Miami Region, Fifth Round: (1) Undertaker vs. (2) Randy Savage

Discussion in 'Championship Region' started by klunderbunker, May 17, 2012.

?

Who Wins This Match?

  1. Undertaker

  2. Randy Savage

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. klunderbunker

    klunderbunker Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    17,857
    Likes Received:
    3,359
    This is a fifth round match in the Miami Region. It is a standard one on one match. It will be held at Sun Life Stadium in Miami, Florida

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    #1. Undertaker

    Vs.

    [​IMG]

    #2. Randy Savage



    This match takes place one week following the fourth round. Beginning with this round, the final three rounds will take place on one night. The margin of victory will determine the amount of damage and energy spent in a round. For instance, a win by 50 votes would mean the winner expended very little energy, whereas a win by 1 vote would mean the winner spent a good deal of energy in a hard and close match.

    Polls will be open for five days following a one day period for discussion. Voting will be based on who you feel is the greater of the two competitors. Post your reasons for why your pick should win below. Remember that this is non-spam and the most votes in the poll win. Any ties will be broken by the amount of posts of support for each candidate, with one vote per poster.

    Also remember that this is a non-spam forum. If you post a response without giving a reason for your selection, it will be penalized for spam and deleted.
     
    #1
  2. Little Jerry Lawler

    Little Jerry Lawler Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,712
    Likes Received:
    938
    I try not to let personal feelings be involved in this tournament or in past tournaments but I just feel I have to make an exception in this case. I respect how the Undertaker has been in the business for two decades and managed to stay relevant with a character that would probably be laughed off the face of the earth today. I think it was KB who said that Undertaker was the next Andre and I agree with that. However, I've just felt cheated by a portion of his career where he got fat and lazy and didn't seem to care. I know that it's wrestling and it's scripted, but that means a lot to me. Honestly, I can't vote him over Savage. I'll listen to the arguments and maybe my personal feelings are misguided, but that's what I feel.
     
    #2
  3. Davi323

    Davi323 semi-retired from WZ

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    703
    Which of the 8 wrestlers remaining has actually won a singe night tournament for all of the marbles? Who stood tall at the end, holding championship gold? It wasn't the Undertaker. It was Randy Savage. I have the utmost respect for the Undertaker, the guy is a legend. But Savage has been here, he has done this. Not only did he do this, but arguably, he accomplished it before he was even truly in his prime. Don't vote for Randy Savage because he is dead. Vote for Randy Savage because he is one of the all time greats, and deserves to take his place in the showcase of the Wrestlezone Immortals.
     
    #3
  4. Poop Master Flex

    Poop Master Flex Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,974
    Likes Received:
    863
    I have no clue who I'm voting here, you could really go both ways with either Savage and Taker at this point. Besides that they are 2 of my top 5 all time favorite wrestlers so its very hard for me to pick a winner here.

    The Undertaker in his prime was an unstoppable monster that rarely had a loss unless outside factors were involved. Not only that he's one of the most recognizable and probably the best big man in wrestling history. His character, his ring and storytelling skills, everything about the guy is awesome, not to mention he has classic moments up the ass.

    Macho Man in his prime was very unique and remembered in his own like. I loved all the stuff he used to wear, his promo style is legendary (even if only for the fact it makes me laugh every time) and he was incredible in the ring. Jim Ross said Macho Man was one of the top 3 wrestlers during the expansion of WWE in the 80's and I think that's a fact.

    Now I could see this match going 1 of 2 ways, Undertaker being unstoppable and only a few times lost clean during his prime and no matter what Macho Man gives him Undertaker keeps coming, puts Macho down for the Tombstone and be done with it.

    I could also see Macho cheat and do whatever it takes to win and through dirty tactics getting the underhanded victory. I think this one is less likely and overall if I was booking I would put Undertaker over Macho Man. Macho losing clean happened quite a bit so its easier to believe Undertaker would go over Macho Man.

    At this point that's what I think would happen.
     
    #4
  5. Owen 3:16 says I just stole your Slammy!!

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    48
    Great Match up by two all time greats. I love 'Taker, 'Taker is in my top 5 of all time. Like stated above, Macho has experience in a tournament, he won the WWF title at WM 4.

    In Undertaker's past, he lost some key matches due to opponents managers or outside interference. If Randy wins, then he has to have outside interference or play dirty.

    I respect 'Taker, he is one of the greatest of all time.

