Personally, I thought he was at his peak as a character during the early years (1990-1). During that time, he was probably the most foreboding heel presence ever in the WWE. His character was indestructable and completely shrouded in mystery. Once they made him "second banana" to Jake Roberts and gradually turned him face, the mystery vanished.
2007-03-03 01:04:49 · 18 answers · asked by Goin'down77 2 in Sports ➔ Wrestling
agreed heel
2007-03-03 01:07:13 · answer #1 · answered by bshelby2121 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a hard one for me as I like him both ways. The Undertaker will always be one of my all time favorites regardless.
To answer your question, I guess I like him better as a heel.
2007-03-03 07:05:32 · answer #2 · answered by Barry 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like him as a face and Batista as a heel
2007-03-03 01:15:47 · answer #3 · answered by >>HaRdY BoYz<< (EAW) 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't matter for me since I have been a taker fan since I started watching in 1999 I have always been a Taker fan
2007-03-03 01:46:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think I liked him better heel!
But I don't really care bc everyway he is dominant and exciting
2007-03-03 02:22:00 · answer #5 · answered by PeaceLoveJonas 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
y are y'all on about MNM,Hardyz, rey rey et al?
undertaker rules whichever, however id prefer him being a heel
2007-03-09 10:02:32 · answer #6 · answered by Maccie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
neutral. have no strong opinion whether he is heel or face because UT plays them well.
2007-03-03 02:24:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
face man total face hes great wen he just doesent talk and kicks the crap out of every1!.
2007-03-09 06:49:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
mmm hes a bad *** as a heel.
2007-03-09 03:41:08 · answer #9 · answered by JoRgE X 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he is a legend...either way
still,,i think ,,,he WAS better as a heel
he could do ANYTHING he wanted
not the same as a face
2007-03-03 01:14:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