Int Region, Fourth Round, 3 Stages Of Hell: (1) Undertaker vs. (4) Kurt Angle

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Forget what they've told you about Cena and Michaels, this is far and away the closest match of this round. And can we clarify something before moving on. Taker's prime is from about '97-'99. Angle's is more like 2002-... I don't know, you tell me. Therefore the two guys have never faced off in their prime.

This means of course, the winning record between the two guys is incomparable in their match. As Taker's prime was marginally before Angle's, and we're correctly saying Angle had the edge when they faced off, then it makes this match very close if you take a Taker from a few years earlier and pit the two together.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Street Fight

We have this 2/3 gimmick match rules idea. That complicates things. Firstly, it's a street fight. Kurt Angle has famously mauled Shane McMahon in one street fight, Undertaker beat a returning and over the hill Flair with interference against him nonetheless. I don't remember any others and I'm having difficulty finding any others, apart from one with Taker back in like 88 where he lost to Road Warriors, but that's way out of his prime also. So it's difficult to compare. Both won, both had less than stellar opponents, Angle was ruthless but Taker was merciless. This is so close that's it's a shame to call because it's going to be so influential on the rest of the contest. I would just give it to Taker though, he was certainly more dominant in his match and he was facing an actual wrestler and also had to overcome interference. That's the only grounds I can use to score it here.

Winner: The Undertaker

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cage match

Let's go back to records, Taker is 6-1-5 in Hell In A Cell. Not awful. Also note that one of those matches is where Kane debuted after Taker beat HBK half to death. Another is against Kane a couple of years back where Paul Bearer got involved and caused a dirty victory. Kurt Angle is 1-0-0 as far as I can see. Better. It's harder to get stats for actual cage matches. When it comes down to it, it's very simple because 2/3 falls matches almost always exclusively go to the last fall so Angle is probably going to win somehow here.

Winner: Kurt Angle

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladder match

I want to inject a bit of perspective now. Undertaker is limping around on a half broken ankle by this point after probably losing, or at least suffering greatly, in the cage to some sort of ankle lock sequence. Angle, on the other hand, has been in the Hell's Gate and his neck and shoulder area is causing him all sorts of issues. This creates contrasting issues for the two men in the final encounter. Angle is having difficulty pulling himself up the ladder with his arms, Taker is having difficulty climbing on his legs alone, a bad ankle to go with the already poor knees, and would need his reliable arms to do him the good work to get up the ladder.

Both guys have reliable cardio but are still going to be gassing, although Angle's may edge out Taker's. Angle has a 2-2 record in ladder matches as pointed out whilst Taker's only victory came against a mid-card Hardy way back when, although he did lose to Edge in a TLC match but had to fend off heavy interference and only a bump from the ring to the floor through 4 tables could keep him down long enough.TLC are the same technically, but for namesake Taker does have the better record. But as a reverse to the cage situation, although he has a better record he has far less experience and as a result has actually still won less matches in that environment. That at least evens things up in that respect.

Closer than anything.My heart says Taker and my head says Angle.

Y'know, the only way I can separate it is by evaluating Undertaker in his prime. In 1997, I just don't think anybody, even of the technical and endurable calibre of Kurt Angle is going to topple the man twice in the same night. The Undertaker is The Undertaker, Kurt Angle is Kurt 'freaking' Angle. If you take both men in their primes, I think Taker is going to edge it out, but wow. I think it'd probably one of my favourite matches ever already and I don't care about how it's built.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Last year in this tournament Angle beat 'Taker in a TLC match; however, this is a much different setting then a one fall match up.

Street Fight:

I would be correct in saying that this match suits 'Taker more so than it does Angle. I'm not saying that Angle can't brawl. I'm just saying that 'Taker is better at brawling than Kurt. Angle will put up a hell of fight against 'Taker in the street fight, but I think that after an Angle Slam and a close 2 count, 'Taker will sit up, punch Angle a few times, throw him into the corner and do the running splash, snake eyes, running big boot, leg drop, and finally a tombstone onto either a chair or the ring steps.

Winner: 'Taker

Cage Match:

Both guys will be hurting; however, Angle will be in worse shape. I see 'Taker dominating much of this match. Angle will make his comeback sometime in this match and lock in the Ankle Lock injuring 'Taker just long enough for Angle to make his escape from the cage.

Winner: Angle

Ladder Match:

Both guys are tired and injured at this point and 'Taker's leg is hurting from some ankle locks. They will push each other to the limit in this match and it will come down to one big spot with both men at the top of the ladder at the same time. I think that 'Taker will finish the match with a huge Chokeslam from the top of the ladder.