    My Vote: Randy "Macho King" Savage
     
    #5
  6. Tastycles

    Tastycles Turn Bayley heel

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    1,515
    The Undertaker has been one of the most dominant wrestlers of the last 20 years right? I mean he's held World Titles for a combined 435 days over the last 22 years. Great, right? Especially when you consider that during that time other world Champions have been wresling luminaries like Vince McMahon, Chris Benoit and Jack Swagger.

    Savage was WWF champion for a total 520 days, and before anyone inevitably says "that was a different era", Savage's second run with the title came after Taker's first and was still longer than any reign Taker has ever had with any title in his entire career. Undertaker does not belong on top, but part of the chase. When you couple this with the fact that Savage's main event contemporaries during his prime were people like Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair and Ultimate Warrior. Most of Taker's long runs with the title came when opposition was people like Batista and the Great Khali. So for accomplishments, you have to go with Savage.

    In terms of influence, this is an absolute non-starter. Nobody is remotely similar to Undertaker, except Kane, and the legacy he leaves stylistically is small. Savage was one of the first, if not the first main eventer to go to the top rope. He was also very cunning and wily, which we'll come onto in a minute.

    I don't want to ignore Taker's achievements - to keep a character like that over for such a long time is impressive, no doubt - but ultimately he has always been about the chase, and rarely about winning in the end. His so-called specialism is the Hell in a Cell match, yet he's barely won more than he's lost in that match.

    Ahh, our old friend kayfabe is here and that's where the Taker fans will come out in full force. Except they shouldn't, and the reason for that is simple. Randy Savage is the master, and I mean the absolute master, of the count-out victory. He's beaten everyone this way - Hogan, Warrior, Andre, you name it he's beaten them. The Undertaker has lost by countout a lot of times, and not even to good wrestlers. If people like Matt Hardy, Big Boss Man and The British Bulldog were capable of doing it, then I see no reason why Savage couldn't. Savage wins, via countout.
     
    #6
  7. nightmare

    nightmare ...7, 8, Better stay up late...

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Count out means you know your not going to beat him straight up. So you play around and get him counted out. Thats why Savage used the tactic and thats why Taker was a victim of it. Savage didnt always have the goods to beat a guy as dangerous as Taker so he would rely on the countout. Doesnt exactly mean you are better than a guy if you know yourself you cant beat him. Possible to happen here, but very unlikely.


    Taker would dismantle Savage. In ring it would take more than Savage has to keep Taker down for the 3. Eventually Savage would put him down long enough for the elbow, but Taker would kick out, sit up and bash Savage. Tombstone ends it.


    If you want to take in the 'draw' factor... kind of hard to argue the fact Taker has been such a huge draw during his career. Savage might have been big as well, but Taker has been for longer.


    Once he had the crowd, he never lost them. Savage went up, then down. He had his fair share of pops, but not like Taker. Plus, you have to give credit to the WM situation. Savage may have had some big WM moments, but not nearly as many as the streak has given us. Takers WM bouts the last few years have been the stuff of legends.




    Vote Undertaker.
     
    #7
  8. Tastycles

    Tastycles Turn Bayley heel

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    1,515
    Except you can beat him. By count out. That's the point. This isn't a "you have to pin to win" match, it's a normal match. Countout is as legitimate a win as aything else.


    To quote the Chinese guy at school, "what is the evidence?" Given that the Undertaker has lost to Jeff Hardy, there's every chance a high speed wrestler could beat him

    Randy Savage was the main attraction in the company throughout 1992 when Hogan was away. Undertaker has never been the main attraction. Savage was the World Champion for a year when WWF was in it's golden era. Undertaker was champion for a grand total of 36 days during the Attitude Era.

    Savage has had two of the best matches in WrestleMania history at WrestleMania, and has also won the world title there twice, and faced Hulk Hogan in one of the biggest matches of all time. Taker's streak, though impressive, is hugely bulked up by total arse like beating Giant Gonzalez and Jimmy Snuka.



    Don't.
     
    #8
  9. SSJPhenom

    SSJPhenom The Phenom of WZ

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    399
    I love and respect Savage, I really really do, but there is no way that he goes over the Undertaker here. We can talk about influence and accomplishments all you want and you Savage fan boys can fantasize about how Savage was a bigger influence in Pro Wrestling all you want but stop lying to yourselves.

    'Taker is the cornerstone of the WWE. Over the past 20+ years, 'Taker has been in the ring with and defeated every major wrestling star in North America not named Sting. 'Taker came in and revolutionized what a giant could do in the ring. Macho Man could do some high flying and so could 'Taker. Also, 'Taker has done his part in putting over younger talent during his career. People like Foley, Kane, Orton, Maven, Jeff Hardy, Khali, and many others owe a hell of a lot to 'Taker. This shouldn't even be a contest. Hell, there shouldn't even be a debate about this one.

