankle going into that match. The injury, and the idea that the matches legendarily reckless spots were designed to hide this, meant that I reassessed my opinion on the spot. Bullet points in my notes were rendered obsolete. It was a perfect example for me of how opinions and perception change as more facts become available.

I do not have an overly positive opinion of The Undertaker as a performer. My first experience of The Undertaker was him coming out on a motorcycle and causing havoc during Triple H vs The Rock at Judgement Day in May 2000. My first live experience was watching him defeat Edge in the main event of WrestleMania XXIV. I remembered absolutely nothing about that match, and yet I vividly remember the meal after the show.

One of the things that shaped my negative opinion of The Undertaker was another match that I watched for the Must See Matches Podcast: Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker, Hell in a Cell, from In Your House: Badd Blood.

Like The Undertaker vs Mankind at KOTR 1998, I had never seen that match before starting the Must See Matches podcast. It was frequently pointed out on the podcast how many legendary matches I had not seen, especially from pre-2000’s WWF. After watching the match, with no prior investment and no context, I found that this much adored match did not click for me. After thinking about it, my conclusion was that this was a match about the Undertaker seeking revenge where he showed no sign of pleasure or satisfaction.

As a wrestling fan I enjoy fiery underdogs fighting from underneath and passionate babyfaces looking for vengeance. Intensity and urgency are something I adore while also recognizing that van also be a tool that can be used as a crutch for younger, less experienced wrestlers. I saw none of that in this match, and it gave me little to emotionally invest in. I could appreciate the novelty, the layout and Shawn Michaels’ hard work, but I felt that The Undertaker held it back for me.

The guest for both of those episodes of Must See Matches was GRAPPL contributor Matty Edwards. He challenged my opinion, raising that the character of The Undertaker meant that he should not show emotion in that way. Throughout the podcast series, it became a running joke that I hated the Undertaker and Matty suggested creating a playlist to help me better appreciate The Undertaker as a performer. It became known jokingly as Mark vs Mark.

This is the first of a series of articles where I will go through Matty’s list of 13 Undertaker matches from 1996 to 2008. The aim is to reassess my opinion of The Undertaker as an in-ring performer by gaining more data. It’s about keeping an open mind while judging The Undertaker to the standards that I try to use when judging most wrestling. So, I invite you to join me on this journey of discovery.

Match 1 – The Undertaker vs Mankind, King of the Ring 1996, 23^rd June 1996, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Goldust. Diesel. Bret Hart. King Mabel. Kama. King Kong Bundy. IRS. Yokozuna. The Fake Undertaker. Giant Gonzalez. Those were the last ten wrestlers who had fought The Undertaker in singles matches on PPV before this match. Considering the result and the Cagematch score for the Bret Hart match, I can easily understand why I was told to start this project with The Undertaker vs Mankind at King of the Ring 1996.

The story that was told throughout this match was that this was not normal. Mankind, with his unorthodox style and random squealing, was not normal. The Undertaker forsaking his usual entrance to ambush Mankind by diving off the top rope, was not normal. The Undertaker spending most of the match fighting from underneath and the beating that he took, was not normal.

I appreciated the deviation from normality. In fact, my favourite things about the match were the deviations from normality. My main criticism of The Undertaker during the Badd Blood Hell in a Cell match was that there was no sense of wanting vengeance. I didn’t feel that disconnect here. The Undertaker did not achieve it through expressive facial expressions. He achieved it through urgency. His opening dive, his early flurries, and the rapid punches during his big mid match comeback were the perfect vehicles to convey his desire to beat Mankind. It also helped to energize the crowd without hurting “the character.”

The other deviation from the norm that I want to praise was the structure. Mankind controlled most of the match. While I greatly enjoyed Mankind’s incredible bravery/foolishness with the Cactus Elbows and the running knee into the steps, there was a lot of slow and honestly lukewarm brawling in this match. And yet, this still did the job because this match was so well structured in terms of The Undertaker’s comebacks and hope spots. What they did didn’t always work for me, but WHEN they did it was the sign of two veterans working the crowd without needing to pander or preen. The Undertaker fought back, or sat up, or raised his boot exactly when it would illicit the best reactions.

I don’t know if I would call this a great match. I can see why it stands out and why many see it as a turning point for The Undertaker. You can see why Mankind is seen as someone who was important for developing The Undertaker as a wrestler. This match had its flaws, the main ones being Mankind’s control segment and a tendency to slow down near the end. What the match did do was show me glimpses of The Undertaker’s timing and the understanding of how to use urgency and speed to overcome stoicism. This was not a match that changed my opinion, but it was a match that showed me things that I appreciated.

Match 2 – The Undertaker vs Vader, In Your House 16: Canadian Stampede, 6^th July 1997, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Every time I tried to think of how to describe this match, I kept coming back to three words: This was fine. There was nothing bad or objectionable. The finish, with The Undertaker using a second rope Chokeslam, a regular Chokeslam and a Tombstone Piledriver in quick succession, was strong and definitive. The match used the structure that I praised from King of the Ring 1996. It even had a repeat of The Undertaker using a fast punch flurry as an energizing hope spot.

Despite those elements, it felt lacking. The shorter length and Vader’s style of offence did not achieve the results that I expected. Vader’s work lacked a sense of ruthlessness and the Undertaker at times felt like a halfway house between the traditional expressionless blank slate of “the character” and a normal person. Was this a lack of commitment or more an attempt to convey vulnerability and humanity during the “Undertaker is a murderer” storyline that didn’t quite work? If I saw this match outside of this project, I would probably forget this match within a month. As it is, I’m wondering if this was either an off night or the norm.

The experience of watching these first two matches was like making a discovery and then immediately finding contradicting evidence. Mankind vs Undertaker was not a smoking gun or the missing piece of the jigsaw. It was a match where I could see strengths and appreciate certain aspects. Elements that were either absent or obscured when I reached Canadian Stampede. Like any wrestler’s career, this project is a journey. Sometimes it’s smooth sailing, sometimes there is a bump in the road, and sometimes I may think of anything other than a cliché while following the rule of three. What will the next chapter hold? Time will tell.