Winner: 'Taker

Now I know that Angle is no average performer but to beat 'Taker twice in one night you have to be one tough and special sum-bitch and I just can't see anyone doing it. Let alone Angle.

Vote 'Taker.

 

[The Brain]

I suppose I could be off on this, and if I am, let me know.

Kurt Angle hasn't beaten The Undertaker clean. Not once (about 99% on that). Undertaker, on the other hand, has most certainly defeated Kurt Angle clean. Oh, and that was actually BikerTaker.

If we're going by each man in his prime, Kurt doesn't match up. Taker wins 99/100 times. I like Kurt as much as I do Undertaker, but Kurt shouldn't win this vote.

Vote Taker.

Angle pinned Taker clean at No Way Out 2006. During his time in WWE Angle was booked as a guy who could not only hang with Taker and push him to the limit but a guy who could beat Taker. No Way Out 2006 and Smackdown from July 4, 2002 stand out to me. Technically the Smackdown match was a draw but Angle got Taker to tap. It just so happened that Angle was in a position where his shoulders were on the mat while applying the hold and the ref counted three as Taker tapped out. Angle was in control. I've always hated it when the ref would count the shoulders of a guy who was applying a submisson. I think there is a difference between a pin attempt and just having your shoulders down. Angle just seemed to have Taker's number. It's a close match no doubt. I could see it going either way. Just wanted to point out that Angle has cleanly pinned Taker before.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

People bringing up the Mania streak are just being dumb. Even if he is "in his prime at Wrestlemania", what does that mean for this match? It's not being held at Wrestlemania. So it has no bearing on this match up.

Undertaker has a strong and long career, but he's never been "the guy" in the company like Rock, Hogan, Flair, or Austin, but he gets treated like he was. Undertaker and Angle are very much on the same level as pro wrestlers. The stipulation pushes it in Angle's favor, since his moveset will do more lasting damage that would affect the later falls.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Angle pinned Taker clean at No Way Out 2006. During his time in WWE Angle was booked as a guy who could not only hang with Taker and push him to the limit but a guy who could beat Taker. No Way Out 2006 and Smackdown from July 4, 2002 stand out to me. Technically the Smackdown match was a draw but Angle got Taker to tap. It just so happened that Angle was in a position where his shoulders were on the mat while applying the hold and the ref counted three as Taker tapped out. Angle was in control. I've always hated it when the ref would count the shoulders of a guy who was applying a submisson. I think there is a difference between a pin attempt and just having your shoulders down. Angle just seemed to have Taker's number. It's a close match no doubt. I could see it going either way. Just wanted to point out that Angle has cleanly pinned Taker before.

Now I know that Angle did what no other mortal man has done and made 'Taker tap out; however, aren't we talking about both wrestlers in their primes? Was 'Taker in his prime as the ABA/Biker version of himself when Angle made him tap? Would Deadman Undertaker from the 90's or '04 till now tap?

Also you mentioned Angle's clean win over 'Taker at No Way Out '06(classic match btw), but you say you hate it when a guy with a submission locked in get's his shoulders counted. Didn't 'Taker have the Triangle Choke locked in when his shoulders were counted at No Way Out '06? Just wanted to point that out.

If we're going by both men in their primes then I don't think Angle can win this match up. It would be one close and awesome match; however, I just can't see anyone beating 'Taker twice in one night while he is in his prime.

 

[The Brain]

Now I know that Angle did what no other mortal man has done and made 'Taker tap out; however, aren't we talking about both wrestlers in their primes? Was 'Taker in his prime as the ABA/Biker version of himself when Angle made him tap? Would Deadman Undertaker from the 90's or '04 till now tap?

I think Taker was still in his prime in 2002. He was still winning titles and continued to do so years later. I think once someone is past his prime he is past his prime. You can't say Taker was in his prime in the 90s and then again in 2004. He had a different gimmick but he was still in his prime.

Also you mentioned Angle's clean win over 'Taker at No Way Out '06(classic match btw), but you say you hate it when a guy with a submission locked in get's his shoulders counted. Didn't 'Taker have the Triangle Choke locked in when his shoulders were counted at No Way Out '06? Just wanted to point that out.

Angle reversed Taker's submission into a pin. Taker was caught helpless in Angle's submission and happened to have Angle's shoulders down while trying to escape. At No Way Out Angle had Taker pinned. On Smackdown Angle didn't even realize he was being pinned or he would have simply released the hold.