    The Match as I see J.R. calling it:

    "Savage hits the elbow drop, 1.....2....he's gonna beat.......and The Undertaker kicks out. Oh my King, he just sat up. Look at the look on the face of the Macho Man. Right hands from the Undertaker, he throws him into the corner; 300lb splash, he scoops him up, snake eyes. Oh what a running big boot. 'Taker drops the leg. 1....2.....and Savage kicks out. My god King, what will it take to put these two down. CHOKESLAM!!!!!! CHOKESLAM!!!!!!!! That has to be it. All the Undertaker has to do is pin him. Oh no, he's signaling for the Tombstone. Oh God King, he's got him up.....TOMBSTONE!!!!!! TOMBSTONE!!!!!!! 1.....2.....3..... 'Taker wins!!!!!!

    Vote 'Taker.
     
    #9
    nightmare likes this.
  10. Nate DaMac

    Nate DaMac Fuck erbody but me

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    2,611
    ... Savage was undoubtedly the bigger influence in Pro Wrestling. Just go back and look over the other posts here. You know, the ones not made by complete idiots.

    So you're just going to spout of WWE-made cliches? That's horseshit.

    I'm pretty sure he has lost to all of them as well.

    Macho Man could do some high flying? That's how short you're selling him here? Put it this way, Taker has had 20 matches at Wrestlemania, he still hasn't topped Macho's greatest match at Mania.

    How is this relevant? Besides, Macho put people over too.

    You hear that? That was the sound of your credibility flying out the window.
     
    #10
  11. nightmare

    nightmare ...7, 8, Better stay up late...

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Tasty did you just really say Hardy beat Taker and use that as a plus for Savage?

    How bout this? How many smaller, quick guys has Taker destroyed? Shitload thats how many. How many guys has Savage beat that are close to as vicious as Taker?.... Warrior? One guy?


    Also you try to discredit the streak by naming a dumb hariy giant and a old as hell HOF'er Snuka? How about the past\future legends on that list? HHH, HBK, Flair, Bundy, Roberts, Nash, Orton, Edge? Shit man- do you need the whole list? Savage has some big ones, but the 2 HBK matches and latest HHH match were epic beyond epic proportions. You want a formula for how to put on a WM match that will live on for years? Ask Taker and those 2.
     
    #11
    SSJPhenom likes this.
  12. SSJPhenom

    SSJPhenom The Phenom of WZ

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    399
    Typical. Find an opinion that differs from your own and that person must be an idiot. Wrestlezone Debate Tactic 101 here.

    I really don't think Savage does have the bigger influence in Pro Wrestling. I mean, sure; people loved to imitate his voice and he sold a lot of Slim Jim's and what not. At the end of the day; however, does he mean more in the grand scheme of things than 'Taker? An argument can certainly be made that he doesn't. It certainly isn't as cut and dry as many of you would like for us to believe.

    BTW, I'm just going to focus on his time in the WWF/E because his time in WCW was, well I like Savage to much to bring it up.

    'Taker's lost to them; however, Savage can't even say that he's faced them.

    I didn't mean to sell Savage short at all. I mean, honestly; all I remember from Savage as far as high flying went was some double axe handles, the flying elbow, and the occasional hanging someone on the top rope by jumping over to the floor. Maybe I missed a few. It has been awhile since I've seen a Savage match.

    Savage/Steamboat at WM III was a classic in every definition of the word and arguably the best 'Mania match of all the times. An argument can be made for 'Taker/HBK 1 also. Basically what I'm saying is that this is purely an opinion based argument right here.

    Who? I remember Savage being put over several times. Who exactly did he undoubtedly help make a star? Besides Miss. Elizabeth of course and hell, it can be said that if it hadn't have been for her; Savage wouldn't have been as big as he was.

    I'm sorry. I thought that we were supposed to stick to kayfabe in this tournament. I swear. You guys will use the kayfabe argument when it's beneficial; however, you will completely abandon it when it's not. I was just pointing out how I seen this match going kayfabe wise.

    Let's talk about Savage for a moment. Sure, next to Hogan, he was probably the single biggest star that the WWE had in the 80's. He definitely has a legacy in the WWE and in wrestling as a whole. However, he was a guy that was so important to the WWE that, before he went to WCW, he was basically a glorified announcer. Again, I'm not even going to touch his time in WCW.

    Vote 'Taker.
     
    #12
    JamJam likes this.
  13. Little Jerry Lawler

    Little Jerry Lawler Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,712
    Likes Received:
    938
    This is priceless.