If we're going by both men in their primes then I don't think Angle can win this match up. It would be one close and awesome match; however, I just can't see anyone beating 'Taker twice in one night while he is in his prime.

You have a point about beating Taker twice in one night. That's a tall order for anybody. I just think Angle has the credentials to do it. It's a close contest but if anyone has shown success against Taker it's Angle.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I think Taker was still in his prime in 2002. He was still winning titles and continued to do so years later. I think once someone is past his prime he is past his prime. You can't say Taker was in his prime in the 90s and then again in 2004. He had a different gimmick but he was still in his prime.

I wasn't saying that 'Taker was in his prime in the 90s and then again in 2004. I was just pointing out the difference in gimmicks. As the ABA/Biker, 'Taker was more human. I think that anyone would agree with me that 'Taker was in his prime probably from '96 when he started his first feud with Mankind until '99. My question now is: Would this version of The Undertaker have ever tapped out to Angle?

 

[shattered dreams]

This whole Taker won't lose twice in one night thing is stupid. He has never lost twice in one night that I know of but that is hardly impressive because I am not sure he has ever even wrestled more than once in a night. Seems like that would be an experience disadvantage worth discussing but "its Taker." Angle did pin him twice in one weekend in 2000 FWIW. Seems to me this idea that it "won't happen" is just more generic bullshit from the Taker marks. Why are people so desperate to deny the kayfabe advantage? Once Taker has been in some ankle locks it pretty much kills all his power offense. Chokeslams, powerbombs and piledrivers all require strong legs to be effective or even possible. Then what is he going to do? Outwrestle Angle on the mat? Yeah right.

 

[The Brain]

I wasn't saying that 'Taker was in his prime in the 90s and then again in 2004. I was just pointing out the difference in gimmicks. As the ABA/Biker, 'Taker was more human. I think that anyone would agree with me that 'Taker was in his prime probably from '96 when he started his first feud with Mankind until '99. My question now is: Would this version of The Undertaker have ever tapped out to Angle?

Not as likely but Taker is Taker. Same guy, different gimmick, still in his prime. Even if you want to discredit that match Angle still did pin deadman Taker clean and not many have done that.

 

[SSJPhenom]

This whole Taker won't lose twice in one night thing is stupid. He has never lost twice in one night that I know of but that is hardly impressive because I am not sure he has ever even wrestled more than once in a night. Seems like that would be an experience disadvantage worth discussing but "its Taker." Angle did pin him twice in one weekend in 2000 FWIW. Seems to me this idea that it "won't happen" is just more generic bullshit from the Taker marks. Why are people so desperate to deny the kayfabe advantage? Once Taker has been in some ankle locks it pretty much kills all his power offense. Chokeslams, powerbombs and piledrivers all require strong legs to be effective or even possible. Then what is he going to do? Outwrestle Angle on the mat? Yeah right.

But that's the whole thing sir. We are going by kayfabe and in the kayfabe world of the WWE; 'Taker is billed as the most dangerous entity that the WWE has ever seen. In kayfabe, 'Taker is usually billed as the most dominant, most feared, and most destructive force in the WWE. So in the kayfabe world of the WWE: Would 'Taker lose twice in one night to a much smaller and physically weaker man?

Not as likely but Taker is Taker. Same guy, different gimmick, still in his prime. Even if you want to discredit that match Angle still did pin deadman Taker clean and not many have done that.

I don't think that it's as simple as "same guy, different gimmick". By saying that; you're effectively making gimmicks a non factor. In kayfabe, I think it's safe to say that Deadman 'Taker is much more powerful than ABA/Biker 'Taker. I don't want to discredit that match up, I'm just saying that the difference in gimmicks does make a difference. As you said though, Angle does have a clean win over Deadman 'Taker. So I agree that if anyone could beat 'Taker twice in a night, it would be Angle. Nobody has the win/loss record against 'Taker that Angle has, but I still think that he would come up short this time.

Vote 'Taker.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I think Taker was still in his prime in 2002. He was still winning titles and continued to do so years later. I think once someone is past his prime he is past his prime. You can't say Taker was in his prime in the 90s and then again in 2004. He had a different gimmick but he was still in his prime.

I do not see why that has to be the case. Don't sportspersons go through phases towards the middle of their career during which they are unable to do well and then take a break and return to their best. Their careers sometimes get a second wind and that happens quite a lot. Kayfabe wise, that is what you can say happened to Undertaker. He was dominant in the 90's and then in his biker gimmick he started losing more regularly, became susceptible to pain( something which he wasn't, in his deadman gimmick), started working towards the middle of the card and just got one run with the title belt and that too when he started cheating a lot. Then, he came back as the Deadman and returned to his best and was impervious to pain again. Sounds a lot like a sportsperson going through a lull and then returning to his best after a mediocre phase in his or her career.