    You say Foley has a lot to owe to Taker. Hell, it should be the other way around. Undertaker was slow and boring for the early part of his career and Foley was a godsend. Foley was somebody who can take the pain of the Undertaker and dish out the same and then some. You're selling him right short here.

    Maven: Ha. He won one match for the Hardcore Title and what did he do since then? Absolutely nothing.

    Jeff Hardy: After that terrible ladder match, what was Hardy doing? Fighting for the European title and was out of the company less than a year after. HHH put Hardy over more than Undertaker did.

    Khali: He beat Taker but it didn't get him anywhere much. Then, he feuded with Cena and won the world title shortly thereafter.

    I remember the Undertaker basically selling for nobody for a period of three years which happened to be his years as the American Bad Ass. That factors into it as well.

    Name some others who owe a lot.
     
    #13
  14. pumpkinking8987

    pumpkinking8987 PuMPKiNKiNG

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    3
    People werent expecting Macho Man v Steamboat to be as good as it was, thats what made it so great. Everyone expects the Taker match at Mania to bring the house down and for the most part the matches have lived up to that hype. The taker matches against HBK were 5 star matches, his 2nd match with HHH was a five star match, Taker vs Edge was a 5 star match.

    Thats 4 five star mania matches, Savage has the match against Steamboat but i wouldnt call his Hogan match a 5 star match. His 2nd best Mania match was against Flair but going back and watching that matchup it doesn't really reflect the great careers of Flair and Savage.

     
    #14
  15. Jack-Hammer

    Jack-Hammer YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!!
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    12,959
    Likes Received:
    3,793
    Like everyone else, I'm a huge fan of Randy Savage but Savage would not get past The Undertaker. I'm not doubting Savage's ability in the ring but there's just nothing I see in Savage's arsenal that can keep Taker down. We've seen Taker endure so much punishment and take so much more devestating moves than Savage can ultimately dish out.

    In terms of dominance and sheer ability to get the job done time and time again against the biggest of the biggest names, Taker is out of Savage's league. I'm not doubting Savage's abilities and he'd make Taker earn any victory he got. I've seen a few arguments brought up on Savage winning the WWF Championship at WM IV in which he had to go through 4 guys to do it. While impressive, let's be honest, none of the wrestlers he beat were in Taker's league. Pretty much the only legendary figure in wrestling over the past 30 years that Taker hasn't beaten is Sting, as they haven't wrestled in the same promotion since the very early 90s when Taker was Mean Mark Callous in WCW.

    Don't let nostalgia get in the way here. Savage was great, we all know it, but we all know that Taker is out of his league. Short of driving a stake through his heart and nailing his arms & legs to mat before hitting the flying elbow, Savage can't keep Taker down.
     
    #15
    SSJPhenom and pumpkinking8987 like this.
  16. Owen 3:16 says I just stole your Slammy!!

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    48
    Why don't you bring up his time in WCW? He was a 4 time World Heavyweight Champion. Macho also won War World 3 in '95. Savage won the PWI comeback award in 1995.

    He did not put people over? He put over DDP in 1997. That feud of DDP in 1997 was voted the feud of the year.

    Lets not forget, when Savage was in WCW, he was in mid '40s. Savage accomplished alot in WCW.
     
    #16
  17. Hulk Hogan's Brother

    Hulk Hogan's Brother Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    809
    In kayfabe, Undertaker takes this 8 times out of 10. Savage wins the other two times via countout. That is not me saying that, that is what Savage's record says. Big guys who do not sell a lot, in kayfabe that amounts to guys who can withstand a lot of pain and are pretty much unstoppable in their second wind, have routinely beaten Savage. Hogan, Warrior, Lex freakin Luger and The Giant have all beaten Savage.

    In comparison Undertaker has a good record against guys who are of Savage's size. Edge, Ric Flair, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, HBK, Bret Hart and Randy Orton. Taker has won more than he has lost against them and more often than not, he has lost via some sort of interference.

    I would also like to point out that Undertaker has lost by countout just 7 times in a career spanning over 22 years. It does not happen as often as you think it does.

    I would also say that Undertaker has meant more to the business than Savage. Undertaker was a guy who was brought in to be the next Andre, the unstoppable mythical figure that does not need a championship around his waist to justify his greatness. He has been successful in doing that and has also held the championship when there hasn't been anyone around. He has always been one of the biggest three stars in the company and has maintained that position for over 22 years. Savage was never the company's top guy but he was either second or third for a span of 4-5 years in WWF and for about a year in WCW. Taker trumps him here.