Still, Angle has beaten Taker even as a deadman but that was booked as a fluke win. Angle was in a lot of pain and was just about to tap when he just got a surge of adrenaline and was somehow able to pin Taker. I just do not think such flukes won't happen twice in one night as I have posted in my earlier post. Also, I do not feel that Taker will be hurt too much by the ankle lock in his deadman gimmick as was apparent from the match at No Way Out. If you notice, you will find that Kurt was locking in the ankle lock at the every single opportunity at No Way Out 2006 and yet Undertaker did not sell it much. Possibly because that is his gimmick. Angle seemed more devastated by the Hell's gate than Taker did by the ankle lock.

 

[The Brain]

I do not see why that has to be the case. Don't sportspersons go through phases towards the middle of their career during which they are unable to do well and then take a break and return to their best. Their careers sometimes get a second wind and that happens quite a lot. Kayfabe wise, that is what you can say happened to Undertaker. He was dominant in the 90's and then in his biker gimmick he started losing more regularly, became susceptible to pain( something which he wasn't, in his deadman gimmick), started working towards the middle of the card and just got one run with the title belt and that too when he started cheating a lot. Then, he came back as the Deadman and returned to his best and was impervious to pain again. Sounds a lot like a sportsperson going through a lull and then returning to his best after a mediocre phase in his or her career.

Isn't that just saying any losses take place out of one's prime while wins occur during his prime? That doesn't seem like a fair argument. Other than struggles with Angle and Lesnar Taker was still booked strong during his bike gimmick. I think just saying Taker was on a so called prime hiatus because he got a few losses is a cop out.

Still, Angle has beaten Taker even as a deadman but that was booked as a fluke win. Angle was in a lot of pain and was just about to tap when he just got a surge of adrenaline and was somehow able to pin Taker. I just do not think such flukes won't happen twice in one night as I have posted in my earlier post. Also, I do not feel that Taker will be hurt too much by the ankle lock in his deadman gimmick as was apparent from the match at No Way Out. If you notice, you will find that Kurt was locking in the ankle lock at the every single opportunity at No Way Out 2006 and yet Undertaker did not sell it much. Possibly because that is his gimmick. Angle seemed more devastated by the Hell's gate than Taker did by the ankle lock.

I don't think it was a fluke win at all. Angle was trapped in a submission move but had the presence of mind to turn the hold into a pin. Why is a great counter move a fluke? Angle has always looked good against Taker. As he was entering his prime Angle found a way to beat Taker at Survivor Series. I can't argue that it wasn't a tainted victory but Angle did find a way to win without technically cheating. Then on Smackdown he got Taker to tap. The match was ruled a draw but if anything that was because of a questionable fluke pin from Taker. He didn't even realize he had Angle covered. Then at No Way Out he got an undeniably clean pinfall. That's three different matches. First using clever resources to outsmart Taker, second a submission, and third a completely clean pin. Angle just needs two in this match.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Isn't that just saying any losses take place out of one's prime while wins occur during his prime? That doesn't seem like a fair argument. Other than struggles with Angle and Lesnar Taker was still booked strong during his bike gimmick. I think just saying Taker was on a so called prime hiatus because he got a few losses is a cop out.

I'm not saying all of Taker's losses take place outside his prime, but just that his Biker gimmick was. It was not just a case of Angle and Lesnar beating him. He lost more frequently and worked at a level beneath what he was working in the pre-Attitude Era and in the PG era. I mean that except for a win against HHH at Mania 17 and wins over a past his prime Hogan and Flair, Taker did not have too many big wins in that era. He lost against Lesnar, Angle, Rock, Austin, RVD and struggled against Jeff Hardy and in many other tag matches too. That is basically everyone he feuded against.

I don't think it was a fluke win at all. Angle was trapped in a submission move but had the presence of mind to turn the hold into a pin. Why is a great counter move a fluke? Angle has always looked good against Taker. As he was entering his prime Angle found a way to beat Taker at Survivor Series. I can't argue that it wasn't a tainted victory but Angle did find a way to win without technically cheating. Then on Smackdown he got Taker to tap. The match was ruled a draw but if anything that was because of a questionable fluke pin from Taker. He didn't even realize he had Angle covered. Then at No Way Out he got an undeniably clean pinfall. That's three different matches. First using clever resources to outsmart Taker, second a submission, and third a completely clean pin. Angle just needs two in this match.