    For most of their careers, Taker has been the guy who has been booked to win and Savage has been the guy who has been booked to lose the big match. It's easy to figure out who should win here.

    Vote Undertaker.
     
    #17
    pumpkinking8987 likes this.
  18. Born To Fly

    Born To Fly Occasional Pre-Show

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    31
    Had to vote for the Undertaker. His longevity in the business is outstanding and for him to be at the top of his game for so long, is just phenomenal. As someone said earlier, I can't see a Flying Elbow putting Undertaker down. Macho Man would need at least six of them to even think about getting a two count. Eventually I can see Macho Man getting frustrated, going to grab a chair and then get chokeslammed once he returned to the ring and then a Tombstone puts him down.
     
    #18
  19. SSJPhenom

    SSJPhenom The Phenom of WZ

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    399
    I knew that someone would bring up DDP. I was just waiting to see who.

    Sure he put over DDP and my god what a talent, right? I mean, he accomplished so much in the business. Because of Savage, DDP is an undeniable legend of this business.

    Give me a damn break. Are you serious?? I guess that I'll give you DDP. I mean, he was popular in the WCW for; what? A year at most? He won the WCW Title a few times as well when the company was on it's way out. So if you want to use DDP as your example, go ahead.

    Name someone else who Savage "put over".
     
    #19
  20. Owen 3:16 says I just stole your Slammy!!

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    48
    I Am Phenom I knew that someone would bring up DDP. I was just waiting to see who.

    Sure he put over DDP and my god what a talent, right? I mean, he accomplished so much in the business. Because of Savage, DDP is an undeniable legend of this business.[/QUOTE]


    DDP had a better career then some of the guys you mention that 'Taker put over (Really Maven and Khali???) Jeff Hardy was already put over by HHH a year before. Foley already had some success in WCW and ECW before he went to the WWF. Orton was also already put over before he went against 'Taker.

    If you want to use an already "put over" guys like Orton or Foley or Hardy. Savage put over a younger guy in WM 7 when he faced the Ultimate Warrior.

    Anyway this is not who "put more over" contest. This is a tournament to see who the best wrestler is of all time.

    'Taker and Savage are the two of the best of all time.
     
    #20
    pumpkinking8987 likes this.
  21. Mr. Artistic guy

    Mr. Artistic guy Better Off This Way

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    948
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    When I looked at this thread earlier, a perculiar thing happened. my mind had a little conversation with itself:

    Me 1: Gotta be Taker

    Me 2: What? Why?

    Me 1: Well he's just better, isn't her?

    Me 2: Makes you say that?

    Me 1: Dunno, he just is though...

    I wanna investigate this a bit further.

    One particular difficulty people have had with this tournament is comparing the primes of two men, when those primes happened to be at radically different times in the chronological spectrum of pro wrestling. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Punk and Thesz thread. It's very difficult comparing the relative skills, drawing power, legacy etc, etc... of two guys when their very best exploits lie a whopping fifty years apart. It also plays a massive part in this match. When Undertaker truly broke in in the early 90s, he broke into the business Macho Man was thriving with gimmicky characters such as himself, a really kid-orientated audience, an old school mesh with a new entertainment system, and he did so with relative success.

    Although the Macho King lived through the most of the rest of the 90s, he was never around when the tides were really beginning to change, and moreover, he wasn't in the right company to have noticed. It's difficult to compare an Undertaker who managed to be successful and fresh (with his biker character) through the entirety of the last 20 years, than a guy like Macho Man who never really caught onto the new way with things like the NWO until it was too late for him to capitalise upon. Certainly his best work and best memories will be sourced ultimately from his time in the WWF as was. For the reaper, it'll be more like work from about a decade or more later. The issue is, you can't really envision how they'll book a match between the two if they book it. Do they go traditional and go over the top gimmicky late 80s/early 90s style or do they try brash realistic late 90s/early 00s.

    The thing is, when Macho Man was in WCW, he wasn't the guy, he was a guy you could put at the top of the card and know you were getting a great match with, or a guy you could put in a title hunt and make it look believable, just like how The Big Show is used currently. Taker has never really been second fiddle to anyone, think about it. He's never been the face of a company like Hogan or Austin was although he was there when they were, he's never been the guy people look to to lead their company. Does it mean he isn't capable? He's proven, and continues to prove that he himself, his character and persona are a draw despite being often considered horribly outdated. The Undertaker as a character in wrestling is something special. He's never looked weak to anyone. Really search your brain for an example to the contrary. Brock Lesnar: Beat The Rock with relative ease, punished Hulk Hogan in less than 10 minutes, got the better of Big Show on many occasions. With Taker, win or loss, they always went toe-to-toe, and neither guy looked weaker than the other. The same is true of Hogan (1 win and 1 loss in Hogan's prime), Stone Cold (although Austin may have had the edge in 99, Taker had it again in 01 with the power trip situation, level pegs), The Rock no discussion, Kurt Angle, HHH, HBK, Bret Hart, Diesel, Yokozuna, Batista, Orton. These aren't all wrestlemania guys. The point is, unlike Macho Man during his career where he was made to look lesser to guys like Hogan or Warrior even in his prime, or to many guys later in his career, Taker at a ripe old age where he's closer to 50 than 40, never has he even still been made to look than they were at least his equal, and more often his lesser. Macho Man at best was a tough competitor, he survived injuries in matches, interference and some difficult tribulations, but in terms of what guys have had to deal with in kayfabe parameters in wrestling, Taker has probably been through more than just about anybody. All you need do is look at his HIAC matches with anyone past 2000 to see how much punishment he can take and still prevail (the Batista and Kane matches will come back to bite me, but in both cases he had the upper hand until unfair advantages displaced his lead). He can probably endure as much, in a kayfabe setting, as HBK infamously could. Just watch his HHH matches from the last 2 manias. He's probably the toughest guy within the realms of storytelling that there has been. He's tougher than Macho Man. He has the kayfabe advantage. Phew, now that's kayfabe out of the way.



    Athough Taker was given what is, I'd say, irrefutably the greatest wrestling character of all time, adaptable to any situation, unageing as a concept and just playing on the perfect ravine between people's hopes and their fears, you'd have to be a thick llunt to claim anything other than that he's pulled off that same character perfectly in accordance of what was expected and probably better than anybody else could have. In contrast, Macho Man more devised his own character, totally original as an idea and unlike anything or anybody, before or since. His interviews are one things that sets him apart from Taker. Whilst Taker could deliver his promos as they needed to be delivered and nothing more, Macho Man went above and beyond in that regard. He has, to this day, probably the most imitable voice of anybody in wrestling history. Macho Man is a gimmick so strong and reeking in potency that is even spurred a gimmick, who's entire point was to imitate what he did and was like. That was, of course, the job of long time fan Jay Lethal. Whilst I love The Undertaker as a concept, and obviously many other still do to this day, The Macho Man was a character as profound as the very best like Piper, Flair, Rhodes, Hogan. Certainly, at the very least in talking terms, Macho Man has the edge. Even in Taker''s biker days where he became quite a good promo guy, he couldn't compare to the cream of the crop.

    So for character I give it to Macho Man. Undertaker is the greatest gimmick possible, but not a character and Macho Man did more with less to work with. He wins there.

    In the ring? Macho Man delivered some sterling matches including the classic WM 3 match that couldn't go without mention. Revolutionary for it's time. The Undertaker is still drawing people in with the prospect of his matches 20 years down the line, he hasn't lost much. He's produced matches people consider the best of all time in the twilight of his career and has a better rundown than Randy Savage. I'm afraid this one is more cut and dry than people would hope. It's The Undertaker, to be his size and what people would consider one of the bets in-ring guys of all time is phenomenal. It's stellar meets phenomenal, and phenomenal is going to win.

    Who's the bigger draw? Well Undertaker's career in the limelight has lasted much longer but his best years and best draws will most probably be better than Macho Man's. Partly because he's been around so long and there's more scope to choose from, but partly because when he's had a solid programme, it's always done good business. Taker and HHH must've drawn a good proportion of the last two years mania buys between them.

    I could go on but I'm going to stop here because it's later and I'm tired and I'vr already made up my mind, seemingly before even entered the thread. I'm just lucky that there happens to be the history and facts to sustain it. Macho Man is a true original, but he won't leave a legacy as influential as The Undertaker when push comes to shove. The Undertaker, because he's better, but also because he'd win.
     
    #21
    Mustang Sally likes this.
  22. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    708
    This is a very tough one for me (so I can't even begin to guess how hard it is for SavageTaker):

    Could I see a heel Savage beating a face 'Taker? Yes
    Could I see a heel Savage beaten by a face 'Taker? Yes
    Could I see a face Savage beating a heel 'Taker? Yes
    Could I see a face Savage beaten by a heel 'Taker? Yes
    Face vs face? Heel vs heel? Again, I could see it either way!

    So... I'm going with personal preference and I prefer the Macho Man as a performer. So, basically, Dig It! Oh Yeah!
     