It was a lucky win because Angle looked in a lot of pain and it did not look as if he could not escape from the hell's gate. He rolled Taker up but he could have easily tapped out before the count was made. He outlasted Taker by a whisker, something that is not going to happen again and again.

I also like how you are making a big deal out of the submission deal when clearly Angle did not even win that match. Taker did not even tap out three times which is what is important to constitute a submission. The fact that you are making a big deal out of Taker tapping out once shows how big a feat beating Taker is, so big that it is not going to happen twice in one night.

Finally, Angle beat Taker thrice( if you consider that draw) on three different nights. Taker has also beaten Angle thrice( again counting that draw) as well. Should I use that as proof as proof that Taker can beat Angle twice in one night as well? Actually, I do not need to because I know that what makes sense is the fact that beating Taker twice in one night in environments that suit him more than they suit Angle is nigh impossible.

 

[The Brain]

I'm not saying all of Taker's losses take place outside his prime, but just that his Biker gimmick was. It was not just a case of Angle and Lesnar beating him. He lost more frequently and worked at a level beneath what he was working in the pre-Attitude Era and in the PG era. I mean that except for a win against HHH at Mania 17 and wins over a past his prime Hogan and Flair, Taker did not have too many big wins in that era. He lost against Lesnar, Angle, Rock, Austin, RVD and struggled against Jeff Hardy and in many other tag matches too. That is basically everyone he feuded against.

His biker gimmick was not outside his prime. Just because he is better known for the dead man gimmick does not mean his other gimmick was out of his prime. You can't just use that as an excuse because he hit a cold streak for a little bit. The deadman happened to lose a lot too.

It was a lucky win because Angle looked in a lot of pain and it did not look as if he could not escape from the hell's gate. He rolled Taker up but he could have easily tapped out before the count was made. He outlasted Taker by a whisker, something that is not going to happen again and again.

He won the match clean. He could have tapped before the count was made but he didn't. Instead he figured out a way to counter the hold and get the win. Why can't you give Angle credit for the clean pin?

I also like how you are making a big deal out of the submission deal when clearly Angle did not even win that match. Taker did not even tap out three times which is what is important to constitute a submission. The fact that you are making a big deal out of Taker tapping out once shows how big a feat beating Taker is, so big that it is not going to happen twice in one night.

I know Angle did not win the match. He was clearly in control. I think it's stupid when a referee counts someone down who is clearly in control of the match. Taker was not pinning Angle. He just happened to be in a lucky position because of the hold Angle had on him. Taker didn't even realize he had a pin on Angle. If he did why would he tap? Angle didn't realize it either. If he did he would simply release the hold.

By the way, I don't recall ever hearing a rule that said someone needed to tap the mat three times to constitue a submission. I think you made that one up. Prior to 1997 a wrestler didn't tap the mat at all when submitting. It doesn't matter though because Taker did in fact tap the mat three times. I am making a big deal of it because beating Taker is a big feat, one that Angle has accomplished more than once.

Finally, Angle beat Taker thrice( if you consider that draw) on three different nights. Taker has also beaten Angle thrice( again counting that draw) as well. Should I use that as proof as proof that Taker can beat Angle twice in one night as well? Actually, I do not need to because I know that what makes sense is the fact that beating Taker twice in one night in environments that suit him more than they suit Angle is nigh impossible

I've already stated that this one could go either way. It's pretty much a coin toss. If anyone does stand a chance against Taker it's someone who has had success against him in multiple matches. I don't mind Taker advancing. I just think you are selling Angle short and ignoring his history with Taker.

 

[Silly Willy Nilly Vanilly in the Milly]

Wow, this one could go either way.
Kurt Angle has that amazing endurance.
Undertaker has the match-type advantage and the "It" factor.
Unless of course we come to the 3rd stage, which has always happened, if I'm correct.
I see Angle coming out on top in Stage 1.
Undertaker for Stage 2.
Angle for Stage 3.
NOT setting my answer in stone; still open to convincing in the way of Taker.

 

[Silly Willy Nilly Vanilly in the Milly]

Wow, this one could go either way.
Kurt Angle has that amazing endurance.
Undertaker has the match-type advantage and the "It" factor.
Unless of course we come to the 3rd stage, which has always happened, if I'm correct.
I see Angle coming out on top in Stage 1.
Undertaker for Stage 2.
Angle for Stage 3.
NOT setting my answer in stone; still open to convincing in the way of Taker.

EDIT: Have now set it in stone.
My vote is Kurt, reasoning being his endurance, accomplishments, etc.