    #22
    Mustang Sally likes this.
  23. Tastycles

    Tastycles Turn Bayley heel

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    1,515
    Wow. What a way to completely and utterly miss the point. Did I say "Undertaker regularly loses to small guys"? No, I said that he loses matches by count out to wrestlers as shit as Matt Hardy, which means the count out master would beat him here.

    You don't need the whole list to see how overhyped the streak is. Flair was in his 50s, King Kong Bundy was way past his "prime", Nash was on the way out, as was Sid for that matter, Mark Henry? Shite. Roberts was a career midcarder. Ditto Bossman. Big Show and A-Train is a joke. It's not until the 7th match of the streak, against Kane where he actually had a match remotely interesting or challenging. The second match against Kane was another joke. 75% of the streak is pure filler. But I don't know why we're on this, it's not relevant, this match isn't at WrestleMania.

    Savage vs Steamboat, Savage vs Hogan, Savage vs Ultimate Warrior and Savage vs Flair is a much better collection of 4 matches than those.

    Well, except the number of wrestlers who go to the top rope, and act flamboyantly is pretty high, the number of people who pretend to be dead and control lights is pretty low. The current WWE Champion uses Savage's finisher, for fuck sake

    Except Savage has 1 bad match at Mania with Crush, when he was semi-retired. Taker has had a hell of a lot of stinkers. If you're talking match quality as a deciding factor, there's few people who would take the body of work of Taker over that of Savage.

    Ultimate Warrior, Ted DiBiase, Ricky Steamboat, Yokozuna...

    When he was in his 40s? Oh shit! The Undertaker currently wrestles one match a year. Would you question his importance to the WWE?

    If guys like Chris Jericho and Randy Orton can find ways to beat him, Savage certainly can.


    Like I said, plenty of weaker men have kept Taker down. Shawn Michaels, has kept him down. Savage was in the WWE for 9 years and was a champion longer than Taker has been in 22. He beat anyone who was anyone in that time. Taker is possibly the most overrated wrestler of all time. When was the last time he really dominated anything? He hasn't. His threat is all in the mind of the audience, and that's great, he's a great wrestler for achieving that, but when the likes of the Great Khali have beaten him, destroyed him, clean, you have to wonder how unstoppable he really is.

    Savage's combined record against Warrior and Hogan is 13 wins, 10 defeats and a draw. Hardly routinely defeated, is it? He was 43 years old before he faced either of the other two.

    He has a losing record against Shawn Michaels, an equal record with Bret Hart , beat a 53 year old Ric Flair in a street fight. Orton and Edge are the only others on that list even approaching Savage's achievement, and both of whom have beaten Taker multiple times.

    When was the last time an episode of Raw or Smackdown was built around The Undertaker? Not recently, he's never fucking there. Before that Smackdown was all about Edge and La Familia. Before that Taker was feuding with Mark Henry and Randy Orton in the midcard, before that he had a minor role in the Invasion, before that he's doing the Corporate Ministry thing, but that was always more about McMahon and Austin.

    My point is this. The WWF was built around Savage's relationship with Hogan for about two years in the late 80s, The Undertaker's feuds have literally never been the focus of the company.
     
    #23
  24. Miko

    Miko WATCHA GONNA DO, BROTHER!?

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    I have a hard time voting for Taker in anything, if you look at early 90's Undertaker then outside of a gimmick there was nothing much to offer, he was passable, just a slow, boring version of the then main eventers, a good contrast to them but that was it, whereas guys like Hogan, Savage and Warrior had colour and personality, Taker is very, very drab by comparison. Not just gimmick wise either.

    He's always had the advantages of other people going to great lengths to give him his mystique, from Warrior and Hogan toning down their promo's accordingly, to all the other shit he has during his entrances, to the modern day where wrestlers pretend to be in awe of him, I think Undertaker is one of, if not the most over embellished wrestler ever.

    After the early 90's he got really boring, he still had all the theatrics in his entrances and promo's, and people will always cheer that shit, but from bell to bell he was just fucking awful. He was the only person in the WWF roster that could put on a bad match with Stone Cold in the attitude era, Austin was having good to great matches with everyone, even Kane, right up until he had to wrestle Taker. Once you got that man in the ring, you could feel all the life sapped out of an arena as he spent most of the time fumbling about akwardly and putting people in shitty choke holds while hissing in what he probably thought was a menacing way. That goes right up until his Biker gimmick started.

    The Biker gimmick helped, meant he could drop the shitty choke holds and hissing anyway, he then went on to have a good match with HHH at Mania 17, but as much as I rag on HHH, I have to admit that at this time period he could do absolutely no wrong, and it's safe to say that he improved because he was no longer the plodding, in absolutely no way intimidating lord of darkness. The Biker years were his best years, where at his best he could put on watchable matches so long as the opposition was very good and at his worst could still stink out an entire arena.

    Now we have what I like to call the over embellished years of the part timer, the part where we have to try to forget that Taker was Austin's bitch for years, where when he did his mythical sit up thing Rock just kicked him right back to the mat and dropped the Peoples Elbow anway. Taker is profiting from a "if you say it enough times, people will believe it" mindset. You could argue that his best matches are now I suppose, since he's returned to the "Deadman" gimmick, and I'll agree, those finisher fests he puts on once a year are far better to watch than any of his work pre-Biker Taker, although none of them have been as good as WrestleMania 17.

    Let's not go overboard on kayfabe either, outside of Mania, Undertaker is oh so very human, there is a good reason he hasnt held the belt all that often, and that is because guys like Austin, Rock and HHH put him down enough times to keep him away from it. Undertaker just benefits from the smoke and mirrors, but he's been beaten by such greats as Ken Anderson.

    I may well be guilty of over-rating Savage, on account of him not being in the public eye for years and now being a corpse, an actual one, not a fake one like Undertaker, but he always provided the goods in the ring, unlike Undertaker, has enough wins over top level talent to be well worth going over an Undertaker who could be considered for very long stretches of his career to be the guy that fueds with and loses to Main Event players, and also up and comers for that matter.
     
    #24
  25. SSJPhenom

    SSJPhenom The Phenom of WZ

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    399
    Oh I can't wait to pick your ass apart here!! This is going to be fun!!!

    Sure he was drab by comparison and it was just his gimmick. The only thing that guys like Hogan, Warrior, and Savage did that 'Taker didn't do was play to the crowd and the only reason that he didn't do that was because his gimmick didn't require him to. Back then, in the golden years of pro wrestling, it was all about gimmicks and 'Taker sold his to perfection.

    Sure he is embellished and he damn well deserves it! Wrestlers should be in awe of him. We have a damn near 7 foot tall over 300lb giant doing shit like suicide dives over the top rope and doing other high flying attacks. 'Taker deserves all of the respect and awe that he gets. Not to mention all of the times that he has wrestled injured for the fans. Do you remember the infamous HIAC with Foley? He had a broken foot in that damn match and still climbed to the top of the cell to put on the most memorable HIAC match ever! If you can't give 'Taker your respect then nobody in pro wrestling deserves it!

    He got really boring after the early 90's? So the Ministry storyline was boring? The Kane storyline was boring? His feud with Mankind was boring? Give me a fucking break! If you call those story-lines boring, then I really don't wanna see what you'd call interesting.

    Everybody was Austin's bitch at this point in time. Even the fucking owner of the company was Austin's bitch at this point in time. Also, 'Taker never fumbled awkwardly in the ring. You must have never seen his matches with Kane, The Rock, Bret Hart, Austin, or HBK in the late 90's did you? Learn something before you open your mouth son. His match with Austin at Summer Slam 98 was a damn good match!

    The Biker gimmick was a nice contrast to the 'Taker of old; however, it's no secret that the majority of fans would rather see him as his Deadman gimmick. I honestly think that you're talking out of your ass here. Seriously, do you know a damn thing about wrestling?

    So his matches with HBK at 'Mania were not as good as his match with HHH at 'Mania 17? Damn I wish that I could call you names and what not, but I'd get in trouble for flaming. It's almost worth it though. You are proving with every word that you type that you know fuck all about what it takes or what it means to put on a great match.

    The reason that 'Taker hasn't held the title as many times as those guys is because 'Taker isn't a wrestler or a character that needs the title around his waist to prove how good he is. If there has ever been anyone in wrestling that is bigger than the Titles then it's Andre and 'Taker. BTW, I don't think that 'Taker has ever lost to HHH in a one on one match. I could be wrong, but I don't think that he has. He's also beaten both Austin and the Rock in title matches before. You really don't know what you're talking about do you?

    Savage has more wins over top talent than 'Taker? Fucking really? over the last 20+ years, 'Taker has been in the ring with and defeated every major wrestling star in the business not named Sting! Sting is the only one that 'Taker hasn't defeated! Savage cannot say the same thing. He's not even close to saying the same thing.

    I think you should just stop. You prove your lack knowledge with every word that you type and I'm being nice in that's all I'm saying about that. Just stop before you hurt yourself. You've proven that you have no place on these here forums. It's ok for you to be a Savage fan, but to say such asinine things about 'Taker is just fucking stupid!
     
    #25

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"